Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Chapter 10 – Biodiversity

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table of Contents

10. Ecology ...... 10-2 Introduction ...... 10-2 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 10-2 Legislation and Planning Policy ...... 10-4 Assessment Assumptions and Limitations ...... 10-7 Assessment Methodology ...... 10-8 Baseline Conditions ...... 10-17 Design Measures and Impact Avoidance ...... 10-29 Assessment of Likely Impacts and Effects...... 10-30 Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ...... 10-44 Residual Effects...... 10-44 Cumulative Effects ...... 10-45 References ...... 10-46

Figures

Figure 10-1a: Statutory Designated Sites for Nature Conservation Located Within 10 km

Figure 10-1b: Designated Sites for Nature Conservation and Notable Habitat Located Within 2 km

Figure 10-2: Phase 1 Habitat Plan

Figure 10-3: Bat Activity Transect Routes and Static Detector Locations

Tables

Table 10-1: Key consultation responses to main matters ...... 10-3 Table 10-2: Summary of Local Planning Policy ...... 10-7 Table 10-3: Survey and reporting status ...... 10-8 Table 10-4: Desk Study Data Sources ...... 10-9 Table 10-5: HSI score and interpretation ...... 10-11 Table 10-6: Summary of dusk bat activity surveys undertaken ...... 10-13 Table 10-7: Summary of static bat detector deployments ...... 10-13 Table 10-8: Dormouse ‘index of probability’ scores by month ...... 10-14 Table 10-9: Relating CIEEM assessment terms to those used in other chapters ...... 10-17 Table 10-10: Sites with Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation ...... 10-18 Table 10-11: Sites with Non-Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation ...... 10-19 Table 10-12: Summary of amphibian survey results ...... 10-26 Table 10-13: Summary of reptile survey results ...... 10-27 Table 10-14: Reptile population size categories...... 10-28 Table 10-15: Summary of Magnitude of Impact and Significance of Effect during Enabling Works, Construction and Commissioning ...... 10-36 Table 10-16: Summary of Magnitude of Impact and Significance of Effect during Operation and Maintenance ...... 10-42

Prepared for:WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM

10-1 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

10.Ecology Introduction This chapter of the PEIR reports the findings of an assessment of the likely significant effects on Ecology as a result of the Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility (hereafter referred to as the ‘Proposed Development’). For more details about the Proposed Development, refer to Chapter 4: The Proposed Development.

This chapter identifies and proposes measures to address the potential impacts and effects of the Proposed Development on ecological receptors, during construction, operation, and decommissioning.

This document provides the preliminary findings of the environmental assessment undertaken to date to inform the formal consultation process. It does not constitute a full Environmental Statement (ES), which will be produced as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application. It is intended that this chapter provides consultees with an early opportunity to provide informed comments on the work undertaken to date and its findings. The Applicant will take into account these comments when finalising the ES and DCO application. The various assessments are at differing stages of completion due to outstanding design and baseline information, and in some areas there are gaps that are highlighted along with an explanation on how this will be further developed for the ES. This approach adheres with the EIA Regulations and Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 7. Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholders for the Proposed Development include statutory consultees, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, local conservation groups, and local communities.

A high-level summary of responses to the Scoping Opinion can be found in Chapter 2: Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria. Key comments relevant to this discipline are outlined below.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-2 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table 10-1: Key consultation responses to main matters

Consultee Main matter raised Key responses

Natural England In order to secure appropriate biodiversity An integrated biodiversity and landscape mitigation and enhancements Natural mitigation and management plan will be England recommends that the provided alongside the ES at DCO Environmental Statement (ES) is submission. supported by a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP). See paragraph 10.234 of this chapter for an initial discussion of mitigation measures to be incorporated.

The ES should include consideration of All of these items are considered in this PEIR potential impacts on protected and notable and will be assessed in full within the ES. species and include consideration of impact of lighting on bats. See paragraphs 10.120 to 10.165 of this chapter.

Barton Stacey There is the potential for impacts on Breeding bird and dormouse surveys have Parish Council dormice, bees, and ground nesting birds. been undertaken and a summary of results is provided in paragraphs 10.135, and 10.159 of this chapter. The Site and adjacent land does not support bee hives. Honey bees (the focus of the parish council comments) are not legally protected or notable. In addition they forage over a very large area, such that the loss of habitat at the Site would be a very small percentage of that suitable habitat available to local bee populations. On this basis no significant effects are expected and they have been scoped out of the assessment. Basingstoke and Ensure consideration of two Sites of The assessment includes consideration of the Deane Borough Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (River SSSI’s listed and all other SINC’s within a 2 Council Test and East Aston Common) and Sites of km radius of the Site. Importance for Nature Conservation See paragraph 10.93 and Table: 10-10 of this (SINCs) including Test Valley Meadow and chapter. Tidbury Ringwood.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-3 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Consultee Main matter raised Key responses

Bracknell Forest There is the potential for longer distance The full assessment of potential impacts of air Borough Council environmental impacts which may have quality on protected and/or notable sites will potential to impact distant Special be provided in the final ES, when traffic data is Protection Areas (SPAs) including Windsor available. If initial modelling indicates potential Great Park and Thames Basin Heaths for impacts on designated sites and/or habitat SPAs. of principal importance within a 2 km radius then the sites considered will be extended to include those more distant from the Site. There are no internationally designated sites within 10 km of the Site. See paragraph 10.79. Hampshire There is the potential for air quality impacts The air quality assessment includes all County Council on ecological receptors. Requested that designated sites and protected/notable effects on ancient woodland and other air habitats within 2 km of the Site. quality sensitive priority habitats to be The extent may be extended if the initial scoped into the assessment. results for those features within 2 km of the Site indicate signs of potential for adverse significant effects. See paragraph 10.79, 10.221 and 10.222. Further surveys are required to determine Further details of the survey work undertaken if Site will result in impacts to species of are provided in this PEIR. Since the initial visit botanical interest. in March 2018 further walkover surveys have been undertaken. See paragraph 10.39 of this chapter. Concern regarding scope of surveys for The scope of protected/notable species bats, dormice and striped lychnis surveys is provided in Paragraph 10.36. caterpillar. The potential presence of striped lychnis caterpillar is considered unlikely to generate a significant adverse effect and therefore has been scoped out of the assessment. See paragraph 10.164 of this chapter for justification. The Proposed Development should seek The Applicant is committed to seeking to to ensure net gain in biodiversity. ensure a net gain in biodiversity (either onsite or through financial contributions for offsite enhancement). A biodiversity net gain calculation will be provided as part of the DCO submission.

Legislation and Planning Policy Legislation The following legislation has been considered in respect of the ecology assessment:

· Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(Ref. 10.2) (as amended); · Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (Ref. 10-3); · Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Ref. 10-4); · Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (Ref. 10-5); and · The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Ref. 10-6) (as amended). The relevance of this legislation is discussed in the following sub-sections:

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-4 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Ref. 10-2) (as amended) (‘the WCA’) is the major domestic legal instrument for wildlife protection in the UK and is the primary means by which the following are implemented:

· The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (‘the Bern Convention’) (Ref. 10-7); and · The Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (‘the Bird Directive’) (Ref. 10-8). The main relevant provisions of the Act are the allowance for the protection of the most important habitats and species by designating SSSIs, a level of protection to all nesting wild birds and species and bird species under Schedule 1. Protection of Badgers Act 1992 Badgers (Meles meles) and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (Ref. 10-3). In England and Wales this makes it an offence to:

· Wilfully kill, injure or take a badger (or attempt to do so); · Cruelly ill-treat a badger; · Dig for a badger, intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy a badger sett, or obstruct access to it; cause a dog to enter a badger sett; and · Disturb a badger while it is occupying a sett. Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Part III of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Ref. 10-4) (‘the CRoW Act’) deals specifically with wildlife protection and nature conservation in England and Wales. The CroW Act strengthened the safeguards afforded to SSSIs and adds to the protection of wild animals designated under the WCA 1981 by making it an offence to “recklessly disturb” the sheltering places of wild animals designated under Schedule 5 of the WCA. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (Ref. 10-5) (‘the NERC Act’) requires the listing of habitats and species that are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity, including those that have been identified as priorities within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP).

The NERC Act requires that the Section 41 list be used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the NERC Act ‘to have due regard’ to the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their normal functions. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Ref. 10-6) (as amended) transpose the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’) into domestic legislation.

The Regulations identify European Protected Species (EPS) and various habitats of importance within the European Union, with important sites for these habitats/species or both being designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and important sites for birds being designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Any proposed development that may have a significant effect on a SAC or SPA should be assessed in relation to the site’s ‘conservation objectives’ (i.e. the reasons for which the site is designated).

The Regulations also implement the species protection regime set out within the Habitats Directive, providing a clear legal basis for surveillance and monitoring of European Protected Species.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-5 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

National Planning Policy National Policy Statement for Energy The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) (Ref. 10-9) sets out national policy for major energy infrastructure projects that are classes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).

Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) states that ‘Prior to granting a development consent order, the IPC must, under the Habitat and Species Regulations (which implement the relevant parts of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive in England and Wales) consider whether the project may have a significant effect on a European site, or any site to which the same protections is applied as a matter of policy, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects’.

In addition, it states: ‘As a general principle, and subject to the specific policies below, development should aim to avoid significant harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, including through mitigation and consideration of reasonable alternatives where significant harm cannot be avoided, then appropriate compensation measures should be sought.’

EN-1 goes on to state that the applicant should include appropriate mitigation measures as an integral part of the proposed development, and that where ‘…..the applicant cannot demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures will be put in place the Infrastructure Planning Committee (IPC) should consider what appropriate requirements should be attached to any consent and/or planning obligations entered into’. National Planning Policy Framework & Planning Practice Guidance The assessment has considered the National Planning Policy Framework (Ref. 10-10) and the accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (Ref. 10-11).

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 10-10) was revised and republished on 19 February 2019 and details the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

The NPPF states the commitment of the UK Government to minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity. As stated in Paragraph 170, this includes the establishment of coherent ecological networks. In addition, Paragraph 174 of the NPPF states that plans should “…identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity” and should “promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species”.

The NPPF specifies the obligations that the Local Authorities and the UK Government have regarding statutory designated sites and protected species under UK and international legislation and how this is to be delivered in the planning system. Protected and/or otherwise notable habitats and species can be a material consideration in planning decisions and may therefore make some sites unsuitable for particular types of development, or if development is permitted, mitigation measures may be required to avoid or minimise impacts on certain habitats and species. Where impact is unavoidable, compensation may be required.

In addition, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref. 10-11). includes guidance on policies to protect biodiversity within the ‘natural environment’ section, which includes landscape, biodiversity and ecosystems, green infrastructure and brownfield land, soils and agricultural land. Local Planning Policy Table 10-2 provides a summary of relevant local planning policies and guidance. For the precise wording of each policy/guidance please refer back to the source document.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-6 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table 10-2: Summary of Local Planning Policy

Planning Planning Elements relevant to ecology assessment Policy Policy Document

Hampshire Policy 1: Where an issue is not directly covered by the plan, or policies are out of date, Minerals and Sustainable permission will be granted unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Waste Plan minerals and Examples of material considerations given include Sites of Special Scientific (Ref. 10-11). waste Interest (SSSI) and sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives. development Ministry of Housing, Policy 3: States that minerals and waste development should not have a significant Communities Protection of effect on designated or important habitats, species or designated sites, and and Local habitats and where possible should seek to create, enhance, or restore. Government species (2018). (Ref. Development likely to have significant adverse effects on designated or 10-12). important sites, habitats or species will only be permitted where merits of the development outweigh likely environmental damage and appropriate mitigation/compensation is provided.

Test Valley E5 Development will conserve, and where possible restore and/or enhance Borough Biodiversity biodiversity. Development that results in the loss, deterioration or harm to Revised Local habitats or species will not be permitted unless the benefit outweighs the Plan (Ref. adverse effect, it is demonstrated that no alternate site is viable, and measures 10-13) can be provided that avoid, mitigate, and/or compensate for any adverse impact of development.

The level of protection and mitigation afforded to habits and species of importance should be proportionate to the status of the habitat or species and is important individually and as part of a wider network.

E6 Green Development will be permitted that protects, conserves, and where possible Infrastructure enhances the borough’s Green Infrastructure network, avoids the loss, fragmentation, severance, or negative impact on the function of the Green Infrastructure network and provides mitigation where an adverse impact is anticipated. In addition, where it is necessary for development to take place on Green Infrastructure areas, appropriate replacement is provided.

Test Valley N/A The Test Valley Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets priority species and Biodiversity habitats within the Borough. The priority habitats lowland wood pasture and Action Plan parkland, lowland calcareous grassland and lowland meadow are relevant to (Ref. 10-14) the Site. Relevant priority species include the barbastelle bat (Barbastella barbastella), hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius), stone curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus), and juniper (Juniperus communis).

