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 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), (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 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 and relict heath 1394 The 1.9km, Young scrub, with trees with several shallow pools some Wilderness south-east of which are quite species rich

Page | 4 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

4. SITE DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW 4.1 The site comprises a roughly rectangular plot arranged north-south, with Mill Lane to the north, residential housing and gardens to the west, the garden of a single dwelling and young woodland to the east, and to the south is the remainder of the field; beyond the remainder of the field is a block of woodland The proposed development site has an area of approximately 0.51ha excluding the portion of the field outside of the red line boundary 4.2 As viewed on Google Earth, the sward was clearly improved (or possibly even arable) in 1999 with regular lines possibly from re-seeding, and the available photographs at intervals since then show a grass sward without apparent management. Woodland to the south of the main field is marked as ‘deciduous woodland priority habitat’ but the woodland block to the east is not. HABITATS 4.3 The habitat plan is shown on Appendix 1: Figure 2. 4.4 The main field has been recently re-seeded or ‘top dressed’ (probably in 2016) with an agricultural grass sward and the seeding rows were still apparent in many areas. The agricultural grasses noted included rye grass Lolium species and fescues Festuca species, with the other grasses noted being meadows grasses Poa species (probably Poa annua and P. trivialis) and also Timothy Phleum pratense. Along the field margins there were occasional plants of false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius and cock’s foot Dactylus glomerata. 4.5 Throughout, however, the grass sward contained numerous herbs, including patches where herbs were the most frequent cover. Only common and widespread species typically associated with areas of sporadically disturbed areas were noted rather than species considered to be components of a more typical arable weed fauna or ‘spring annuals’; the only exception was common cudweed Filago vulgaris. Species typical or indicators of acid grassland were absent. Red dead nettle Lamium purpureum was particularly conspicuous as moderately large patches especially along the eastern part of the field. Other species noted comprised:

 In the more central parts of the field were: red dead nettle, ragwort vulgaris, ribwort and broadleaved plantain Plantago lanceolata and P. major, common mouse ear Cerastium fontanum, white clover Trifolium repens, lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea, selfheal Prunella vulgaris, cut-leaved cransesbill Geranium dissetum, and creeping buttercup Ranunculus acris.  Along the margins especially the east margin, additional species included white dead nettle Lamium album, nettle Urtica dioica and groundsel vulgaris.  Near the field entrance the soil was more compacted and the herbs were mainly common weeds of short compacted swards such as broadly leaved plantain and daisy Bellis perennis. 4.6 The field margin comprised:  West margin. Here the boundary to the domestic gardens was marked by a low bank with a new hedgerow planted at its base on the ‘field side’ for most of the length of the western boundary. This hedgerow comprised whips planted as a staggered double row protected by protective spiral guards; the only species noted in the whips was hawthorn Cratageus monogyna. Four oak saplings were present at the south-west end of the

Page | 5 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

site boundary. The garden planting along the top of the bank was sparse with a number of ornamentals, including occasional lengths of hawthorn and evergreen honeysuckle Lonicera species. In some places there were wooden panel fences along the boundary.  The south boundary was largely continuous with the remainder of the field, with a small section against a block of deciduous woodland. The block of woodland here had a more diverse structure than the block to the east, with oak as the most frequent tree with a shrub layer of holly Ilex aquifolium and occasional cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus.  The east boundary was a wire fence for most of its length, with some fence panels where a domestic garden ran alongside the boundary (at the north-east). Alongside the southern part of this boundary was a block of young oak woodland, albeit with mature trees. The shrub layer was up against the wire fence and this appeared to be mostly hawthorn and bramble Rubus fruticosus. There is a mature oak within ~5m of the site boundary located within the domestic garden.  The north boundary had a gate at the north-east corner and for approximately half of the length along Mill Lane ran a species-poor hedgerow, dominated by hawthorn but with single plants of holly Ilex aquifolium and elm as a tall sucker, probably small- leaved elm Ulmus minor. This hedgerow had a verge of rank grass at its base, mainly false oat grass, with tall herbs such as nettle, cleavers Galium aparine, broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius and nettle. On the roadside the flora comprised common low growing herbs in an area used by traffic, such as broad-leaved plantain, with extensive areas of compacted bare earth. NEARBY FEATURES 4.7 The woodland along the east and south boundaries was young, albeit with mature (but not veteran or over mature) oak trees. The 1946 RAF aerial photograph is not available but on the 1880s OS map the adjacent site to the south and east is marked as ‘heath’. 4.8 There are no ponds in the vicinity:  The nearest pond marked on OS maps (but apparently absent on Google Earth) is located 480m to the south-east with arable fields occupying part of the intervening land between this pond and the site (albeit with some patches of woodland also).  The next nearest pond is 770m north-east.

