Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL 2 Feb 2019 20190166 PLANNING CONTROL Hemblington Hall Barns

for

Mr. & Ms. Burtenshaw

11 June 2018

11 June 2018 1 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Client Hemblington Hall Barns Mr. & Ms. Burtenshaw Hemblington Hall Hemlington Hall Road Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Hemblington Norwich NR13 4EF

Planning authority Broadland District Council

Thorpe Lodge 1 Yarmouth Road Norwich NR7 0DU

Time limit of reliance Please note that the reported surveys were conducted on the date(s) stated in the report and that it represents site conditions at the time of the visit. The findings and recommended mitigation are based on these conditions. If site conditions change materially after the site survey, the original report cannot be relied upon and will need to be updated. Ecological reports can typically be relied on for 18 to 24 months from the date of survey.

Document Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Version 1.0 Date 11 June 2018 Author Nathan Duszynski M.Sc, B.Sc (Hons), Grad CIEEM, Natural England licences (Bat survey level 2, Great crested newt level 1) Reviewer Etienne Swarts B. Compt (Hons) F Deg Sc ACIEEM Natural England licences (Bat survey level 2, Great crested newt level 2, Hazel dormouse level 1) Signed disclosure The information, data, advice and opinions provided in this report which I have provided is true and has been prepared in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. I confirm that the opinions expressed are my true and professional bona fide opinions. Etienne Swarts, ACIEEM Greenlight Environmental Consultancy Limited Diss Business Hub Hopper Way Diss Norfolk IP22 4GT www.greenlightco.co.uk

11 June 2018 2 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Table of Contents

SUMMARY 4 1. INTRODUCTION 6 2. METHODOLOGY 6 3. LEGISLATION AND POLICY 11 4. SITE CONTEXT 13 5. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT 15 6. DESKTOP REVIEW 15 7. FIELD STUDY 18 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 40 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY 46

APPENDIX A MAP OF PROTECTED SITES WITHIN 2KM APPENDIX B PROTECTED SITES CITATIONS APPENDIX C LEGISLATION APPENDIX D GREAT CRESTED NEWT HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX APPENDIX E PLANT SPECIES RECORDED ON SITE APPENDIX F EXAMPLES OF BAT AND BIRD BOXES APPENDIX G EXAMPLES OF HEDGEHOG FRIENDLY FENCING APPENDIX H NATIVE SPECIES SUITABLE FOR PLANTING AND SOWING APPENDIX I PROPOSED PLANS

11 June 2018 3 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

SUMMARY • This report considers the ecological aspects relating to a proposed site for development at Hemblington Hall, Hemblington Hall Road, Hemblington, Norwich, Norfolk, NR13 4EF. A preliminary ecological appraisal has been carried out. • The ecology report is required in support of a planning application for the demolition of one barn, and conversion of the remaining structures into residential dwellings and garden storage. • The survey and assessment were completed by independent, qualified and experienced ecologists with Natural England survey licences for the relevant protected species. • The findings of the assessment are that the habitats on the site are of moderate ecological value and that there are no significant ecological constraints that would prevent the proposed works. • Further surveys for bats and great crested newts are required to inform an ecological impact assessment of the site and an appropriate mitigation strategy. • Mitigation and enhancement recommendations for birds and reptiles are outlined below.

Protected Recommended mitigation and Status Potential effect habitats/species enhancements Protected sites Two statutory protected No significant impacts None required. sites and six non- are predicted on statutory protected sites protected sites and within 2km. their qualifying features. Protected habitats No priority habitats on Low scale of habitat Mitigation site. loss predicted for Soft landscaping scheme to include the Proposed works involve wildlife. planting of new trees and hedgerows the between plots and around the site, using conversion/demolition native species. of buildings and the Construction work to be carried out in removal of scrub, accordance with BSI (2012), BS 5837:2012, scattered trees and to protect trees and their root protection rubble piles. areas. Bats Low and moderate bat Destruction or Mitigation roosting potential in disturbance of roosts One bat activity survey conducted on buildings one (dairy if present. building one (dairy barn) to determine barn) and two (main Low scale loss and appropriate mitigation strategy. barn) on site. potential light Two bat activity surveys conducted on Negligible bat roosting disturbance of building two (main barn). potential in remaining commuting and Depending on the outcome of the surveys, buildings. foraging habitats on a European Protected Species Mitigation site. Negligible bat roosting Licence might be required. The potential in trees on development is able to accommodate site. mitigation such as a bat loft or new crevice Low value commuting roosting opportunities. and foraging habitat on Lighting schemes should comply with Bat site. Conservation Trust and CIE 150:2003 guidance.

