Ecology Assessment Item
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Site: Land Off Mill Lane, Horsford Work Ecology Assessment Item: Client: Horsford Estate Author: Dr GW Hopkins CEnv MCIEEM Reviewer: Dr JI Thacker MCIEEM Date: 19 April 2017 Hopkins Ecology Ltd, St George’s Works, 51 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1DD T. 01603 435598 M: 07481 477103 E: [email protected] W: www.hopkinsecology.co.uk CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 Background 2 Site Context 2 Legislation and Planning Policy 2 2. METHODS 3 Personnel 3 Data Search 3 Field Survey 3 3. DESIGNATED SITES 4 Statutory Sites 4 Non-Statutory Sites 4 4. SITE DESCRIPTION 5 Overview 5 Habitats 5 Nearby Features 6 5. PROTECTED SPECIES SCOPING 7 Plants 7 Bats 7 Great Crested Newts 7 Birds 7 Reptiles 7 Small Mammals 8 Invertebrates 8 6. DISCUSSION 9 Evaluation 9 Impacts 9 Additional Surveys 10 Mitigation of Harm 10 Enhancements 10 7. APPENDIX 1: PLANS AND MAPS 11 8. APPENDIX 2: PHOTOGRAPHS 14 9. APPENDIX 3: LEGISLATION SUMMARY 16 SUMMARY Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by the Horsford Estate to prepare an ecology assessment of a parcel of land off Mill Lane, Horsford. A residential scheme of eight dwellings is proposed. The site is on the eastern edge of Horsford. The parcel is part of a grass field, located between residential housing and gardens to the west, a garden and block of woodland to the east, and Mill Lane to the north. The nearest County Wildlife Site is >700m distant, located further down Mill Lane. This County Wildlife Site is owned by the Forestry Commission and promoted for public recreation. Any increase in recreation is likely to be minor and of negligible significance. The site itself has a species-poor hedgerow along its north boundary. This qualifies as a Habitat of Principal Importance but not as an Important Hedgerow. A recent hedgerow has been planted along the west boundary, on the field side of existing garden hedging and fences; the east boundary is a fence, separating the site from a garden and woodland. The sward is classed as semi-improved without species indicative of acid grassland. It has been top dressed with agricultural grasses but includes a high proportion of herbs. The herbs appeared to be mainly common species of locations with periodic disturbance, and arable weeds and / or spring annuals were absent with the exception of common cudweed. This is a widespread species in Norfolk but of conservation concern at an international scale. Great crested newts are considered absent by virtue of the distance from the nearest pond and the site lacks cover for reptiles. Other species of conservation concern are likely to be present as occasional individuals or as foraging individuals as part of larger location populations, such as widespread birds, foraging bats and moths of widespread occurrence. It is not considered possible to include effective mitigation or enhancement for common cudweed, by virtue of its need for open grassland with periodic disturbance. Enhancements are therefore proposed for other species relevant to the local area, such as birds typical of village / rural interfaces (such as house sparrows, via soft landscaping and nest boxes), pollinators (via soft landscaping) and hedgehogs (via the inclusion of gaps in any fences). Page | 1 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment 1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND 1.1 Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by the Horsford Estate to prepare an ecology assessment of a parcel of land off Mill Lane Horsford. A residential scheme of eight dwellings is proposed. 1.2 This ecological assessment has been prepared with reference to best practice guidance published by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and as detailed in British Standard 42020:2013 Biodiversity - Code of Practice for Biodiversity and Development1 2. SITE CONTEXT 1.3 The site is located on the north-eastern edge of Horsford: to the south side of Mill Lane with its western boundary along the rear gardens of existing houses, part of the east boundary along a domestic curtilage and the remainder against a block of young woodland, and to the south is the remainder of the field. LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY 1.4 The following key pieces of nature conservation legislation are relevant to legally protected species (with a more detailed description in Appendix 3): The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations); and The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). 