Page | 6 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

5. PROTECTED SPECIES SCOPING PLANTS 5.1 Common cudweed Filago vulgaris was present as an infrequent component of the grass sward. This is of conservation concern at an international level but not at a national level; it is discussed further under Section 6. BATS 5.2 The data search returned records for five species, many (but not all) of which are records from the Norfolk Bat Survey: Natterer’s, noctule, common and soprano pipistrelles, and brown long- eared. No roost records were returned. 5.3 There are no trees on the site. 5.4 In the general vicinity the adjacent woodland appeared to be relatively young and as far as could be viewed the trees lacked significant potential roost features, other than aerial dead wood. The mature oak in the garden near to the north-east boundary is considered to have some potential roost features, such as limb scars and larger aerial dead timbers, and is considered to be of ‘moderate’ potential suitability for roosting bats. 5.5 It is considered that roosting bats are absent from the site. GREAT CRESTED NEWTS 5.6 Several records of great crested newts were returned by the data search, but all from NDR surveys to the south-west of the Horsford conurbation near to the 2km search limit. 5.7 The pond nearest to the site is within 500m, which is the radius considered to be the very upper limit for dispersal of great crested newts. Even if occupied it is unlikely that individuals would disperse to the site due to the distance and also the presence of some unsuitable intervening habitat (i.e. arable). 5.8 It is considered that great crested newts are absent. BIRDS 5.9 The data search returned a number of records for species very unlikely to be present, such as osprey, but a number of species typical of village / rural interface are known locally, namely: spotted flycatcher, song thrush, bullfinch and house sparrow. 5.10 The site is considered to offer only low quality nesting habitat for birds, with little cover other than in the north hedgerow and the main field too open for ground nesting species. For the majority of local species it is likely to be of lower quality for foraging, other than by species such as house sparrow, song thrush and as starling. These species are likely to be foraging relatively widely in the vicinity and the importance of the site to local populations will be low; house sparrows were not noted during the survey. REPTILES 5.11 Records for all four Norfolk species were returned by the data search:  Adders, grass snake, and common lizard are known extensively from the woodland / heathland areas to the north of Horsford.  Slow worms are known from the plantation woodlands to the north and also the south- east and north-east edges of Horsford (both localities are ~400m from the site).

Page | 7 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

5.12 The site is considered to be unsuitable or at least have very low potential suitability for reptiles. The site itself lacks any cover other than the herbaceous vegetation along the verge of the north hedgerow, and more substantial areas of cover such as logs and large stools with root cavities are absent. 5.13 It is considered that reptiles are absent. SMALL MAMMALS 5.14 Small mammals are assessed as follows:  Badgers are known from the Horsford Woods area >1km from the tie. There was no evidence during this survey and they are considered absent.  Hedgehogs are known from numerous records locally, but the site lacks cover or shelter and is unlikely to be used other than by foraging individuals as part of a larger local population. INVERTEBRATES 5.15 The data search returned records for a number of species of conservation concern. All of the records are for all the ‘widespread’ species afforded the status of Species of Principal Importance due to recent population declines (Butterfly Conservation, 20077). These are typically rather generalist and associated with a range of herbs / shrub species as larval food plants. Within the data search records the more specialist species comprise: a single wetland species and the butterfly as a species of ‘open short sward’ grassland8. 5.16 The site could be utilised by a limited number of widespread species, principally those associated with herbaceous vegetation or dry grassland, albeit by individuals as part of larger local populations. The site otherwise lacks features of particular note for invertebrates, such as open substrate with varied topography; its agricultural management further reduces the likelihood of a rich assemblage of heathland species being present.