Biodiversity N/A The Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets priority species and Action Plan habitats within the County. The priority habitats lowland wood pasture and for Hampshire parkland, lowland calcareous grassland and lowland meadow are relevant to (Ref. 10-16) the Site. Relevant priority species include the barbastelle (Barbastella barbastella), serotine (Eptescius serotinus), Bechstein’s (Myotis bechsteinii) and common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) bats, seed eating farmland birds, bumblebees, and butterflies such as the Adonis blue (Polyommatus bellargus).

Assessment Assumptions and Limitations This chapter provides a preliminary description of the ecological receptors within the study area and the likely ecological impacts arising from the Proposed Development, as assessed at the time of writing. It draws on ecological surveys undertaken between 2018 and 2019 and

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-7 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

the Proposed Development design information available at the time of writing (early October 2019).

Some protected species surveys are ongoing and/or reports are still in production, notably those for dormouse and bat activity. Table 10-3 outlines the status of surveys and reporting for all species/species groups under consideration.

Table 10-3: Survey and reporting status

Survey Survey status Baseline report status

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Complete Provided as PEIR Volume II: Appendix (PEA) 10-1. Great crested newt Completed Provided as PEIR Volume II: Appendix 10-2. Bat activity Complete In progress – to be included in the ES Barn owl Complete Provided within PEIR Volume II: Appendix 10-3 Breeding Birds Complete Provided within PEIR Volume II: Appendix 10-3 Reptiles Ongoing In progress – to be included in the ES Dormouse Ongoing In progress – to be included in the ES

Baseline traffic and air quality surveys are yet to be completed (See Chapter 6 – Traffic and Chapter 7 – Air Quality), therefore full assessment of the likely air quality changes during construction and operation of the Proposed Development is not yet possible, although the modelling of atmospheric emissions from the 2 proposed stacks associated with the Proposed Development is presented in Chapter 7 - Air Quality. This PEIR includes details of the methodology that will be utilised for the assessment, and initial comment on results from air quality surveys undertaken to date. Further details of the assumptions and limitations on the air quality information available in support of this PEIR are provided in Chapter 7 – Air Quality. A full assessment of air quality impacts will be provided within the ES chapter that will be submitted alongside the DCO submission.

For all receptors considered the baseline and associated assessment will be updated within the ES to reflect any further baseline information and Proposed Development design information that becomes available prior to the DCO submission.

Existing and forthcoming surveys will inform the development of a Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan for the Proposed Development. Its development will be an iterative process, utilising the mitigation hierarchy to avoid impacts, incorporate mitigation for those that cannot be avoided, and to incorporate opportunities for ecological enhancement. Assessment Methodology Study Area All designated sites and protected and/or notable habitat and species that occur within an ecological Zone of Influence (Zol) of the Proposed Development were considered in this assessment. The extent of the ZoI varies according to the ecological receptor in question. For this Proposed Development, the minimum ecological ZoI that has been considered is as follows:

· Internationally important designated sites within 10 km; · Other statutory designated sites, and non-statutory designated sites within 2 km; · Ancient woodlands and notable habitats (outside of designated sites) within 1 km; and

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-8 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

· Protected and/or notable species recorded within 2 km (records for the last 10 years only). Based on the nature of the Proposed Development the ZoI considered in relation to potential impacts of air quality issues only has been extended from the minimum values given above to include consideration of ancient woodland and other sensitive Habitats of Principle Importance potentially susceptible to air quality impacts within 2 km. Sources of Information Desktop Research A desk based study was undertaken in March 2018, and updated to take into account changes in the Site extent in October 2019 (see PEIR Volume II: Appendix 10-1). The aim of the desk study was to identify sites designated on the basis of nature conservation importance, and records of protected and/or notable habitats and species potentially relevant to the Proposed Development.

Data sources and relevant search areas for the desk study are detailed in Table 10-4.

Table 10-4: Desk Study Data Sources

Data Source Accessed Data Obtained

Multi-Agency 6 March · International statutory designations within 10 km; Geographic Information 2018 for the Countryside · Other statutory designations within 2 km; (MAGIC) website (Ref. · Ancient woodlands and notable habitats within 1 km; and 10-17). · Information on habitats and habitat connections (based on aerial photography) relevant to interpretation of planning policy and assessment of potential protected and notable species constraints.

21 · Review of ancient woodland and Habitats of Principal September Importance within 2 km to identify any habitat extents 2019 outside of designated sites that may be particularly sensitive to air pollution impacts.

Hampshire Biodiversity 27 March · Non-statutory designations within 2 km; and Information Centre 2018 (HBIC) · Protected and notable species and habitat records within 2 km (records for the last 10 years only).

Ordnance Survey 21 March · Information on habitats and habitat connections (based on 1:2500 Pathfinder maps 2018 aerial photography) relevant to interpretation of planning and aerial photography policy and assessment of potential protected and notable species constraints.

Owls Lodge Farm Solar 21 March · CEC Ltd. (2011) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Ecological Park ecological survey 2018 Survey Report (Ref. 10-18); and reports · CEC Ltd. (2012) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Ecological Survey Report (Ref. 10-19).

A303 Recycling Centre, 21 · Ward Associates (2013) Ecological Assessment: A303 Barton Stacey, September Recycling Centre, Barton Stacey, Hampshire (Ref. 10-20). Hampshire – Ecological 2019 Assessment

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-9 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Surveys A range of further surveys have been undertaken to characterise the baseline environment within the relevant ZoI. A brief summary of the methodology utilised for each of these surveys is provided below, further details are either provided in the relevant supporting baseline appendices (where works are complete) (PEIR Volume II - Appendix 10-1 to Appendix 10-3) or will be provided as appendices to the ES at the point of DCO submission.

The extent of the land expected to be covered in the DCO submission has evolved as design works has progressed during 2018/2019. Further information is provided within Chapter 5 – Alternatives and Design Evolution With the exception of bird surveys, the surveys undertaken during 2018 focussed on a roughly rectangular area of land located to the north of the access road, west of the existing portacabins and east of The Street (also known as Longparish Road) (see Figure 4-8). Hereafter, this area is referred to as ‘the Construction Area’.

Subsequently, surveys in 2019 have focussed on the following additional land parcels which adjoin the Construction Area:

· An area on the eastern boundary (see Figure 4-8) that extends into the landscaped bunds surrounding the existing IBA recycling facility and MRF (hereafter ‘the Existing Bund’; and · A triangular field to the north of and adjoining the Construction Area which is identified for use for as a Construction Laydown Area (hereafter ‘the Laydown/Works Area’). Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey An initial extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken on 8 March 2018, covering the Construction Area (see Figure 4-8 and Figure 10-2). Subsequently an update survey was undertaken on 3 May 2019 to cover the Existing Bund and Laydown/Works Area. The Construction Area has also been subject to regular walkover surveys during 2019 as part of protected species surveys, during which regular observations have been made to check for any changes in species present and/or management.

The aim of the extended Phase 1 habitat surveys was to identify any known or potential ecological features of interest that may constrain or influence the design and implementation of the Proposed Development.

Habitats were mapped in accordance with the standard Phase 1 habitat survey methodology (PEIR Volume II - Appendix 10-1). The survey was ‘extended’ to include an appraisal of the potential suitability of the habitats present to support protected and/or notable species and any signs or evidence were noted.

A note was made of visible instances of invasive non-native plant species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica). Locations of plants or stands of any such invasive non-native plant species found were also recorded.

Further details of the Extended Phase 1 habitat survey methodology are provided within PEIR Volume II - Appendix 10-1.

Great crested newt An initial desk-based assessment involving a review of aerial imaging and 1:25,000 ordnance survey (OS) mapping was undertaken in April 2018 to identify water bodies within 500m of the Site. Any water bodies with major barriers between them and the Site were scoped out of the requirement for further survey.

A Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of three water bodies within 500m of the Site identified as potentially suitable to support great crested newt (and not separated from the Site by major barriers to movement) was undertaken on 18 April 2018. HSI is a method of quantifying the suitability of a water body to support great crested newt. Each waterbody was assessed using the HSI criteria set out within Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-10 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Kingdom (ARG UK) Advice Note 5 (Ref. 10-21), and the results utilised to calculate a numerical value indicating the potential suitability of the pond to support great crested newt.

Table 10-5: HSI score and interpretation

HSI Score Pond Suitability Category

<0.5 Poor 0.5 Below average 0.6 Average 0.7 Good >0.8 Excellent

Source: Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom Ref. 10-21). Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010), Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit, JNCC, Peterborough (Ref. 10-22).

Based on the outcomes of the HSI surveys Pond 1 was selected for great crested newt environmental DNA1 survey (eDNA) to confirm presence/ absence.

Collection of water samples for eDNA analysis was undertaken in accordance with methodology recommended by Technical Advice Note WC1067 prepared by Biggs et al. (Ref. 10-23). From the combined samples a subsample was then taken and preserved using ethanol prior to analysis in a laboratory.

Further details of the methodology for the great crested newt surveys undertaken are provided within PIER Volume II - Appendix 10-2.

Bats An initial bat roost suitability assessment of trees and buildings within the Site was undertaken in parallel with the extended Phase 1 habitat surveys in March 2018 and May 2019. A ground level assessment of all trees and buildings within the Construction Area was undertaken with the aim of identifying the presence of any features potentially suitable for use by roosting bats. Based on this assessment individual trees and buildings were identified as either a confirmed roost (where evidence of use by bats was confirmed), or as being either of negligible, low, moderate, or high suitability to support roosting bats.

Phase 1 habitat surveys of the Construction Area undertaken in 2018 identified it to likely be of limited value for bats. Only four trees with low suitability to support bats were identified, and habitats consisted predominately of short sward intensively managed grassland with limited connectivity to strong linear features likely to act as important commuting and/or foraging routes.

Based on the small size of the Construction Area (and therefore ability to repeat the transect route multiple times during a single survey visit), and the limited suitability of the habitats present, during 2018 a total of three walked dusk bat activity surveys (spring, summer, and autumn visits) were deemed suitable effort to provide an indication of bat activity associated with habitats present at the Site. During each season a static bat detector was also deployed for a period of 5 nights during each visit.

Following revisions to the Site boundary during early 2019, further bat activity surveys were undertaken to incorporate areas where land access was available, namely the

1 Environmental DNA (eDNA) refers to DNA that can be extracted from environmental samples such as water, soil or faeces. All living organisms leave traces of their DNA within the environment and this enables the detection of great crested newt through collection and testing of water samples from water bodies.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-11 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Laydown/Works Area, the Existing Bund, and the Owl Lodge Shooting School land2 to the east of the Site. Due to the extended areas covered by the 2018 surveys two activity transect routes were utilised (see Figure 10-3). In response to consultee comments received in the Scoping Opinion, both 2019 activity transect routes included the Construction Area, thus increasing the data obtained for this area of Site. Further static bat detectors were also deployed into the additional areas of the Site for five-day periods during 2019 (see Table 10-7).

Table 10-6 provides a summary of the bat activity surveys undertaken and the areas of the Site covered. The transect routes utilised are shown in Figure 10-3.

2 This area was considered for inclusion within the Proposed Development but is not part of the expected final Site considered in this PEIR.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-12 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table 10-6: Summary of dusk bat activity surveys undertaken

Area covered by survey

Date of dusk bat Construction Area Existing Bund and Laydown/Works Area activity survey Owl Lodge Shooting School

8th May 2018 Yes - - 16th July 2018 Yes - - 3rd September 2018 Yes - - 22nd May 2019 Yes - Yes 28th May 2019 Yes Yes - 20th June 2019 Yes - Yes 25th June 2019 Yes Yes - 12th September 2019 Yes - Yes 18th September 2019 Yes Yes -

Durations of all activity surveys were in accordance with Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Good Practice Guidelines (Ref. 10-24), extending from approximately 15 minutes before sunset to one and a half hours after sunset.

Table 10-7 provides a summary of static bat detector deployments. The locations where detectors were deployed is shown in Figure 10-3. All detectors were deployed for a minimum duration of five nights in line with BCT guidelines (Ref. 10-24).

Table 10-7: Summary of static bat detector deployments

Area covered by survey

Construction Area Existing Bund and Owl Lodge Laydown/Works Area Shooting School

May 2018 Yes - -

July 2018 Yes - -

September Yes - - 2018

May 2019 Yes Yes Yes

June 2019 Yes Yes Yes

September Yes Yes Yes 2019 Analysis of data from 2019 surveys is ongoing at time of writing. A full survey report including further details of the methodology utilised will be provided as an Appendix to the ES at time of DCO Submission.

Dormouse A dormouse nest tube survey is in progress with the aim of confirming the presence/absence of dormice within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Development.