11 June 2018 4 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Protected Recommended mitigation and Status Potential effect habitats/species enhancements Breeding birds Nesting habitats for Low scale loss of Mitigation scrub, tree and building nesting habitat on Works to any scrub, trees and buildings on nesting birds present on site. site to be conducted outside bird nesting site. Potential disturbance season or under watching brief of Blue tit and robin nests to breeding birds. ecologist if during nesting season. found on site. Enhancement Site habitat not suitable Installation of one integrated swift box and for ground nesting birds. one small bird box for every building on Suitable barn owl site, installed on buildings and trees foraging habitat on site. respectively. Installation of one barn owl box erected on a building or tree. Great crested Terrestrial habitats on Potential harm to GCN Mitigation newts the site suitable. if present on site An eDNA survey to be conducted on ponds Four ponds within 250m during works. three and four adjacent the site to of the site, two ponds Loss of GCN terrestrial determine GCN presence/absence and to assessed as average and habitat not considered inform the potential need for further good suitability. Two significant to a local surveys to determine a population class ponds dry. population of GCN, if assessment, and an appropriate mitigation No GCN records within present. strategy. 2km. No impacts on potential GCN aquatic habitat. Water voles, No suitable habitat on No impacts predicted. None required. otters, white- and adjacent the site. clawed crayfish One water vole and 75 otter records within 2km. Reptiles Habitats on site suitable. Reptiles unlikely to be Precautionary mitigation No reptile records found on site and no Cut and maintain vegetation short within 2km. impacts predicted. (maximum height of 10cm) on and around the site until the start of works. Badgers No badger signs on site No impacts predicted. None required. and habitat unsuitable for badger setts. No badger records within 2km. Other animals Numerous solitary bee Potential harm to Mitigation burrows observed animals. Porous hedgehog friendly fencing should within the internal and be used within and around the site. external walls of barns. Solitary bee habitat to be provided, which could comprise an external south or east facing wall of soft red bricks and a prepared wooden artificial structure. Any excavations on the construction site should be covered during the night. Night lighting of the construction site should be minimised as far as possible. Construction materials should be stored off the ground on pallets.

11 June 2018 5 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Greenlight Environmental Consultancy Ltd. has been commissioned to carry out a preliminary ecological appraisal of a site for development at Hemblington Hall, Hemblington Hall Road, Hemblington, Norwich, Norfolk, NR13 4EF. The grid reference of the proposed site is TG 35183 11312. 1.2. This report provides an ecological appraisal of the site within the context of the surrounding area. It outlines the habitat features on the site, the likelihood of protected species being

present and any potential effects of the proposed development on protected species.

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. A desktop review of published data, such as records of protected sites and species, OS maps and satellite images has been carried out. A data search was carried out with the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (“NBIS”). 2.2. A field survey visit was conducted on 17th May 2018 to confirm the findings of the desktop review and to record habitats and species located on site. Survey conditions were as follows: temperature at 14oC, moderate wind, sunny intervals and dry. The survey was carried out by Etienne Swarts and Nathan Duszynski. 2.3. Equipment available for use during the survey were binoculars, ladders, torches and a digital camera.

Bats 2.4. An assessment of the habitats on and surrounding the site for bat interest was made, in accordance with latest bat survey guidelines (Collins, 2016). 2.5. The buildings on site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats and involved a thorough internal and external search of all suitable cavities, holes and crevices. All suitable areas, including objects, ledges and floors were inspected for the following signs:

• Bat droppings • Stains around roosting places and entrance points • Urine marks • Prey remains • Areas devoid of cobwebs • Live or dead bats • Suitable cracks and crevices for bats to enter

11 June 2018 6 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

2.6. In exposed conditions, the signs of bat usage such as droppings and urine marks can be obliterated by heavy rain. 2.7. An evaluation system was applied to the buildings using the following criteria:

• Negligible roost suitability for bats. These buildings have no potential roosting features for bats, or very few or minor features in an isolated or unsuitable location such that the presence of a bat roost is considered highly unlikely. Such buildings usually fall into two main types: generally, well maintained without cracks and crevices, no gaps between bargeboard or soffit and wall, or without an attic space; or those which contain some or all of the above features, but are both draughty and thick in cobwebs or contain strong odours such as solvents, diesel etc. It must be borne in mind that a building from this latter group can become suitable for bats following refurbishment. This often happens to houses once the attic space has been cleaned and under-felted prior to timber treatment. When no suitable habitats for bats are found, no further surveys or European Protected Species (“EPS”) mitigation licence are required. • Low roost suitability for bats. Buildings in this category have one or more potential roost sites that could be used by individual bat opportunistically. These buildings do not however provide suitable conditions (such as space, shelter, temperature, humidity, or light and noise disturbance) to be used on a regular basis by a large number of bats. Structures with low roost suitability for bats will require one dusk emergence or one dawn re-entry survey conducted between May and August to assess their current use by bats. • Moderate roost suitability for bats. These buildings contain one or more potential roosting sites which could be regularly used by bats owing to their size, shelter, protection and conditions. These buildings are however unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (maternity roost or hibernation roost). Structures with moderate roost suitability for bats will require two surveys, one dusk emergence and one dawn re-entry survey conducted between May and September with at least one of the surveys undertaken between May and August, to assess their current use by bats. • High roost suitability for bats. This group includes buildings with one or more potential roost sites which are obviously suitable for use by a larger number of bats on a regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time owing to their size, shelter, protection and conditions. These buildings may support a roost of high conservation status (maternity roost or hibernation roost) and will require three activity surveys to assess their current use by bats. The surveys should include at least one dusk emergence and at least one dawn re-entry survey (the third survey can either be at dusk or dawn) and should be conducted

11 June 2018 7 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

between May and September with at least two of surveys undertaken between May and August.

2.8. Trees on and around the site were assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats. The assessment involved a ground level inspection of the exterior of the trees to search for features offering roosting potential to bats such as split limbs, woodpecker holes, cavities, lifted bark and dense thick-stemmed ivy. 2.9. An evaluation system was applied to the trees using the following criteria:

• Negligible roost suitability for bats. Tress unlikely to be used by roosting bats. • Low roost suitability for bats. A tree of sufficient size and age to contain Potential Roosting Features (“PRFs”), but with none seen from the ground or features seen with only very limited roosting potential. • Moderate roost suitability for bats. A tree with one or more potential roost sites that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status. • High roost suitability for bats. A tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter, protection and surrounding habitat.

2.10. The habitats on and around the site were assessed for their commuting and foraging potential for bats. An evaluation system was applied to the commuting and foraging potential using the following criteria.

• Negligible commuting and foraging potential for bats. Habitat features unlikely to be used by commuting or foraging bats. • Low commuting and foraging potential for bats. Habitats that could be used by a small number of commuting or foraging bats such as, a gappy hedgerow, unvegetated stream or lone trees, but are isolated and not well connected to the surrounding landscape. • Moderate commuting and foraging potential for bats. Habitats that are continuous and connected to the wider landscape such as, lines of trees, scrub, linked back gardens, grasslands and water features. • High commuting and foraging potential for bats. Habitats that are continuous and connected to the wider landscape such as, river valleys and tree lined watercourses, hedgerows, lines of trees, deciduous woodland, and grazed parkland. These habitats are likely to be used regularly by commuting or foraging bats and are likely to be close to, or connected to, known roosts.

11 June 2018 8 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Birds 2.11. The site and its surrounding habitats were assessed for their potential to support breeding birds. Bird nesting habitat could include grassland, hedgerows, scrub, trees and buildings. 2.12. Bird species noted during the site visit were recorded. Trees, buildings and grassland were checked for use by barn owls Tyto alba, swifts Apus apus and skylarks Alauda arvensis.

Great crested newts 2.13. Habitats on and near the site were assessed for their suitability for great crested newts (“GCN”). 2.14. Water features on and near the site were assessed for their suitability for occupation by GCN, according to a Habitat Suitability Index (“HSI”). The HSI is a theoretical index of a waterbody’s suitability to support a breeding population of GCN and is calculated from a series of ten variables recorded on site, as detailed in Table 1 and Appendix D.

Indices Name Description SI1 Geographic Location Lowland England or upland England, Scotland and Wales SI2 Pond area To the nearest 50m² SI3 Permanence Number of years’ pond dry out of ten SI4 Water quality Measured by invertebrate diversity SI5 Shade Percentage shading of pond edge at least 1m from shore SI6 Fowl Level of waterfowl use SI7 Fish Level of fish population SI8 Pond count Number of ponds within 1km divided by 3.14 SI9 Terrestrial habitat Quality of surrounding terrestrial habitat SI10 Macrophytes Percentage extent of macrophyte cover on pond surface Table 1, HSI indices.