7 Butterfly Conservation (2007) Biodiversity Action Plan – Moths. Available from: http://butterfly- conservation.org/files/uk-bap-species-moths-research-only.pdf 8 As analysed using the Invertebrate Species-habitat Information System of Natural England: http://www.brc.ac.uk/pantheon/content/isis

Page | 8 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

6. DISCUSSION EVALUATION Habitats and Plants 6.1 The north hedgerow is likely to qualify as a Habitat of Principal Importance (cf Maddock, 20119) but not as an Important Hedgerow under the Hedgerow Regulations. As an example of an agricultural hedgerow it is of low quality. 6.2 The grass sward is considered to be semi-improved. It does not appear to include species typical of acid grassland. 6.3 The presence of common cudweed is of note as this is considered to be ‘Near Threatened’ at an international scale10. However, within the UK it is not listed as being of conservation concern, and locally:  The Flora of Norfolk11 describes it as “well distributed, particularly common on some set aside fields on dry soils where it can be almost the dominant in early summer”; the distribution maps shows it to be across the county other than on clay or peat soils (i.e. it is known from Norwich northwards to the coast as well as elsewhere).  The Important Arable Plant Areas of Norfolk12 describes it as “widespread on lighter soils. Often arable but perhaps more often in other disturbed habitats”. Animals 6.4 The site is unlikely to be used by species of conservation concern other than for occasional foraging by widespread species including bats and hedgehogs, or in low numbers by invertebrates. All these species are likely to be present locally as larger populations and the value of the site for these is likely to be low. Summary 6.5 Notwithstanding the hedgerow as a Habitat of Principal Importance and the presence of common cudweed, the site is considered of value at the local scale only. IMPACTS Designated Sites 6.6 The project site itself is small and not adjacent to any designated sites. However, the nearest County Wildlife Site (CWSs) is located down Mill Lane and as such likely to be used by walkers and dog walkers from the eastern edge of Horsford. Any net contribution to increase in recreation is likely to be low by virtue of the small size of the scheme (eight dwellings). The nearest CWS accessible along Mill Lane is Horsford Woods and this is owned by the Forestry Commission and promoted for recreational use13 and consequently already well used; the net increase in any recreational impact is likely to be negligible. On-site Features 6.7 The project proposals (Appendix 1: Figure 3) are for eight dwellings with associated access, drives and domestic curtilages. The principal impacts of the scheme are likely to be largely restricted to the loss of semi-improved grassland.

9 Maddock, A. (2011) UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions. Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf 10 Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (2005) The Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 11 Beckett, G. and Bull, A. (1999) A Flora of Norfolk. Gillian Becket, Norfolk. 12 Walker, H., Cunningham, S., Ellis, B., Neal, S. and Swan, E. (2012) Important Arable Plant Areas in Norfolk. Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership, Norwich. 13 https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/wood/?woodId=10853&woodName=horsford- woods

Page | 9 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

6.8 The loss of the grassland habitat is not thought likely to result in a significant impact on any local populations of animals. ADDITIONAL SURVEYS 6.9 No additional surveys are recommended. MITIGATION OF HARM 6.10 It is thought that the majority of the site is not suitable for nesting birds, but works near the north hedgerow should have regard for nesting birds and avoid works that may damage active nests. This is most easily achieved by undertaking works outside of the nesting season of March-August inclusive, or otherwise having a qualified ecologist check for active nests immediately before the start of works. It is not thought that initial site clearance would affect other protected species, by virtue of the sparse ground cover, and no specific mitigation is proposed. In the very unlikely event of protected species being found during site clearance then works should cease and advice sought. 6.11 Site compounds with artificial lights should be located away from the north-east corner to minimise risk of light spill on any bats roosting in the nearby tree. Site lighting within the completed scheme should aim to minimise light spill along the north boundary, using directional lighting with cowls. ENHANCEMENTS 6.12 As measures for ecological enhancement, the following is suggested:  Garden fences should include holes at ground level to allow hedgehogs to pass through, allowing continued access and some foraging through the site. The holes should preferably be within the gravel boards rather than the fence panel14.  Bird and bat boxes are recommended. The scheme includes a number of outbuildings and it is suggested that at least three boxes are erected specifically for house sparrows, with these being multi-chambered to allow gregarious nesting. A number of designs are suitable15 and should be located out of direct mid-day sun, and at least 2m above ground. If possible, bat boxes should be erected on trees within the adjacent woodland, using either standard designs of wood or ‘woodcrete’16, with at least six boxes located as a small group facing different aspects at least 3m above ground.  Soft landscaping. It is not feasible to include mitigation for the common cudweed, by virtue of the difficulty of ensuring a continuity of open grassland in sunny locations with periodic disturbance. It is proposed that any new planting on the site should aim to be of value to birds, especially by providing insect prey in the spring for chicks and fledglings, and also by providing good plants for insects. Planting options include a range of native species with examples including: o Shrubs. Bird cherry Prunus padus, guelder rose Viburnum opulus, hazel Corylus avellana and dogwood Cornus sanguinea. o Small trees. Rowan Sorbus aucuparia, crab apples Malus sylvestris, hornbeam including fastigaite hornbeam and silver birch Betula pendula. o Climbing plants / climbers. Traveller’s joy or wild clematis Clematis vitalba and native honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum.