A total of 76 artificial nest tubes were deployed on 5 June 2019 within areas of potentially suitable habitat focussing on the following areas:

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-13 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

· Hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the Laydown/Works Area (boundary with the Owls Lodge Solar Farm); · Hedgerow on the northern eastern boundary of the Construction Area; · Scrub on the western boundary of the Construction Area; and · Hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the Owl Lodge Shooting School. The survey has been undertaken in accordance with Natural England guidance (Ref. 10-25) with nest tubes deployed approximately 15-20 m apart in areas of suitable habitat.

In accordance with guidance an ‘index of probability’ score for the survey will be calculated. The index values for each month tubes are deployed (see Table 10-8) will be summed to establish the overall ‘index of probability’ score for the survey. A total ‘index of probability’ score of over 20 points is required to provide a robust indication of presence or likely absence.

Table 10-8: Dormouse ‘index of probability’ scores by month

Month Index of probability (if using 50 nest tubes)

April 1 May 4 June 2 July 2 August 5 September 7 October 2 November 2 Source: Gov.uk website (Ref. 10-25).

A check of all nest tubes was undertaken on 28 August 2019. Further checks will be undertaken in October 2019 and November 2019. Tubes will be removed at the end of November 2019, at which point a total index of probability score of 20 will have been achieved.

Breeding Birds Breeding bird survey visits have been undertaken in both 2018 and 2019.

The Common Bird Census (CBC) method (Ref. 10-26) was utilised in order to establish breeding territories. A transect route incorporating all accessible areas of the Site was walked during each visit. Details of the transect routes utilised during the 2018 and 2019 surveys are provided in PEIR Volume II: Appendix 10-3. This allowed observation of all major areas of suitable semi-natural habitat in which birds would be expected to breed, within and adjacent to the Site. All bird activity was recorded following the standard CBC notation and recorded using Standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) species codes (Ref. 10-27).

Four survey visits were undertaken in 2018 between 23 April 2018 and 28 June 2018, focussing on the Construction Area but in addition included views from vantage points looking into the operational areas of the existing IBA recycling facility and MRF, the Laydown/Works Area, and the MoD land to the south of the Construction Area.

Subsequently, a further six survey visits were undertaken between 23 May 2019 and 8 July 2019. The 2019 visits covered both the Construction Area and additional areas under consideration for inclusion within the Proposed Development, including both the Laydown/Works Area, the Existing Bund, and the Owl Lodge Shooting School.

The CBC field records were subsequently used to compile territory maps for each of the protected and / or notable species.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-14 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

The number of breeding pairs or territories for each species recorded was determined from the mapped survey data to identify and isolate areas within which birds displayed consistent breeding behaviours following the methodology set out by Gilbert et al. 1998 (Ref. 10-28).

All visits were completed in favourable weather conditions during the early morning and were completed before noon, during which period birds are active and detection rates are optimal.

Further details of the methodology utilised for breeding bird surveys are provided within PEIR Volume II: Appendix 10-3.

Barn Owl An initial scoping visit was undertaken in Spring 2018 to appraise the suitability of habitats within the vicinity of the Construction Area to support barn owl and check the wider surrounding area for potential nesting sites, flight lines, and feeding areas.

Subsequently a series of four dusk activity survey visits were undertaken on 12 June, 26 June, 18 July, and 1 August 2018. Each dusk visit undertaken spanned the period from one hour before sunset until dusk. During each visit a team of two surveyors observed the Construction Area and surrounding land with the aim of gaining an understanding of any barn owl activity at the Site (sightings, flight lines, roosting, feeding areas, etc.).

Further details of the methodology utilised for barn owl surveys are provided within PEIR Volume II - Appendix 10-3.

Reptiles Reptile surveys were undertaken following good industry practice guidance set out in the Herpetological Workers Manual (Ref. 10-29) and Froglife Advice Sheet 10 (Ref. 10-30). Artificial refugia (corrugated metal and roofing felt) are placed in areas of suitable habitat to encourage reptiles to shelter under the refugia. The refugia will be placed in areas of suitable habitat and then allowed to ‘bed in’ prior to commencing checks for reptiles.

A total of 52 artificial reptile refugia were deployed on 20 April 2018 in areas of potentially suitable habitat within the Construction Area. Subsequently artificial refugia and natural refugia were checked during a series of seven survey visits between 4 May 2018 and 13 September 2018.

Further artificial reptile refugia were deployed on 11 April 2019 to extend the scope of the survey to include the Existing Bund. Subsequently, further artificial refugia were deployed on 5 June 2019 to extend the survey further to include the Laydown/Works Area.

Artificial refugia deployed at the Construction Area and the Existing Bund were subject to four visits between 26 April 2019 and 23 May 2019

Subsequently all refugia were subject to checks on a further 7 occasions between 2 September 2019 and the end of September 2019.

During each survey visit the species, life-stage, sex (where possible) and location was recorded for each reptile found. All survey visits were checked under suitable weather conditions within a temperature range of 10°C to 18°C. Air Quality Modelling Environment Agency guidance (Ref. 10-31) states that air quality impacts only require assessment on internationally important sites within 1 km of the Proposed Development (15 km for large emitters but this scheme does not classify as a large emitter) and on statutory designated sites and ancient woodland within 2 km of the Proposed Development. For this project an assessment will also be undertaken of air quality impacts on non-statutory designated sites and sensitive priority habitat within 2 km as requested by consultees and The Planning Inspectorate.

In the event that initial modelling results indicate the potential for impacts on more distant sites or habitats then the requirement for further modelling will be considered.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-15 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Biodiversity Net Gain Calculation The Applicant is committed to seeking to ensure the Proposed Development delivers an overall net gain in biodiversity. This may be achieved through a mix of onsite enhancement and financial contributions to offsite enhancements.

The DCO application and ES will be accompanied by a biodiversity net gain calculation setting out the losses and gains in biodiversity as a consequence of the Proposed Development. The calculation will be undertaken utilising the Beta version of the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 available at time of writing, October 2019 (Ref. 10-32). Impact Assessment Methodology The ecological assessment will be undertaken and reported with reference to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (Ref. 10-33). Further details of the ecological assessment method are provided in PEIR Volume II - Appendix 2-1.

Each ecological resource or features has been subject to evaluation to assign a level of value (or potential value) using the following geographic scale:

· International (i.e. European); · National (i.e. England); · Regional (i.e. Southern England); · County (i.e. Hampshire); · District (i.e. Test Valley); · Local (e.g. Barton Stacey/Longparish); · Site; and · Negligible (used where the value is lower than the Site level). It is impractical and inappropriate for an assessment of the ecological effects of a proposed development to consider every species and habitat that may be affected. Instead, the assessment focusses on important (or relevant) ecological features. These are defined by the CIEEM Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) guidelines (Ref. 10.33) as “ecological features requiring specific assessment within EcIA. Ecological features can be important for a variety of reasons (e.g. quality and extent of designated sites or habitats, habitat/species rarity)”.

Potential impacts on important ecological features have been considered to evaluate the geographical level at which the resultant effect it is significant. The output is dependent on both the characteristics and magnitude of the impact and the value of the feature concerned. For example, an affected feature that, as a whole, is of national value may be subject to effects that only affect that feature at a local-scale, and do not affect it at a national level.

Conclusions on the significance of effects are related to the concepts of ‘structure and function’ or ‘conservation status’ as being either:

· not-significant (i.e. no effect on structure and function, or conservation status); or · significant (i.e. structure and function, or conservation status is affected). For those effects considered significant, the effect has also been characterised as appropriate (e.g. adverse or beneficial), and qualified with reference to the geographic scale at which the effect is significant (e.g. an adverse effect significant at a national level).

In order to provide consistency of terminology in the conclusions of the assessment, the residual effects of the Proposed Development have been translated to a significance level on a scale of negligible, minor, moderate, and major comparable to that used in the other assessments reported within this PEIR, as outlined in Table 10-9. These conclusions are provided in each case in brackets following the equivalent CIEEM assessment conclusion.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-16 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table 10-9: Relating CIEEM assessment terms to those used in other chapters

Effect significance terminology used Equivalent CIEEM in other ES chapters assessment

Significant (Beneficial) Major Beneficial Beneficial effect on structure/function or conservation status at regional, national or international level.

Moderate Beneficial Beneficial effect on structure/function or conservation status at County or District level.

Not significant Minor Beneficial Beneficial effect on structure/function or conservation status at Site or local level.

Negligible No effect on structure/function or conservation status.

Minor Adverse Adverse effect on structure or conservation status at Site - local level

Significant (Adverse) Moderate Adverse Adverse effect on structure/function or conservation status at County or District level.

Major Adverse Adverse effect on structure/function or conservation status at regional, national or international level

Baseline Conditions This section provides a description of the current baseline and identifies key ecological features of interest (i.e. receptors), and their value. Existing Baseline Designated Sites There are no internationally designated sites (i.e. Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar sites) within 10 km of the Site.

Three nationally designated sites for nature conservation are located within 2 km of the Site. These are detailed in Table 10-10 and their location is shown in Figure 10-1a. They are each of National value.

The Site lies within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the River Test SSSI.

There are a further six statutory designated sites located between 2 km and 10 km of the Site, namely Chibolton Commons SSSI, Bere Mill Meadows SSSI, Brockley Warren SSSI, Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI, Stockbridge Down SSSI and Anton Lakes Local Nature Reserve (LNR). Details of these Sites are also listed in Table 10-10. These sites are each of National value except Anton Lakes LNR which is of County value.

Statutory designated sites located between 2 km and 10 km from the Site include areas of chalk grassland and wetland habitats. The assessment of air quality impacts on sensitive ecological sites has in the first instance been limited to those sites within 2 km of the Site. However, in the event that assessment of those sites within a 2 km radius indicates the

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-17 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

potential for significant effects, then modelling would be extended to include these more distant locations.

Table 10-10: Sites with Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation

Designation Reasons for Designation Distance from the Site

River Test Site of Special A classic example of a chalk stream and one of the 0.7 km north & 0.8 km Scientific Interest (SSSI) most species-rich lowland rivers in England. The Test south supports a high diversity of invertebrate species and is especially rich in aquatic molluscs.

East Aston Common SSSI Lies within the flood plain of the upper reaches of the 1.4 km north east Test Valley, an area of special interest for its extensive tall sedge-rich fen communities and chalk stream associated riparian habitats.

Bransbury Common SSSI Lies on a flood plain of the upper Test Valley 1.8 km south-west consisting of common land and a disused water meadow. The meadow and the common embrace a remarkable range of grassland and grass/sedge communities, probably unparalleled in southern England.

Chibolton Commons SSSI Includes a section of the River Test flood plain 5.3 km south west together with surrounding fen, sallow car, and unimproved marshy meadow. The site supports a species rich and ecologically diverse flora, the communities of the flood plain marsh being particularly important, with many exacting species now rare or scarce.

Bere Mill Meadows SSSI Comprises a group of damp unimproved herb-rich 5.7 km north east neutral grassland on the flood plain of the upper Test Valley. The meadows represent a type of vegetation formerly widespread in the chalk stream valleys but now much diminished.

Brockley Warren SSSI Largest of the few remaining areas of chalk grassland 6.0 km south west and chalk scrub of the Hampshire chalk plateau. It supports a mosaic of chalk scrub mainly of juniper, bramble and hawthorn with scattered planted pines. The juniper is now mostly moribund and there is little recent regeneration.

Micheldever Spoil Heaps Nineteenth century chalk spoil heaps derived from 7.7 km east SSSI railway cuttings, and now exhibiting various stages of colonisation by a range of plant communities. The site is identified as of ‘exceptional’ botanical value.

Anton Lakes LNR The reserve is made up of a range of habitats 8.1 km north west following its use for gravel extraction. The River Anton rises from springs within the reserve, flowing down through a series of old watercress beds, providing a habitat for the locally rare long-stalked yellow sedge. The river then flows into the lakes, which are themselves home to a variety of birds including the beautiful great-crested grebe. Other habitats include areas of chalk grassland and fen meadow.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-18 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Designation Reasons for Designation Distance from the Site

Stockbridge Down SSSI Stockbridge Down comprises a wide range of chalk 8.9 km south west scrub and grassland communities occupying a north- west facing chalk scarp with an extensive plateau on clay-with-flints. A total of eight Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are located within 2 km of the Site, the closest of which are Long Parish Cornfields SINC located approximately 130 m to the north east of the Laydown/Works Area and Drayton Down SINC located approximately 190m to the south east of the Site. Further details are provided in Table 10-11. Each SINC is of County value.

Table 10-11: Sites with Non-Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation

Designation Reasons for Designation Distance from the Site

Longparish Cornfields SINC Supports the following notable species: pheasant’s 0.13 km north eye (Adonis annua), dwarf spurge (Euphorbia exigua), fine leaved fumitory (Fumaria parviflora), red hemp nettle (Galeopsis angustifolia), prickly poppy (Papaver argemone), shepherd’s needle (Scandix pecten-veneris), night flowering catchfly (Silene noctiflora), common hedge parsley (Torilis arvensis) and narrow fruited cornsalad (Valerianella dentata).