The HSI score is the geometric mean of the ten suitability indices calculated:

HSI = (SI1 x SI2 x SI3 x SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10)1/10

Once calculated, the HSI score for a waterbody can be categorised as follows:

Excellent (>0.8) Good (0.7 – 0.79) Average (0.6 – 0.69) Below Average (0.5 – 0.59)

11 June 2018 9 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Water voles, otters and white-clawed crayfish 2.15. Water features on and adjacent to the site were assessed for use by water vole Arvicola amphibius, otter Lutra lutra and white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. 2.16. Otters in England typically use areas of fresh water and streams and ditches for moving between habitats. Otter holts are usually located underneath tree roots, in tunnels. Field signs of presence include spraints on prominent features such as bridges, tree bases or boulders, and footprints. 2.17. Water voles inhabit burrows in the banks of ponds, ditches, streams and rivers. Field signs include droppings left in latrine spots, burrow entrances or feeding remains. 2.18. White-clawed crayfish inhabit streams and rivers with a moderate flow rate, and lakes. Clear, well-oxygenated water is preferred. Typical habitat features include crevices in rocks, gaps between stones, submerged plants and tree roots.

Reptiles 2.19. The habitats on the site and within the proposed area of works were assessed for suitability for reptiles. 2.20. Reptiles rely on conditions that allow them to maintain their body temperature through basking. They require access to direct sunlight, shelter from the elements, sufficiently large populations of prey species and hibernation sites. 2.21. Reptiles typically favour a habitat mosaic with a diverse vegetation structure, which could include grassland, scrub and woodland.

Badgers 2.22. An inspection of all habitats with the potential to support badger Meles meles sett construction and foraging activities on the application site was undertaken. Any incidental observations of badger signs were also recorded. The survey comprised searching for evidence of badger activity in the form of setts, droppings, pathways, snuffle holes, hair and footprints.

Other protected species 2.23. Particular regard was made to the nature of the proposed development and the potential of impact upon any other protected species from the development work, should it be present in the area.

11 June 2018 10 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

3. LEGISLATION AND POLICY Legislation for protected sites and species (see Appendix C for detail) 3.1. The Ramsar Convention (1971) on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat seeks to promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands, particularly those which support internationally significant numbers of water birds. This is achieved through the designation of Ramsar Sites. 3.2. The European Community Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) sets out general rules for the conservation of all naturally occurring wild birds, their nests, eggs and habitats. It requires member states to designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for protection of certain species. 3.3. The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in Great Britain is The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This Act is supplemented by provision in The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (in England and Wales). This act provides varying degrees of protection for the listed species of flora and fauna, including comprehensive protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs. 3.4. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 strengthens the protection given to SSSIs. It revises the procedures for the notification of SSSIs and for the consenting of operations which may damage the special interest of a SSSI. Local authorities have a duty to take steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs. The act also strengthens the existing provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the enforcement of wildlife legislation, including a new offence of "recklessly" destroying or damaging the habitats of certain protected species. 3.5. UK wildlife is also protected under The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (which were issued under the European Communities Act 1972), through inclusion on Schedule 2. In 2010, these Regulations, together with subsequent amendments, were consolidated into The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 3.6. The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites. The Regulations make it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill, disturb, or trade in the animals listed in Schedule 2, or pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 4. However, these actions can be made lawful through the granting of licenses by the appropriate authorities. Licenses may be granted for a number of purposes but only after the appropriate authority is satisfied that there are no satisfactory alternatives and that such actions will have no detrimental effect on wild

11 June 2018 11 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

population of the species concerned. 3.7. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidates previous badger legislation by providing comprehensive protection for badgers and their setts, with a requirement that any authorised sett disturbance or destruction be carried out under licence. 3.8. The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 aim to protect important hedgerows in the countryside. They make it illegal to remove most countryside hedges without first notifying the local planning authority, and provide protection for 'important hedgerows'. 3.9. County Wildlife Site is a non-statutory designation used to identify high quality wildlife habitats in a county context. Local Authorities have a responsibility as part of their planning function to take account of sites of substantial nature conservation value and to consider them alongside other material planning considerations. The location of County Wildlife Sites will be included in Local Plans and Development Documents.