14 https://www.jacksons-fencing.co.uk/hedgehog-fencing.aspx 15 http://shopping.rspb.org.uk/rspb-sparrow-terrace-nest-box.html 16 http://shopping.rspb.org.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=bat+boxes

Page | 10 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

7. APPENDIX 1: PLANS AND MAPS Figure 1. Designated sites (from NBIS).

Page | 11 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

Figure 2. Site ecology plan.

Page | 12 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

Figure 3. Site masterplan.

Page | 13 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

8. APPENDIX 2: PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 4. North hedgerow, looking west.

Figure 5. North hedgerow, looking west on inside of field.

Page | 14 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

Figure 6. West boundary with woodland beyond, looking north.

Page | 15 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

9. APPENDIX 3: LEGISLATION SUMMARY Non-technical account of relevant legislation and policies. Species Legislation Offence Licensing Bats: Conservation of Deliberately capture, injure or kill a A Natural England (NE) European Habitats and bat; deliberate disturbance of bats; licence in respect of protected Species or damage or destroy a breeding development is required. species Regulations 2010 site or resting place used by a bat. (as amended) [The protection of bat roosts is Reg 41 considered to apply regardless of whether bats are present.] Bats: Wildlife and Intentionally or recklessly obstruct Licence from NE is required National Countryside Act access to any structure or place for surveys (scientific protection 1981 (as used for shelter or protection or purposes) that would involve amended) S.9 disturb a bat in such a place. disturbance of bats or entering a known or suspected roost site. Birds Wildlife and Intentionally kill, injure or take any No licences are available to Countryside Act wild bird; intentionally take, damage disturb any birds in regard to 1981 (as or destroy the nest of any wild bird development. amended) S.1 while that nest is in use or being built. Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Schedule 1 species while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young of such a species [e.g. kingfisher]. Great Conservation of Deliberately capture, injure or kill a Licences issued for crested Habitats and great crested newt; deliberate development by Natural newt: Species disturbance of a great crested newt; England. European Regulations 2010 deliberately take or destroy its eggs; protected (as amended) or damage or destroy a breeding species Reg 41 site or resting place used by a great crested newt. Great Wildlife and Intentionally or recklessly obstruct A licence is required from crested Countryside Act access to any structure or place Natural England for surveying newt: 1981 (as used for shelter or protection or and handling. National amended) S.9 disturb it in such a place. protection Adder, Wildlife and Intentionally kill or injure any No licence is required. common Countryside Act common reptile species. However an assessment for lizard, grass 1981 S.9(1) and the potential of a site to snake slow S.9(5) support reptiles should be worm undertaken. Scientific Wildlife and To carry out or permit to be carried Owners, occupiers, public Interest Countryside Act out any potentially damaging bodies and statutory (SSSI) 1981 (as operation. SSSIs are given undertakers must give notice It is an amended) protection through policies in the and obtain the appropriate offence Local Development Plan. consent under S.28 before undertaking operations likely to damage a SSSI. All public bodies to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs.

Page | 16 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment

Species Legislation Offence Licensing County There is no Local sites are given protection Development proposals that Wildlife statutory through policies in the Local would potentially affect a local Sites designation for Development Plan. site would need to provide a local sites. detailed justification for the work, an assessment of likely impacts, together with proposals for mitigation and restoration of habitats lost or damaged.

Page | 17 Mill Lane, Horsford: Ecology Assessment