Drayton Down (area 1) 22.73 ha site comprising unimproved grassland 0.2 km east SINC among other habitats. The site supports hairy rock cress (Arabis hirsuta), basil thyme (Clinopodium acinos) and brown hare (Lepus europaeus).

Lower Mills Meadow SINC 0.82 ha site designated on the basis of two SINC 0.75 km north criteria: - Semi-improved grassland which retain an element of unimproved grassland - fens, flushes, seepages, springs, inundation grasslands that support a flora and fauna characteristic of unimproved and waterlogged conditions.

Longparish Meadow SINC 2.04 ha site comprising agriculturally unimproved 0.80 km north grassland.

Lower Farm Meadow SINC 0.31 ha site comprising agriculturally unimproved 1.25 km north-west grasslands with areas of open freshwater which support assemblages of floating/submerged/emergent plant species, invertebrates, birds or amphibians. The site also supports flat-sedge (Blymus compressus), a notable species.

Test Way, North of 0.68 ha area of ancient semi-natural woodland. 1.4 km north-west Middleton SINC

Middleton Wood SINC 1.92 ha area of ancient semi-natural woodland. 1.5 km north-west

Tidbury Ring Wood SINC 4.39 ha area of ancient semi-natural woodland. 1.9 km east

In addition to the areas of ancient semi-natural woodland that occur within designated sites there is one additional area of ancient woodland listed on Natural England’s ancient woodland inventory is located within 2 km of the Site, namely Chimple Row (2.6 ha) an ancient and

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-19 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

semi-natural woodland located 2 km to the south west of the Site. Chimple Row is considered to be of up to County value based on its irreplaceable nature.

Harewood Forest, an extensive area of ancient and semi-natural woodland (288 ha) is located approximately 2.4 km to the west of the Site and is of up to Regional value based on the scale of this irreplaceable resource.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-20 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Habitats Construction Area

The majority of the Construction Area consists of species poor improved grassland, with smaller areas of species poor semi-improved grassland. During the initial March 2018 Phase 1 habitat survey these areas were dominated by springy-turf moss (Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus), occasional creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), common daisy (Bellis perennis), and neat feather moss (Pseudoscleropodium purum).

Aerial photography and OS mapping indicate that that at least around 40% of the improved area previously supported plantation woodland which was removed at some point between 2008 and 2017.

The initial Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken in March 2018 outside of the optimal period, however the area has been subject to numerous subsequent walkovers during May to September 2018 and May to September 2019 during further protected species surveys. No notable changes in species composition have been recorded and there have been no records of protected and or notable plant species (e.g. basil thyme which has been recorded previously within land to the south of the Site). Therefore, there is no constraint to the assessment.

An area of young to semi-mature broadleaved plantation was recorded in the north east of the Construction Area. This area comprised uniformly spaced semi-mature trees with little undergrowth. Species included sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), hawthorn and beech (Fagus sylvatica). The woodland floor predominantly comprised of leaf litter with abundant common feather moss (Kindbergia praelonga) and false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), and locally abundant red fescue (Festuca rubra). Occasional species included broadleaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), lords and ladies (Arum maculatum), common ragwort, common nettle, and creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans). Further small patches of broad-leaved plantation are located along the western boundary adjacent to The Street including a narrow strip dominated by sycamore and beech.

The Construction Area includes a single prefabricated office building (single storey and flat roofed) and a surrounding car park in the south east corner. It is surrounded by small bunds supporting short sward species poor amenity grassland and a range of young planted trees.

Several hedgerows were recorded within the proposed Construction Area. An unmanaged species-poor hedgerow forms the north eastern boundary of the Construction Area, where it adjoins the Owl’s Lodge Solar Farm, and a section of species rich hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the Construction Area. The species rich hedgerow was unmanaged and undergoing transition to dense/continuous scrub. Woody species include elder (Sambucus nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), field maple, dog rose (Rosa canina) and wild privet (Ligustrum vulgare). In addition, bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) was also recorded within the hedge. Common nettle, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides) were all frequently recorded at the base of the hedge. Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), and lords and ladies (Arum maculatum) were also recorded.

Existing Bund

The Existing Bund consists of a bund and associated slopes which have in some areas been planted with a mixture of young native broadleaved trees including hazel (Corylus avellana), spindle, beech, hawthorn and guelder rose (Viburnum opulus). The western face of the bund is moderately diverse and is dominated by semi-improved grassland managed under a short sward regime with frequent red fescue (Festuca rubra), ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), teasel (Dipascus fullonum), common bent (Agrostis capillaris) and perforate St. John’s Wort Sp (Hypericum sp.), and occasional wild parsnip, musk mallow, viper’s bugloss, false brome, and great mullein.

The eastern face of the bund appears to be managed under a longer sward regime and is dominated teasel, bramble, ragwort and common nettle (Urtica dioica) where it adjoins the existing operational IBA recycling facility and MRF. The northern section of the bund supports

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-21 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

an area of closely spaced young broadleaved plantation. Where canopy cover has been achieved there is minimal associated ground flora.

The Existing Bund is adjoined by two waterbodies (Pond 1 and Pond 2). The water bodies are both located outside of the Site, but directly adjoin it. They both form part of the operational IBA recycling facility and MRF attenuation process and are devoid of aquatic vegetation. They are of Site value only.

Laydown/Works Area

The Laydown/Works Area that forms the northern section of the Site is dominated by semi- improved grassland and also includes areas of scrub, tall ruderals and bare ground. A small triangular area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland is located at the northern tip of the Site.

The grassland gently undulates with an abundance of small sparsely distributed patches of bare ground. The grassland was characterised by an abundance of false brome, frequent stands of perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), wild marjoram (Origanum vulgare), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium) and hairy violet (Viola hirta), cut leaved cranesbill, dove’sfoot cranesbill (Geranium molle), germander speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys), agrimony (Agrimonia eupatoria), common daisy, hairy St. John’s-wort, creeping thistle, white bryony, field forget- me-not, wood avens and perforate St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum). In addition, parsley piert (Aphanes arvensis), weld, purple toadflax (Linaria purpurea), mouse-ear hawkweed (Pilosella officinarum), red clover, lamb’s ear (Stachys byzantina), primrose (Primula vulgaris) and great mullein (Verbascum thapsus) were also recorded.

The majority of the field was under a long sward management regime with several more regularly cut access paths. The shorter cut paths are dominated by grasses such as red fescue, common bent and perennial rye grass, with frequent common daisy.

Scattered scrub occurs across the grassland area and is dominated by hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) with frequent stands of wild privet, butterfly-bush, blackthorn, sycamore, ash, wayfaring tree and dogrose.

Aerial photography and OS mapping indicate that the Laydown/Works Area has previously contained broad leaved plantation, in particular in the northern half of the field where planting is evident on 2005 aerial photography. The sward within the field suggests that the area has been allowed to at least in part naturally regenerate following removal of plantation.

The eastern boundary of the Laydown/Works Area field supported a species rich hedgerow containing field maple and blackthorn with locally frequent hawthorn and elder, and occasional ash, hazel, wild privet and dogwood. The western boundary with The Street supports a hedgerow for much of its length with frequent blackthorn and hawthorn and occasional stands of elder, bramble, wild privet, sycamore and traveller’s-joy. In the south of the Laydown/Works Area the hedgerow was adjoined in places by developing scrub of similar species composition. There were some gaps in the hedgerow at the northern end of the western boundary, with only occasional mature Leyland cypress present within these areas.

The northern tip of the triangular field (outside of but adjoining the Site) comprised mature sycamore and horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) surrounding two telecomm towers. The understorey contains dogrose, hawthorn and with ground flora consisting of stinking iris, ivy, common nettle and traveller’s-joy.

Evaluation of habitats

The grassland within the Laydown/Works Area consists of a diverse mix of both calcareous and neutral grassland species. The sward does not show close affinity to any particular National Vegetation Classification (NVC) community, and it is likely that this is in part a reflection of this field previously supporting plantation woodland. Ordnance Survey mapping shows the area as broadleaved plantation and publicly available aerial photography from 2000 show the northern section of the field densely planted with young trees.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-22 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

The grassland community currently present appears to have developed within approximately the last 20 years following progressive removal of plantation. The ground disturbance that has accompanied removal of plantation appears to have provided conditions for a range of species to develop, and elements of woodland understorey such as wood false brome, now compete with a range of herbaceous species, which includes species characteristic of both neutral and calcareous grassland communities.

The grassland community is not considered to represent a Habitat of Principal Importance (i.e. a habitat listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act, 2006). However, it supports a moderately diverse range of species and an unusual combination. The value of the habitat is further enhanced by the developing scrub which adds to the overall structural diversity and range of niches it provides. On this basis the grassland/scrub mosaic within the Laydown/Works Area is considered to be of up to District value.

The hedgerows within and on the boundaries of the Site are assessed as qualifying as Habitat of Principal Importance. In combination, and as part of the wider habitat network they are considered to be of District value.

The remaining habitats are common and widespread and are therefore considered to be of no more than Local value. They are not considered on an individual basis in the subsequent impact assessment, as based on their value they are unlikely to generate likely significant effects. The cumulative loss of all habitats and their biodiversity value will be considered as part of the biodiversity net gain assessment which will be undertaken in support of the final ES. Protected and/or Notable Species Badger

Habitat within the Site is potentially suitable to support badger foraging and the creation of setts. However, no evidence of the presence of setts at or adjacent to the Site were found during the extended Phase 1 habitat survey or the numerous subsequent walkover surveys that have been undertaken for other species/ species groups during 2018/2019.

Based on the absence of current signs of badger activity the Site is considered to be of negligible value for badger, and therefore has been scooped out of the subsequent assessment.

A pre-construction check for the presence of setts will be undertaken as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to confirm their continued absence prior to the commencement of construction.

Barn Owl

No features suitable for barn owl roosting have been identified within or adjacent to the Site. Activity surveys undertaken in 2018 recorded no evidence of barn owl. However, the habitat within the Site (in particular the Laydown/Works Area to the north) and adjoining it represents potentially suitable foraging habitat. Given that barn owl are known to be present within the wider local area the use of these habitats on an occasional basis by foraging barn owl cannot be ruled out. However, given the results of the 2018 survey visits these habitats are unlikely to be of critical importance in maintaining the conservation status of any local breeding population.

The UK Barn owl population is thought to have undergone rapid decline during the 20th Century. While there are not reliable population estimates to evidence this decline, anecdotal evidence suggests a rapid decline between the 1930s and the 1980s (Ref. 10-34). The key factors responsible for its decline are the loss of roosting sites, removal of suitable foraging habitat as a consequence of agricultural intensification and development, and collisions with vehicles. Barn owl are afforded special protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended).

On a precautionary basis it is assumed that barn owl may utilise the Site for foraging in low numbers, as such the local barn owl population utilising this area is assumed to be of up to District value.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-23 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Bats

Bat roost suitability assessments undertaken in 2018 identified that the existing building (a single storey flat roofed portacabin) and a shipping container had negligible suitability to support roosting bats.

A total of four trees within the Site were assessed to have low suitability to support roosting bats. Two of these trees (a mature ash and field maple) are located within the section of hedgerow on the northern boundary of the Construction Area with the Owls Lodge Solar Farm. In addition, a mature field maple is located directly to the north of the site office, and a mature beech is located within the western boundary with The Street.

One tree with high roost suitability and three trees with low roost suitability were identified within the small copse of mature trees that is located outside of the Site, but directly adjoining the northern boundary of the Laydown/Works Area bats.

During bat activity and static detector surveys in 2018 a total of six confirmed species were recorded in the vicinity of the Construction Area; namely common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, noctule, Leisler’s bat, serotine, and brown long-eared. In addition, at least one Myotis species was recorded during static detector surveys that could not be identified to species level.

During 2018 bats were predominantly recorded utilising the hedgerows, rough grassland, scrub and scattered trees around the boundaries of the Construction Area. While regular bat activity was recorded during all surveys, the total number of bat passes recorded was considered relatively low for a greenfield site with the majority consisting of activity attributable to common species, in particular common pipistrelle.

Results from 2019 activity transects and static detector surveys covering all areas of the Site are still being analysed. No records of species listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive have been identified within the data that has been analysed to date, and a similar range of species to those recorded during 2018 have been identified. During 2019 sections of the Site have shown regular passes by foraging and commuting bats, with activity largely associated with the hedgerows and other boundary features, but with recorded passes suggesting regular use of all areas of the Site by small numbers of widespread bats.

Activity transect surveys in 2018 and 2019 have not indicated the presence of any roosts within the Site.