1.5 Also, the National Planning Policy Framework3 requires local authorities to avoid and minimise impacts on biodiversity and, where possible, to provide net gains in biodiversity when making planning decisions. A substantial number of species are of conservation concern in the UK. A small number of these species are fully protected under the legislation listed above, but others in England are recognised as Species of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and reinforced by the National Planning Policy Framework. For these species local planning authorities are required to promote the “protection and recovery” via planning and development control. Examples include the widespread reptiles, house sparrows and noctule bats. 1.6 Although the NPPF has an overarching aim of minimise impacts to biodiversity, the majority of species of conservation concern are not specifically recognised by legislation or planning policy. The level of protection afforded to these is undefined and should be considered within the overall aim of minimising impacts on biodiversity. 1 BS 42020:2013: Code of practice for biodiversity in planning and development. 2 CIEEM (2013) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Hampshire. 3 DCLG (2010) A National Planning Policy Framework for England. Department for Communities and Local Government, London. Page | 2 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment 2. METHODS PERSONNEL 2.1 This ecological assessment was prepared by Dr Graham Hopkins CEnv MCIEEM FRES. He holds full survey licences for great crested newts and bats and has 15 years of consultancy experience. He has particular specialisms in entomology. DATA SEARCH 2.2 A data search for a 2km radius around the site was commissioned from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS). FIELD SURVEY 2.3 The site visit was undertaken on 23 March 2017. The description of habitats was based on the methods of JNCC (20104), and searches were also made for direct signs of badgers with habitat based-assessment for other groups. Trees and Bats 2.4 Trees were assessed from ground level for their potential value for roosting bats, with the trees not in leaf at time of survey. The scheme proposed by Cowan (20065) for rating trees according to their potential suitability for roosting bats was used and this provides an useful supplement to the guidance of the Bat Conservation Trust with respect to tree assessments6: No value. No visible feature of use to bats. Low value. One or two minor features, possibly associated with feeding or night roosts, easily replaced; sparse ivy, minor branch splits, small areas of loose bark. Features <10 years old. Moderate value. Features which may provide a more secure site for small groups and individuals, fairly common features, dense ivy, significant branch splits, small cavities, present for between 10-30 years. High value. Features of particular significance, suitable for high priority roosts and large numbers of bats, conditions rare or uncommon in local area, large cavities, extensive branch splits, multiple opportunities in same trees, features may have been available >30 years. Confirmed roost. Evidence of bats, e.g. droppings. 4 JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Surveys. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 5 Cowan, A. (2003) Trees and Bats. Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 1. Arboricultural Association, Gloucestershire. 6 Collins, J. (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Page | 3 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment 3. DESIGNATED SITES STATUTORY SITES 3.1 There no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 2km. NON-STATUTORY SITES 3.2 There are nine County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) within 2km (Table 1), the majority arranged as a broad ‘arc’ around the north of Horsford, many of which are forestry sites with remnant heathland vegetation. Table 1. Designated sites within 2km. Reference Name Location Description 1353 Pyehurn Lane 561m, Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland Woodland west 2114 Horsford 757m, Two connected blocks of mature pine plantation with a Woods north relict heathland vegetation 2020 Horsford Rifle 918m, A mosaic of dry dwarf-shrub heath and acidic grassland Range north adjacent to Horsford Woods 1395 Black Park & 1.06km, Large area of oak Quercus robur dominated acid The Thicket south-east woodland types 2069 Botany Bay 1.37km, A mosaic of marshy grassland and remnant heath-acidic Farm north-west grassland 1352 Whinney Hills 1.37km, Formerly heathland now supports mature acid woodland, & Common north-west although patches of heathland do still occur 1397 Horsford 1.55km, A mixture of moderately diverse, neutral or slightly acid Heath east grassland on sandy soils and thick tall scrub of Scot's pine Pinus sylvestris and oak 2268 Drayton 1.75km, Exceptionally diverse registered common land with Drewray west extensive broadleaved woodland, both wet and dry, some coniferous and mixed wood and a central open area of acid grassland, with some marshy grassland, fen meadow