Data analysed to date suggests that the habitats at the Site are unlikely to support roosting bats. However, habitats within and adjoining the Site are utilised regularly in lower numbers by a range of species including Pipistrelle sp, brown long-eared bat, noctule, Leisler’s and serotine. Of the species recorded at the Site the following species are listed as species of principal importance within Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006): namely, noctule bat (Nyctalus noctula), soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrelle pygmaeus), and brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus). This status was afforded on the basis of the significant decline in the populations of these species.

On the basis of all available data the assemblage of bat populations utilising the Site collectively considered to be of up to County value.

Breeding Birds

The 2018 breeding bird survey focussed on the Construction Area with records of adjoining habitats made only from vantage points within the Construction Area.

A single dunnock territory (Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) Amber List & NERC Section 41, 2006) was observed within the Construction Area during the six surveys in 2018. Single skylark and yellowhammer territories (both BoCC Red list) were recorded in the Laydown/Works Area during 2018. Notable territories in other adjacent fields included two skylark territories one in the field to the east of the Laydown/Works Area and one in the south west of the solar farm immediately north of the Construction Area.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-24 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Twenty-six species were recorded utilising the Construction Area, Existing Bund and operational sections of the existing IBA and MRF facility during 2019. No territories for Red or Amber listed species were recorded. Eighteen of the species recorded were Green list species, three Amber list species (dunnock, lesser blacked back gull), and four Red list species (yellowhammer, herring gull, linnet, and starling) were recorded. Five of the species recorded are also listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006, and a single species red kite is listed under the Birds Directive and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Dunnock was observed singing from the south east of the site on a single occasion. Stock dove was observed foraging within the centre of the Site and linnet observed flying over the Site on all occasions. Three lesser black-backed gulls were recorded attacking a single red kite on the second visit and red kite was also observed flying over the site on visit four and visit six. A single herring gull as observed flying over site on the second and sixth visit. Twenty-five starling were also observed foraging within the north-west of the Site. Large numbers of rooks were recorded at the site during visit 1 and visit 2.

Thirty-two species were recorded utilising the Laydown/Works Area during 2019. Twenty of these were Green list species, four were Amber list species (dunnock, kestrel, lesser black backed gull, and stock dover) and five Red list species (yellowhammer, linnet, skylark, song thrush and herring gull). Six of the species were listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 (dunnock, linnet, skylark, song thrush and yellowhammer) and a single species was listed under the Birds Directive (red kite).

A total of four territories for Red and Amber list species were recorded within the Laydown/Works Area with an additional territory in the adjoining field containing the Solar Farm. Single yellowhammer, linnet, skylark and dunnock territories were recorded within this area of the Site. A skylark territory was recorded within the field containing the Solar Farm to the east of the Site.

In addition to the Red and Amber list territories, other Red and Amber list species observed within the Laydown/Works Area included, lesser black-backed gull and kestrel flying over the site. Stock dove were observed foraging within the Site. Song thrush was also observed singing within the Site on two occasions, however these were in different areas and therefore were not considered a territory. In addition, red kite, an Annex 1 and Schedule 1 species was observed flying over the site on two occasions with a peak of two individuals.

The 2019 surveys included land associated with the Owls Lodge Shooting School to the east of the Site. A total of 38 species were recorded utilising this area.

A total of eleven territories and up to five colonies were recorded within the Shooting School land, with an additional four territories in adjacent fields. Eight skylark territories were observed within the large tussocky grassland field immediately to the north of the shooting range and up to five linnet colonies were recorded in the south east and south west of the Site. Significant breeding behaviour and foraging activity in both of these areas was observed across the six surveys. In addition to this a single song thrush territory, mistle thrush territory, and bullfinch territory were recorded on site. Offsite but adjacent, three further skylark territories were recorded to the east and a yellow hammer territory to the south.

The assemblage of species and territories within the areas surveyed are considered fairly typical of a farmland breeding bird assemblage. Ten territories of skylark (a ground nesting bird) were recorded during the 2019 surveys. However, only one of these territories was located within the Site. The remainder were all associated with land located outside of the Site. The majority of territories recorded for other species were associated with the hedgerows, trees, and areas of plantation on the margins of the Site.

Only low numbers of protected and/or notable species territories were recorded, and the range of breeding species recorded across the 2018 and 2019 surveys suggests that the Site supports a typical breeding farmland bird assemblage of common and widespread species. As a consequence, the breeding bird populations at and adjacent to the Site are collectively considered to be of District value.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-25 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Great Crested Newt

Full results of great crested newt scoping, HSI, and eDNA surveys are provided in PEIR Volume II - Appendix 10-2.

No water bodies are present within the Site. A desk-based study identified a total of three water bodies within a 500 m radius of the Construction Area which were identified as potentially suitable to support great crested newt and therefore we subject to HSI assessment. Water bodies to the south of the A303 were scoped out of further consideration based on it acting as a significant barrier to amphibian movement.

The location of ponds subject to HSI survey is shown in Figure 10-2, and a summary of results is provided in Table 10-12.

Table 10-12: Summary of amphibian survey results

Water Pond description HSI Habitat Scoped in eDNA body score suitability for eDNA survey reference survey result

Pond 1 Plastic-lined triangular pond located within the 0.62 Average Yes Negative adjoining Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) measuring approximately 30x20m, bordered by hardstanding to the east, and semi-improved grassland and ruderal vegetation to the west. Unvegetated with the exception of abundant algal growth (covering approximately 20% of the pond’s surface).

Pond 2 Large triangular pond measuring approximately 0.37 Poor No N/A 50x40m, bordered on two sides by semi- improved grassland and ruderal vegetation. Pond 2 acts as an attenuation pond and dampening water source for the large ash pile at the Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) facility, and is situated immediately east of the pond and therefore collects ash run-off, resulting in a pH that is too high for the pond to be suitable for amphibians. In addition, Pond 2 is pumped dry annually.

Pond 3 Unlined elliptical pond within MRF measuring 0.42 Poor No N/A approximately 10x5m, bordered by hardstanding, bare ground and semi-improved grassland. Pond 3 was dry at the time of survey and is understood to dry out regularly.

Visual inspection during the Habitat Suitability Assessment indicated that Pond 1 contains a population of smooth newt. Smooth newt efts3 were also recorded in this area of the Site during 2019 reptile surveys. No other amphibians were recorded. The subsequent eDNA survey returned a negative result, and therefore great crested newt are assumed to be absent.

Habitat within the Site is considered to be of negligible value for great crested newt. While smooth newt are reported to be present within Pond 1, given that this waterbody is part of the operational settlement process for the existing IBA Facility it is unlikely to be of any more than Site value for common amphibians.

3 Juvenile newt in first year of development.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-26 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

As a consequence, both great crested newt and common amphibians have been scoped out of the assessment and will not be considered further in this PEIR or the final ES.

Reptiles

Full results of reptile surveys will be provided in the ES.

The extended Phase 1 habitat surveys identified all areas of the Site as potentially suitable to support common reptile species (i.e. slow worm, common lizard and grass snake). However, the extent and relative quality of the suitable habitat varies across the Site.

The highest quality areas of potential habitat are within the Laydown/Works Area in the north of the Site with the mosaic of grassland, scrub and frequent log piles providing highly suitable habitat. The Existing Bund is located on a sloping east facing bank, and in particular the section in the north of this area where there are areas of scrub and trees to provide cover the habitat is of moderate suitability. Within the Construction Area the majority of the area is managed under a short sward regime and is largely unsuitable. However, there are some smaller areas of suitable habitat around the margins of the proposed Construction Area that provide suitable habitat.

Artificial refugia surveys have yielded records of both slow worm and common lizard in all three sections of the Site. A summary of results is provided in Table 10-13.

Table 10-13: Summary of reptile survey results

Site Area Peak adult count during single survey visit (number of visits)

May/September 2018 May/June4/September 2019

Construction Area 6 no slow worm 4 no. slow worm

3 no. common lizard 3 no. common lizard

(7 visits) (11 visits)

Existing Bund N/A 2 no. slow worm

1 no. common lizard

(7 visits)

Laydown/Works Area N/A 2 no. slow worm

4 no. common lizard

(7 visits)

Surveys have been undertaken in good conditions and all but one of the survey visits have been undertaken within May and September which are optimal months for survey. On this basis it is considered appropriate to utilise the results of the presence/absence survey to provide an indication of population size for each reptile species recorded based on guidance set out in Froglife Advice Sheet 10 (Ref. 10-31). Population sizes for each species are classed as Exceptional, Good or Low (Table 10-14), based on the maximum number of adults recorded during one survey visit at a density of 10 refugia per hectare.

4 Single survey visit undertaken in June 2019 (06/06/2019) within suitable weather conditions.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-27 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table 10-14: Reptile population size categories

Species Exceptional (score 3) Good (score 2) Low (score 1) Slow-worm >20 5-20 <5 Viviparous lizard >20 5-20 <5 Grass snake >10 5-10 <5 Adder >10 5-10 <5 Source: Froglife, 1999 (Ref. 10-31)

The Construction Area is considered to support a ‘Good’ population of slow worm, while the Existing Bund and Laydown/Works Area support low populations. In reality as all three areas are interconnected they are all considered as supporting a ‘Good’ population of slow worm. All areas of the Site are considered to support low populations of common lizard. Both slow worm and common lizard are Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act, 1996. However, both species remain widespread in their distribution and legal protection is limited to provision in relation to actions resulting in deliberate killing and/or injury.

Based on the results of the artificial refugia survey, and the presence of both slow worm and common lizard the Site is considered to be of up to District value for common reptiles.

Hazel Dormouse

A nest tube survey to indicate presence /likely absence of dormouse is ongoing and will be completed in November 2019. To date, a single check of nest tubes has been undertaken and no evidence indicating presence of dormouse was identified.

Consultation responses identified anecdotal records of dormice being found adjacent to the A303. Both sections of the highways verge and the areas of woodland and scrub within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) land to the south of the Site contain areas of habitat potentially suitable to support dormouse populations. There is some connectivity of suitable habitat with the Site, and the species rich hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the Laydown/Works Area in particular represents potentially suitable habitat for dormouse, supporting a range of potential food plants and good physical structure.

The presence/likely absence of dormouse will be confirmed prior to the DCO submission. For the purposes of the current assessment it is assumed that dormouse may be present. Dormouse is a Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act, 1996. Given that the Site supports relatively limited extents of suitable habitat which is largely confined to hedgerows it is currently assumed that if confirmed to be present the dormouse population would likely be of up to County value.

Terrestrial Invertebrates

The Site supports a range of habitat types that are common within the surrounding local area. An appraisal as part of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey identified that the Site has the potential to support a common invertebrate species. However, based on the habitat types present it was not considered as having elevated potential to support protected and/or notable species that would warrant further survey.

Consultation responses on the scoping report requested that further consideration was given in relation to the potential presence of suitable habitat for striped lychnis (a moth) (Shargacuculia lychntis), a Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act, 2006 (Ref. 10-5). Larvae of this species feed primarily on the developing flowers of dark mullein (Verbascum nigrum), with occasional reports of the use of great mullein (Verbascum thapsus), white mullein (Verbascum luchnitis) and figwort (Scrophularia spp.) (Ref. 10-35).

The key larval food source, dark mullein was not recorded within the Site. However, occasional great mullein were identified within the Works/Laydown Area and the Construction Area. Occasionally this species has been recorded as a larval food source, therefore its presence cannot be ruled out. However, in the absence of dark mullein the Site is unlikely to represent a significant site for this species. Given this, and the presence of similar habitat in

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-28 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

close proximity, even in the event that striped lychnis is present the temporary loss of habitats within the Site would be unlikely to result in a significant effect on striped lycnhis (as areas of similar habitat would continue to be present to maintain these populations). On that basis striped lychnis and other terrestrial invertebrates have been scoped out of the assessment.

As detailed in the Design Measures and Impact Avoidance Section of this chapter, as part of the proposed embedded mitigation it is proposed to promote enhancement for this species during the reinstatement of the Laydown/Works Area on the completion of construction works, through addition of dark mullein to the seed mixture. Future Baseline Construction is scheduled to commence in 2022. No significant change from the existing baseline conditions identified during desk study and surveys undertaken during 2018/2019 are expected. Design Measures and Impact Avoidance The detail of primary mitigation measures to be embedded within the Proposed Development are under development and are based on the assumption that the Proposed Development will occupy the maximum extents set out within the Parameter plans (See Figures 4-1 to 4-9) provided alongside this PEIR.

Primary mitigation measures will be embedded within the Proposed Development and detailed in full within the ES that will form part of the DCO submission. A Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan will be provided at DCO submission and is expected to include the following embedded mitigation measures:

· The design incorporates a Flue Gas Treatment (FGT) incorporating a range of measures to control emissions. As set out in Chapter 4 – Proposed Development this is expected to include the following: o Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) or similar to abate emissions of nitrogen oxides; o Lime injection or similar for the abatement of acid gases including sulphur dioxide; o Activated carbon injection for the abatement of dioxins, furans and heavy metals; and o Fabric bag filters for the capture of particulate emissions. · Retention of the majority of the existing trees and scrub forming the western boundary with ’The Street’, with clearance limited to individual trees in the vicinity of the existing site access and proposed new site road. · Retention of the existing hedgerows on the eastern boundary of the Laydown/Works Area and on the north eastern boundary of the Construction Area where it adjoins the Owl’s Lodge Solar Farm; · All retained hedgerows and trees will be subject to tree protection fencing in accordance with British Standard 5837: 2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction (Ref. 10-38) · The extent of the Laydown/Work Area (to the north of the Construction Area) utilised during construction will continue to be reviewed during detailed design and the area of habitat cleared will be kept to the minimum required to enable the Proposed Development; · Retention of a strip of retained habitat adjoining the hedgerow on the eastern boundary of the Laydown/Work Area, and enhancement to provide additional refugia and hibernation habitat, to support common reptiles and act as a receptor for those individuals cleared from the areas of the Site required for construction; · A reptile mitigation strategy will be included within the DCO submission, demonstrating measures to be employed to avoid the deliberate killing and/or injury of common reptiles.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-29 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

This is expected to include the use of both phased vegetation clearance to enable active displacement of reptiles, and in some areas the use of reptile fencing and artificial refugia checks to clear the Site; · Following the completion of construction the Laydown/Work Area that is utilised during construction (anticipated approximately 3ha) will be utilised to create biodiverse habitat of at least equal value to those that will be lost. Creation will target a diverse mosaic of lowland calcareous grassland, scrub and waterbodies, incorporating areas of basking, cover and hibernation habitat suitable for common reptiles; · The native wildflower seed mixture utilised to reinstate the Laydown/Works Area following construction will be enhanced through the addition of dark mullein. The Biodiversity Landscape Management Plan for this area will include measures to provide areas that are to promote and maintain dark mullein; namely leaving some areas uncut, and scarifying small areas of the Site to provide continuation of suitable conditions for dark mullein; · The operational lighting design will be designed to reduce the potential for impacts on foraging and commuting bats. The design will be developed with consideration of the principles set out within the joint Institute of Lighting Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines on bats and artificial lighting (Ref. 10-37) to reduce light spill onto retained hedgerows surrounding the Site; · It is assumed that standard construction management controls will be secured as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), and will include the following: o Vegetation clearance - it is assumed that vegetation clearance will be undertaken outside of the key bird breeding period (i.e. between October and February inclusive), or where this is impractical (or conflicts with other constraints) ensuring a check for the presence of active nests is undertaken by an ecologist prior to the commencement of clearance. If any active nests are found, the work will cease, the area with the nests will be left in situ and an appropriate buffer zone will be established. This area will be left intact until it has been confirmed by the ecologist that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use; o Lighting - minimising construction lighting, directing lights downwards and away from sensitive receptors and minimising light spill into adjacent areas; ensuring that lighting is turned off when not required; o Pollution controls - the CEMP will include mitigation measures to minimise the risk of release of hydrocarbons and oils, and sediment loading in run off. Works in this regard will be undertaken with adherence to current good practice guidance; o Noise - e.g. placing noisy plant and equipment as far as practical from potential receptors; throttling down or turning off machinery when not in use and using modern quiet and well-maintained equipment fitted with appropriate silencers; and o Dust suppression (where relevant) - prevention of dust deposition on retained habitats and those within the surrounding area through use of good practice methods to prevent dust generation and spread (e.g. wetting of construction access routes during dry weather). · A pre-construction check for the presence of badger setts will be undertaken as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to confirm their continued absence prior to the commencement of construction. An Outline CEMP is provided in PEIR Volume II: Appendix 4-1. Assessment of Likely Impacts and Effects The impacts and effects (both beneficial and adverse) associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Proposed Development are outlined in the sections below. The assessments have been made following consideration of the embedded mitigation measures as described in paragraph 10.168.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-30 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Enabling Works, Construction and Commissioning Designated Sites The Proposed Development will result in no direct loss of habitat from statutory or non- statutory designated sites.

There are no internationally designated sites (i.e. Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar sites) within 10 km of the Site. The nearest is the River Itchen SAC located 14 km away (at its closest point).

Based on the distance of these sites from the Proposed Development, and assuming the implementation of the CEMP, the impacts of any changes in air quality during construction are expected to be negligible, and no significant effects on internationally designated sites are expected. Traffic data and air quality modelling are not available for the PEIR but will be reviewed in support of the ES and the assessment conclusions updated accordingly if they are not supported by the outputs of modelling data.

The nearest nationally and non-statutory designated sites to the Proposed Development are the River Test SSSI (0.7 km to the north) and the Longbridge Cornfields SINC (0.13 km to the north) respectively. Assuming the implementation of the CEMP, the potential impacts on designated sites within the ZoI arising from other indirect effects (e.g. dust generation, chemical spillages, and construction lighting) will be reduced in severity and extent, and where they occur will be temporary in nature, and therefore unlikely to adversely affect the structure and function of the site concerned.

The following designated sites are potentially sensitive to air quality impacts and are located within 2 km of the Site: River Test SSSI, Bransbury Common SSSI, East Aston Common SSSI, Drayton Down SINC, Tidbury Ring Wood SINC, Longparish Meadow SINC, Lower Mills Meadow SINC, Lower Farm Meadow SINC, Test Way SINC and Middleton Wood SINC.

The potential for the Proposed Development to result in impacts on these sites, and other priority habitats within 2 km of the Site will be considered in full within the ES when air quality baseline survey and traffic modelling has been finalised, allowing all potential changes as a consequence of the Proposed Development to be considered taking into account the critical loads for the habitats concerned.

Longparish Cornfields SINC will not be covered by the air quality modelling as it consists of an arable field margin for which no reference critical loads are available; it is therefore not possible to empirically consider air quality impacts on this SINC. However, given that the adjoining arable fields are likely to be nutrient enriched from fertiliser application, air quality changes as a consequence of the Proposed Development are considered unlikely to result in any changes that would adverse effect the structure and function of the SINC. As a consequence, the effect on the structure and function of Longparish Cornfields SINC during construction is likely to be negligible and not significant. Habitats The majority of the Laydown/Works Area to the north of the Construction Area (i.e. the Laydown/Work area – see Figure 4-8) is required to provide laydown and parking for the workforce during construction. This will result in the permanent loss of approximately 3.1 ha of the grassland/scrub mosaic during Year 1 of construction works which is of up to District value.

Prior to mitigation, this would represent a permanent adverse effect at the District level which is significant. However, the Proposed Development will include a commitment to undertake habitat creation within the Laydown/Work Area following the completion of construction period (approximately 3.5 years). Habitat creation will seek to create a mosaic of species rich grassland, scrub and water bodies that are of equal or greater value than those which are to be lost.

The provision of replacement habitat creation following construction will act to reduce the impact of grassland losses to a temporary adverse effect on conservation status at the District

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-31 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

level, that is significant. The temporary adverse effect will remain significant for a duration of approximately five to ten years (3.5 years construction plus establishment), after which it is expected to reduce to a level where it is negligible and not significant.

The hedgerows situated on the boundaries of the Site are expected to be retained. No hedgerow loss is expected, therefore the resultant effect on the conservation status of hedgerow habitat will be negligible and not significant.

In addition to those habitat losses discussed individually above, the construction of the Proposed Scheme will also result in the permanent loss of the following habitats (all figures approximate):

· 0.96ha broadleaved plantation (young planting on northern boundary of Construction Area and 0.1ha established planting on western boundary of Construction Area); · 1.85ha improved grassland; · 1.78ha semi-improved grassland; · 0.85ha scattered scrub; · 8 mature trees at the existing Site entrance to facilitate access improvements; and · 1 portacabin building (site office). These habitats areas are collectively of Local value and their loss will result in a permanent adverse effect on conservation status at the Local level that is not significant.

The proposed landscaping design is being developed and is not yet fixed at the time of writing (October 2019), however has the potential to include areas of replacement planting of biodiversity value that will act to at least in part offset some of the loss of habitats.

Following implementation of the CEMP, the impact on retained habitats within and adjoining the Site of indirect impacts during construction such as dust generation, construction lighting, chemical spillages is expected to be minimised, therefore the effect on these habitats will be negligible and not significant.

As discussed in relation to designated sited, traffic and air quality modelling is yet to be finalised. The potential for the Proposed Development to result in impacts on these sites, and other priority habitats within 2 km of the Site will be considered in full within the ES when air quality modelling has been completed, through considering potential changes in air quality as a consequence of vehicle movements during construction taking into account the critical loads for the habitats concerned.

Habitats of Principal Importance and ancient woodland within 2 km of the Proposed Development will be assessed by considering the point of maximum impact at grid points within the area of habitat. Protected and/or notable species Barn Owl No barn owl roosting or nesting places will be lost as a consequence of the Proposed Development.

Given that no barn owls were recorded through the 2018 activity surveys it is very unlikely that the habitats within the Site are vital to maintaining the conservation status of the local barn owl population. However, given that barn owl are known to be present within the wider local area, it is assumed for the purposes of this assessment that these areas of habitat may be utilised on an infrequent basis as part of the wider foraging resource.

The construction of the Proposed Development will result in the removal of approximately 3ha of potentially suitable barn owl foraging habitat within the Laydown/Works Area and the Existing Bund. The availability of suitable foraging habitat is often one of the key factors in maintaining conservation status of barn owl populations, however the areas to the north of the A303 surrounding the Site contain large areas of suitable barn owl foraging habitat, in

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-32 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

particular within the MoD land to the south and west of the Proposed Development. The implementation of the CEMP will ensure sensitive construction lighting that will minimise light spill into adjacent areas of suitable foraging habitat and avoid any significant reduction in the suitability of this habitat for use by barn owl.

On this basis the reduction in availability of foraging habitat for barn owl is likely to result in minimal impact on the conservation status of the assumed local barn owl population resulting in an effect that will be negligible and not significant. Bats Construction is expected to result in the permanent loss of two trees identified as having low suitability to support roosting bats. This will result in a minor reduction in the availability of the overall roost resource. A further two trees with low roost suitability located within the hedgerow that forms the boundary between the Construction Area and the Owls Lodge Solar Farm will be retained.

Four further mature trees identified as containing features with roosting potential (one high roost suitability and three low roost suitability) are all located outside of the Site (beyond the northern boundary of the Laydown/Works Area) and will be retained. Assuming the implementation of the CEMP, the lighting scheme during construction will be designed to minimise spillage into this area. Thus, no notable disturbance of these retained features is expected.

Enabling work and construction will result in the loss of the following habitat areas that provide foraging/commuting habitat utilised by the local bat assemblage:

· 4.3ha of semi-improved grassland; · 0.96ha of young broad-leaved plantation; · 1.85ha improved grassland; and · 0.38ha scrub. Hedgerows around the boundaries of the Site will be retained. It is assumed that the implementation of the CEMP will act to ensure sensitive construction lighting design that will seek to avoid directional lighting of hedgerows on the boundary of the Site and minimise light spillage onto these features.

While such measures will reduce light levels it is reasonable to assume that retained hedgerow and immediately adjoining habitat will be subject to disturbance during the 42 month construction period due to increased light levels. The impact of this change will differ between species, with it being potentially beneficial for some fast flying species such as Pipistrelle species and noctule, but potentially adversely impacting the foraging behaviour of slower flying species such as Myotis sp.

Large areas of suitable foraging habitat of equal or greater quality to that which will be lost as a consequence of the Proposed Development is located in close proximity to the Site, in particular within the areas of MoD land to the south and west of the Site. Construction lighting is considered unlikely to significantly alter the movement of bats across the wider landscape. Thus, no notable severance of bat foraging/commuting habitat is expected to occur.

Overall, the combined loss of habitat and potential for disturbance of retained due to construction lighting during the 42 month construction period has the potential to result in a minor reduction in the availability of suitable habitat available to the assemblage of bat species recorded utilising the Site. However, given that large areas of suitable foraging habitat are available within the wider local areas the resulting effect will be of relevance at the Local level only, and is not significant.

Following the completion of construction, it is expected that the Laydown/Works area in the north of the Site will be utilised to create a mosaic of approximately 3ha grassland, scrub and waterbodies habitats that will provide suitable replacement foraging habitat. As a consequence, following the establishment of this habitat (5-10 years) the adverse effect on the local bat assemblage is likely to reduce to negligible.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-33 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Breeding Birds Enabling works and the construction of the Proposed Development will result in the loss of the majority of the existing habitats at the Site (see paragraph 10.182). Assuming implementation of the CEMP, vegetation clearance will ideally be undertaken outside of the core bird nesting season, or following a check for active nests by an experienced ecologist. Therefore, it is assumed that any direct killing, injury or loss of nests will be avoided.

Construction will result in a reduction in the extent of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the local breeding bird population. Baseline surveys identified that habitat within the Site supports a range of common of widespread species, with only low numbers of territories of BoCC red and amber lists species identified within the Site during 2018 and 2019 surveys. A single skylark territory was recorded within the Laydown/Works area.

Given that the habitats which will be lost consist largely of semi-improved grassland habitat that is widely available within the surrounding areas, the direct impacts of habitat loss are expected to be limited for most species. However, there will be the direct loss of a single skylark territory.

Based on baseline survey data collected in 2018/2019 it is evident that the areas of potential nesting habitat adjoining the Site support a similar range of common bird species to those found within the Site. In addition, a further nine skylark territories (eight within areas of grassland were identified immediately to the north of the Owls Lodge Shooting School, and one within the Owls Lodge Solar Farm), and single territories of song thrush, mistle thrush were associated with the Owl Lodge Shooting School land located approximately 200 m to the east of the Site.

During the construction period (approximately 42 months) there is the potential for the disturbance and/or displacement of breeding birds attempting to utilise both retained habitat within the Site (principally the hedgerows on the boundaries) and that in close proximity, including ground nesting habitat suitable for skylark. Noise modelling for the construction period is not yet available. Therefore, the current assessment in relation to disturbance is preliminary only and will be updated in the ES when further data is available.

Disturbance (both visual and noise) is considered likely to render any retained habitat around the margins of the Site unsuitable to support successful breeding during the 42 month construction period. This is likely to result in failed breeding effort and reduced breeding success for at least some of the species which currently utilise the Site during this period.

The impacts of disturbance on breeding success of species utilising the areas of habitat to the east of the Site within the Owls Lodge Shooting School, and the MoD land to the south are likely to be less pronounced. The field of tussocky grassland within the Shooting School land is located approximately 200m to the east of the Site. In addition, it is already directly adjacent to the existing operational areas of the Site, therefore skylark already utilising this field are tolerating noise and visual disturbance from the operation of machinery in closer proximity. The MoD land to the south is located within close proximity to the A303 and therefore any species utilising these areas are likely to habituated to some degree to noise levels associated with the existing road.

Based on the above the combined impacts of habitat loss and disturbance during construction will be temporary (approximately 5yrs duration), and the resultant adverse effect on the conservation status of the local breeding bird assemblage is likely to reversible, relevant at the Local level only, and is not considered significant. Reptiles The Proposed Development will result in the loss of all suitable habitat for reptiles from within the Site. This totals an area of approximately 7.75ha (of varying quality) including the Laydown/Works Area within the triangular field which has good physical structure and provides the best quality habitat for reptiles within the Site.

These areas of habitat have been found to support a good population of slow worm and a low population of common lizard. Both slow worm and common lizard are Species of Principal

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-34 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Importance under the NERC Act, 2006. While both species have undergone large scale historic declines, they remain relatively widespread.

Prior to mitigation the Proposed Development has the potential to result in the killing, and or injury of common reptiles during the clearance of the Site. In combination with the loss of suitable habitat these impacts have the potential to result in an adverse effect on the conservation status of the local reptile population at the District level, which is significant.

Assuming implementation of the measures set out within this chapter (which include the trapping and/or displacement of reptiles from the Site and provision of approximately 3ha of replacement habitat creation) the impact would be reduced to a temporary reduction in habitat availability that would result in a temporary adverse effect on conservation status at the Local level that is not significant. Hazel Dormouse A presence/absence survey for hazel dormouse is ongoing and will be completed in November 2019. To date no evidence confirming the presence of hazel dormouse has been found, however dormouse are known to be present within the wider surrounding area.

The only areas of habitat within the Site considered to offer both suitable structure and diversity of food source to support dormouse are the hedgerows on the margins of the Site. These features are due to be retained with the exception of the removal of a small section (10-15m length) of hedgerow adjoining the existing site entrance.

On this basis, even if dormouse is confirmed to be present, any loss of suitable habitat as a consequence of the Proposed Development is likely to be very limited in scale (10-15m) and occur at location where there is already a break in connectivity. As a consequence, it is currently assumed that any impact of the Proposed Development on dormouse would be unlikely to result in a significant effect. It is likely that the effect on the conservation status of dormouse would be negligible and not significant. This conclusion will be revisited in the final ES following the completion of the nest tube survey.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-35 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table 10-15: Summary of Magnitude of Impact and Significance of Effect during Enabling Works, Construction and Commissioning

Receptor Value Description of Impact Magnitude of Significance of Significant effect Impact Effect (Yes / No) Internationally International Indirect effects due to changes in air None expected. No Negligible No designated sites quality during enabling works, international sites construction and commissioning within 10 km Nationally designated National Indirect effects (air quality, dust To be confirmed in To be confirmed in To be confirmed sites (e.g. River Test generation, noise and pollution incidents) ES following ES following in ES following SSSI, Bransbury during enabling works, construction and completion of air completion of air completion of air Common SSSI, East commissioning quality modelling quality modelling quality modelling Aston Common SSSI) Non-statutory County Indirect effects air quality, dust To be confirmed in To be confirmed in To be confirmed designated sites within generation, noise and pollution incidents) ES following ES following in ES following 2 km except during enabling works, construction and completion of air completion of air completion of air Longparish Cornfields commissioning quality modelling quality modelling quality modelling SINC (e.g. Drayton Down SINC, Tidbury Ring Wood SINC, Longparish Meadow SINC, Lower Mills Meadow SINC,) Longparish Cornfields County Indirect effects during construction due Habitat type Negligible No SINC to air quality changes, dust generation, unlikely to be noise and pollution incidents during susceptible to enabling works, construction and changes in nutrient commissioning levels Grassland/scrub District Habitat loss (followed by replacement Approximately 3ha Temporary adverse Yes mosaic within habitat creation) during enabling works, effect (5-10yrs) at Laydown/Work Area construction and commissioning District level (i.e. Triangular Field to north of Construction Area) Hedgerow District None (retained) N/A Negligible No

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-36 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Receptor Value Description of Impact Magnitude of Significance of Significant effect Impact Effect (Yes / No) Other habitats within Local Habitat loss during enabling works, Approximately Permanent adverse No the Site construction and commissioning 3.55ha grassland, effect at Local level 1ha broadleaved plantation and 0.85ha scattered scrub Protected and/or Up to National Indirect effects air quality, dust To be confirmed in To be confirmed in To be confirmed notable habitats outside generation, noise and pollution incidents) ES following ES following in ES following of the Site during enabling works, construction and completion of air completion of air completion of air commissioning quality modelling quality modelling quality modelling Barn Owl District Loss of potential foraging habitat and Loss of approx. Negligible No disturbance due to construction lighting 3ha habitat during enabling works, construction and commissioning Bats Up to County Habitat loss and potential disturbance Temporary loss of Temporary adverse No due to construction lighting 3ha grassland; effect at Local level permanent loss of (5-10yrs) a further 3ha grassland, 1ha broadleaved plantation, and 0.85ha scattered scrub; disturbance of flight lines during construction. Breeding Birds District Habitat loss and potential visual and Loss of Temporary adverse No noise disturbance approximately 1ha effect at Local level broadleaved (5-10 yrs) plantation and 0.85ha scrub, and disturbance of adjoining habitat. Reptiles Up to District Terrestrial habitat loss for slow worm and Loss of 7.75ha Temporary adverse No common lizard suitable habitat (of effect at Local level varying quality) (5-10 yrs)

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-37 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Receptor Value Description of Impact Magnitude of Significance of Significant effect Impact Effect (Yes / No) Hazel Dormouse Up to County Habitat loss (10-15m) and disturbance (if Minimal – majority Negligible No confirmed to be present) suitable habitat to be retained

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-38 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Operation and Maintenance Designated Sites There are no internationally important wildlife sites within 10 km of the development site. The nearest is the River Itchen SAC, located 14 km away at its closest. Based on the distance of these sites from the Proposed Development, the potential for adverse impacts on these sites due to changes in air quality during operation (due to emissions or changes to traffic movements) during operation is considered to be negligible.

With regard to other impact pathways that may connect to internationally important sites, the River Test ultimately drains to the Solent and thus to the Solent & Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar site and Solent Maritime SAC approximately 35 km downstream. However, the development site is 800m from the River Test at its closest and is not hydrologically connected. Therefore, no significant effects on downstream international sites will arise.

On the basis of the currently available information it is assessed that there is negligible potential for indirect impacts on internationally designated sites, and therefore the effect of the Proposed Development is expected to be negligible and not significant.

This PEIR includes the results of modelling of stack emissions from the Proposed Development in PEIR Volume II – Appendix 7-1 Air Quality utilising Air Pollution Information System (APIS) background concentrations (Ref. 10-39). However, diffusion tube surveys at potentially sensitive receptors will not be completed until December 2019 and traffic data is not yet available to inform air quality modelling.

Initial results from stack emission modelling suggest that based on Process Contribution (PC) and Predicted Environmental Concentration (PEC) values the potential for adverse impacts on protected sites and notable habitats cannot yet be ruled out. Key findings of the stack emission modelling relevant to the ecological assessment are as follows:

· NOx – At all but one location NOx concentrations will remain well below the critical level even with the scheme in operation. At Drayton Down SINC NOx concentrations will remain well below the annual critical level but will exceed the short-term (24hr) critical level. The implications of this will be discussed in the ES chapter; · Sulphur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) – At all locations concentrations will remain well below the critical level even with the scheme in operation; · Ammonia (NH3) – At all designated sites except the River Test SSSI the ammonia concentrations will remain well below the relevant critical level, even with the scheme in operation. This critical level will be breached at the River Test SSSI (for lichens) and at the closest area of priority habitat (for general vegetation), but in both cases this is predominately a result of the existing background concentrations rather than the scheme. The implications of this will be discussed in the ES chapter; · Nitrogen deposition – At all designated sites except Tilbury Ring Wood SINC and Drayton Down SINC a ‘small’ increase in nitrogen deposition (defined as an increase of 1-5% of the critical load) will occur due to the scheme. At Tilbury Ring Wood SINC and Drayton Down SINC a ‘medium’ increase in nitrogen deposition (defined as an increase of 5-10% of the critical load) will occur. For almost all sites the critical load is far exceeded but this is due to existing high nitrogen deposition rates rather than the scheme. The implications of this will be discussed in the ES chapter. · Acid deposition – At River Test SSSI, Bransbury Common SSSI and East Aston Common SSSI acid deposition rates are well above the critical load but that is due to the existing baseline rather than the scheme. However, at the River Test SSSI the scheme will result in a large increase in acid deposition (defined as an increase of more than 10% of the critical load). The implications of this will be discussed in the ES chapter. Further analysis will be undertaken using background NOX concentrations from NO2 diffusion tube data currently being collected at ecological sites in the study area (due to complete December 2019). This further analysis and conclusions will be presented within the ES as part of the DCO application.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-39 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

As for the construction stage assessment, Longparish Cornfields SINC cannot be included within the air quality modelling assessment as there are no reference critical loads for this habitat type. However, air quality changes as a consequence of the operation of the Proposed Development are considered unlikely to result in any changes that would adverse effect the structure and function of the SINC. As a consequence, the effect on Longparish Cornfields SINC during construction is likely to be negligible and not significant. Habitats Traffic and air quality modelling is yet to be finalised. The potential for the Proposed Development to result in impacts on these sites, and other priority habitats within 2km of the Site will be considered in full within the ES when air quality modelling has been completed through considering potential changes in air quality as a consequence of stack emissions and vehicle movements taking into account the critical loads for the habitats concerned.

Initial results from stack emission modelling suggest that the nitrogen deposition PC due to the scheme at the areas of priority habitat closest to the scheme, in particular those within Drayton Down will be particularly high. The implications of this will be discussed in the ES chapter.

Habitats of Principal Importance and ancient woodland within 2km of the Proposed Development will be assessed by considering the point of maximum impact at grid points within areas of potentially sensitive habitat. Protected and/or Notable Species Bats The operational lighting design for the scheme will be developed taken into account the guidance set out within the joint Institute of Lighting Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines on bats and artificial lighting (Ref. 10-37). Through the incorporation of these principals, the operational lighting scheme will seek to reduce operational light spillage, in particular along the route of retained hedgerows.

Operational health and safety requirements are likely to dictate that landscaped areas within the main Construction Area remain lit, and thus it is not realistic to expect that all landscaping habitat within the Site will be suitable to support foraging/commuting bats. However, assuming the implementation of a sensitively designed operational lighting scheme it is likely that retained hedgerows on the boundary can be retained with minimal long term disturbance of these features, and that light spill into retained and newly created habitats outside of the Construction Area would be minimised to a level that disturbance of adjoining habitats is minimal.

It is considered unlikely that the operation of the Proposed Development will result in any severance of existing flight routes and/or prevent bats accessing areas of their foraging habitat in the wide surrounding area such that they may impact their ability to access other areas of suitable habitat. As a consequence, operational lighting will result in a minimal disturbance of the local bat assemblage utilising the local area, therefore the resultant effect will be negligible and not significant. Barn Owl The operational lighting design for the scheme will be developed taken into account the guidance set out within the joint Institute of Lighting Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) guidelines on bats and artificial lighting (Ref. 10-37). Through the incorporation of these principals, the operational lighting scheme will seek to reduce operational light spillage, in particular along the route of retained hedgerows.

With the implementation of a sensitively designed lighting scheme (as described above) the impact on barn owl foraging and commuting within the wider landscape is likely to be minimal, therefore the resultant effect will be negligible and not significant.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-40 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Breeding Birds The operation of the Proposed Development has the potential to result in noise and visual disturbance that could impact breeding birds utilising retained habitats on the boundary of the Site, and adjoining habitats.

Noise modelling for the operational phase is not yet available. Therefore, the current assessment in relation to potential disturbance during operation is preliminary only and will be updated in the ES when further data is available.

During the operational phase it is expected that the majority of activity will be confined to the inside of buildings. In addition, the noise generated is considered likely to be low level background noise of a type that is less likely to result in disturbance that would result in abandonment of nests and reduced breeding success. As a consequence, the impact of disturbance during operation is likely to result in no more than a Site level effect that is not significant. Reptiles No ongoing impacts on the local reptile population are expected to occur as a result of the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Development. The effect of the Proposed Development will therefore be negligible and is not significant. Hazel Dormouse Hedgerows surrounding the Site will be retained and sensitively managed during the period of operation. Therefore, if the presence of dormouse is confirmed it is considered unlikely that there would be an adverse impact on dormouse during operation. The operation of the scheme is therefore likely to result in a negligible effect on the conservation status of any local dormouse population and will not be significant. This conclusion will be revisited in the final ES following the completion of the nest tube survey.

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-41 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Table 10-16: Summary of Magnitude of Impact and Significance of Effect during Operation and Maintenance

Receptor Value Description of Impact Magnitude of Significance of Significant effect Impact Effect (Yes / No) Internationally International Indirect effects due to changes in air None Negligible No designated sites quality during operation and maintenance Nationally designated National Indirect effects due to changes in air To be confirmed in To be confirmed in To be confirmed sites (e.g. River Test quality during operation and ES following ES following in ES following SSSI, Bransbury maintenance completion of air completion of air completion of air Common SSSI, East quality modelling quality modelling quality modelling Aston Common SSSI) Non-statutory County Indirect effects due to changes in air To be confirmed in To be confirmed in To be confirmed designated sites within quality during operation and ES following ES following in ES following 2km except Longparish maintenance completion of air completion of air completion of air Cornfields SINC quality modelling quality modelling quality modelling (e.g. Drayton Down SINC, Tidbury Ring Wood SINC, Longparish Meadow SINC, Lower Mills Meadow SINC, ) Longparish Cornfields County Indirect effects during Operation and None expected – Negligible No SINC Maintenance due to air quality changes, habitat not dust generation, noise and pollution susceptible to air incidents quality changes Protected and/or Up to National Indirect effects air quality, dust To be confirmed in To be confirmed in To be confirmed notable habitats outside generation, noise and pollution incidents) ES following ES following in ES following of the Site during Operation and Maintenance completion of air completion of air completion of air quality modelling quality modelling quality modelling Bats Up to County Disturbance due to operational lighting Minimal Negligible No during operation and maintenance disturbance due to light spill Breeding Birds Up to District Disturbance due to operational noise Low level reduction Permanent adverse No and visual disturbance in breeding effect at Site level success

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-42 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Receptor Value Description of Impact Magnitude of Significance of Significant effect Impact Effect (Yes / No) Barn Owl District Disturbance due to operational lighting Minimal Negligible No during operation and maintenance disturbance due to light spill Hazel Dormouse Up to County Disturbance of retained habitat during Minimal impact Negligible No operation expected

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-43 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility Mitigation and Enhancement Measures The following additional mitigation and enhancements measures are proposed, and it is expected that these (or similar) measures will be committed to within the ES that supports the DCO submission:

· Erection of barn owl nest boxes within the wider local area. The number of boxes will be agreed following the PEIR with stakeholders and included within the ES. In order to limit potential risk of collisions with vehicles utilising the A303, agreements will be made with third party landowners to site barn owl boxes within mature trees or buildings located at least 1 km from the A303. The additional breeding habitat will seek to increase breeding success within the wider local area, thus benefitting the long term conservation status of barn owl; and · Erection of bat boxes within retained mature trees on the boundary of the Works/Laydown Area following the completion of construction. Number and type of boxes to be agreed with stakeholders following the PEIR and included within the ES. The DCO application and ES will be accompanied by a Biodiversity Net Gain calculation comparing the losses and gains in biodiversity as a consequence of the Proposed Development, based on the habitats lost and those to be created. The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 to be utilised for this calculation incorporates a number of ‘risk’ multipliers that act to moderate the number of biodiversity units generated by those habitats created and take into account that newly created habitats will take time to establish before reaching their potential biodiversity value.

If the proposed embedded mitigation measures do not generate suitable biodiversity units to indicate that an overall net gain in biodiversity will be achieved, then further habitat enhancement, habitat creation, or financial contribution for offsite enhancement will be identified in the ES to ensure this aim is achieved. Residual Effects This section summarises the residual significant effects of the Proposed Development on ecology following the implementation of the assumed embedded and additional mitigation measures set out in paragraphs 10.168 and 10.235 respectively.

Significant residual effects are within this assessment defined as those within the CIEEM EcIA assessment methodology that will be of relevance at a District level or above. As set out in Table 10-3 this is comparable to moderate or major effects within other chapters of this PEIR. To allow comparison within conclusions the terminology used in other chapters (i.e. major, moderate, minor) are presented in brackets within this section following the relevant CIEEM EcIA assessment output.

Following the implementation of embedded mitigation the effect of the loss of the grassland/scrub mosaic arising from construction of the Proposed Development will reduce from an effect at the District level (Moderate adverse – Significant) to Negligible (Not significant).

For all other resources/features where sufficient information has been available to undertake an assessment of potential effects within this PEIR, the effects are expected to remain either Negligible (Not significant) or of relevance at only the Site or Local level. (Minor adverse – Not significant).

Currently, no significant residual effects are expected to occur. However this conclusion will be updated following the completion of air quality and noise monitoring and reported in the ES

Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-44 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Cumulative Effects Where residual effects of the Proposed Development are found to be negligible, these resources/features will not be considered in the cumulative effects assessment, as if a significant effect were to occur it would be due solely to the third party development concerned, rather than due to a cumulative effects.

The cumulative effects assessment presented in the ES will consider the potential for the following proposed or committed developments to result in cumulative or in-combination changes in air quality that may result in effects on designated sites and protected/notable habitats located within 2 km of the Proposed Development.

In particular the following proposed development has been identified as requiring consideration in relation to the air quality changes due to direct emissions as a result of the development:

· SIBOR Ltd (Ref: 16/00058/CMAN): Change of use to energy recovery centre ERC comprising the use of Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT) to convert non-hazardous waste into electricity and heat together with the erection of 2 no. flue stacks to existing building and provision of 2 no. dry air cooling towers – Plot 37 Central Way, Walworth Industrial Estate, Andover SP10 5AN. As set out in Chapter 6: Traffic and Transport the final list of committed and proposed developments to be considered in the traffic assessment (which will in turn inform the consideration of potential changes in air quality) will be agreed with Highways England and Hampshire County Council.

The cumulative assessment in the ES will also consider the potential for cumulative impacts on habitats and species as a consequence of cumulative habitat loss and disturbance due to the following:

· Proposals for a new office building on the MRF immediately east of the Proposed Development site. A precise location has not yet been determined; · Proposals for a buried electricity grid connection connecting the Proposed Development to the connection point in Andover. The route will be approximately 7-10 km depending on the chosen route. A precise route or route corridor has not yet been selected.

Prepared for: WTI EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-45 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility References

Ref. 10-1 The Planning Inspectorate (2019) Scoping Opinion: Wheelabrator Harewood Waste to Energy Facility. Case Reference EN010104. April 2019. The Planning Inspectorate.

Ref. 10-2 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Ref. 10-3 Protection of Badgers Act, 1992. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Ref. 10-4 Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Ref. 10-5 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006.

Ref. 10-6 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2017 (SI 2017 No.1012). Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

Ref. 10-7 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Bern, 19.IX.1979’. Council of Europe.

Ref. 10-8 Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Ref. 10-9 Department of Energy and Climate Change (2011) Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). HMSO, London.

Ref. 10-10 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019). National Planning Policy Framework. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national- planning-policy-framework--2 Accessed 21/09/2019.

Ref. 10-11 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2018). Planning practice guidance. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice- guidance Accessed 21/09/2019.

Ref. 10-12 Hampshire County Council (2013) Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan – October 2013 (Adopted). Available http://documents.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/HampshireMineralsWastePlanADO PTED.pdf Accessed 21/09/2019.

Ref. 10-13 Test Valley Borough Council (2016) Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD – Adopted Local Plan 2011-2029. Test Valley Borough Council.

Ref. 10-14 Test Valley Borough Council (2008) The Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Test Valley. May 2008. Test Valley Borough Council.

Ref. 10-15 Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership (1998) Biodiversity Action Plan for Hampshire: Volume 1. Available http://www.hampshirebiodiversity.org.uk/pdf/vol1/Biodiversitypages01-09.pdf Accessed 21/09/2019.

Ref. 10-16 Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership (1998) Biodiversity Action Plan for Hampshire: Volume 1. Available

Prepared for: WTI EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-46 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

http://www.hampshirebiodiversity.org.uk/pdf/vol2/Vol2ActionPlansp1-13.pdf Accessed 21/09/2019.

Ref. 10-17 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside website search facility. Available https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspxat Accessed 21/09/19.

Ref. 10-18 CEC Ltd. (2011) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Ecological Survey Report.

Ref. 10-19 CEC Ltd. (2012) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Ecological Survey Report.

Ref. 10-20 Ward Associates (2013) Ecological Assessment: A303 Recycling Centre, Barton Stacey, Hampshire – A report to Raymond Brown Minerals and Recycling.

Ref. 10-21 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010), Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit, JNCC, Peterborough.

Ref. 10-22 Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom (2010) ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. Available at https://www.arguk.org/info- advice/advice-notes/9-great-crested-newt-habitat-suitability-index-arg-advice-note- 5/file Accessed: 21/09/2019.

Ref. 10-23 Biggs J, Ewald N, Valentini A, Gaboriaud C, Griffiths RA, Foster J, Wilkinson J, Arnett A, Williams P and Dunn F (2014). Analytical and methodological development for improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.

Ref. 10-24 Collins J (Ed) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Ref. 10-25 GOV.UK (2015) Guidance: Hazel or common dormice: surveys and mitigation for development projects. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hazel-or-common-dormice- surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects Accessed 22/09/2019.

Ref. 10-26 Marchant, J.H. (1983). BTO Common Birds Census Instructions. British Trust for Ornithology, Tring.

Ref. 10-27 BTO (undated) BTO Species Codes. https://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u16/downloads/forms_instructions/bto_bird_spe cies_codes.pdf Accessed 22/09/2019.

Ref. 10-28 Gilbert G, Gibbons D.W. and Evans J. (1998) Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB Sandy.

Ref. 10-29 Gent, A. & Gibson, S. (1998) Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Peterborough, UK. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Ref. 10-30 Froglife. (1999) Reptile survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.

Ref. 10-31 Gov.uk (2016) Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit. Available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your- environmental-permit Accessed 28/09/19.

Ref. 10-32 Natural England (2019) The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 available http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5850908674228224 Accessed 28/09/19.

Ref. 10-33 CIEEM (2018) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Marine. CIEEM, Winchester

Prepared for: WTI EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-47 Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility

Ref. 10-34 The Barn Owl Trust (undated) Past UK Barn Owl Population. Available at https://www.barnowltrust.org.uk/barn-owl-facts/current-uk-barn-owl-population/past- barn-owl-population/ Accessed 12/10/19.

Ref. 10-35 Butterfly Conservation (undated) Factsheet: Striped lychnis. Available at https://butterfly-conservation.org/sites/default/files/1.striped_lychnis-psf.pdf . Accessed 02/10/19.

Ref. 10-36 Bat Conservation Trust (2019) Lighting Available at https://www.bats.org.uk/about- bats/threats-to-bats/lighting Accessed 29/09/19.

Ref. 10-37 Institute of Lighting Professionals (2018) Guidance Note 08/18: Bats and artificial lighting in the UK. Bats and the Built Environment series. Institute of Lighting Professionals/Bat Conservation Trust.

Ref. 10-38 British Standards Institute (2012) Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. British Standards Institute.

Ref. 10-39 UK Air Pollution Information System Available at http://www.apis.ac.uk/ Accessed 12/10/2019.

Prepared for: WTI EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10-48