National Planning Policy - National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 3.10. Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF): Biodiversity and geological conservation states that ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by … minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.’ 3.11. Office of The Deputy Prime Minister (“ODPM”) Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the planning system. 3.12. Paragraph 98 of Circular 06/2005 states that ‘the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat’.

Implications of legislation and policies 3.13. Without this ecological assessment, the potential developer would be unable to demonstrate due diligence in his responsibilities. Furthermore, the local planning authority would not have been provided with sufficient information for a planning decision to be made. This could result in non-determination or refusal of the application. 3.14. With legal responsibilities and planning implications, it is essential that any ecological assessment of a potential development site, including the area of this report, must determine the possible presence or absence of any protected species as part of any planning development consideration. 3.15. Where mitigation or compensation measures are required to ensure that no significant impacts will result on biodiversity from the development, the proposed measures may be secured through planning conditions or by EPS Mitigation Licences from Natural England.

11 June 2018 12 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

4. SITE CONTEXT Location 4.1. The general location of the site is shown in Figure 1 below. 4.2. The site is situated in a rural arable landscape, with the A47 road and Blofield Heath located approximately 1.3km south and west respectively. The closest town is Acle, located approximately 4.5km east of the site. 4.3. The site is enclosed by Hemblington Hall Road to the north, an arable field to the east, a dried- up pond encroached by trees to the south and a residential dwelling to the west. The wider surroundings are comprised of a mixture of residential dwellings, several blocks of woodland and arable fields lined with mature trees and hedgerows.

Photo 1, road frontage and existing north access to the site, looking south.

11 June 2018 13 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Figure 1 Satellite image of site surroundings, site indicated by red line. Image © Microsoft, date accessed 25/05/18

11 June 2018 14 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT 5.1. The proposals are for the demolition of one barn, and conversion of the remaining structures into residential dwellings and garden storage. Please refer to Appendix I for the proposed plans. 5.2. The access route for construction and occupation of the site will be gained from the existing entrance to the north of the site from Hemblington Hall Road.

6. DESKTOP REVIEW Protected sites Statutory 6.1. There are two statutory protected sites located within 2km – one National Park and one Local Nature Reserve (“LNR”).

i. The Broads National Park, approximately 1.7km north of the site. “The area has international designations because of its unique nature conservation value. Although the Broads only accounts for about 0.1% of the UK’s land area, it has 26% of the UK’s most rare and threatened plants and animals. This amounts to more than 1,500 conservation priority species.”

ii. South Walsham Fen LNR, approximately 1.4km north of the site. “Semi-improved grassland in the western half and has a more acidic influence in the eastern half, with abundant bracken along the hedgeline. The hedge itself marks an old route and is species-rich though unmanaged.”

Non-statutory 6.2. There are six non-statutory protected County Wildlife Sites (“CWS”) located within 2km of the site. Please refer to Appendix B for the full citations.

i. South Walsham Meadows CWS, approximately 1.9km northeast of the site. “This site is an area of marshy grassland which is bordered by ditches and a small stream. The grassland is grazed by cattle and becomes drier and more degenerated towards the east and south. There are a few ditches cutting through the site which are impeded with vegetation.”

ii. Mousehold Plantation CWS, approximately 1.6km northwest of the site. “This site comprises a very complex area of woodland on either side of a stream feeding a large ornamental lake. Wet woodland is located within the valley floor and moving up slope the woodland becomes drier and acid.”

11 June 2018 15 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

iii. South Walsham Fen CWS, approximately 1.4km north of the site. “This site is an area of dense fen and swamp vegetation, with areas of species rich marshy grassland. The marsh has formed in a shallow depression on either side of a flowing stream.”

iv. Belt Plantation CWS, approximately 1.8km southeast of the site. “Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland, the wood was part of the northern boundary of the former Burlingham Park Estate. It now constitutes part of the Burlingham Woodland Trails which link together Church & Drive, Belt and Long Plantations along a network of waymarked footpaths. There are traces of a parish boundary earthbank in the centre of the wood, and there are raised earthbanks along the northern and southern boundaries. The wood has a history of past and recent management.”

v. Walsham Wood CWS, approximately 0.7km northwest of the site. “A largely wooded site within a valley that is a tributary of the River Bure. The dominant woodland comprises alder (Alnus glutinosa).”

vi. Church & Drive Plantations CWS, approximately 1.5km southeast of the site. “Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland. Planted prior to 1808, the woodland comprised part of the former Burlingham Park Estate. It now constitutes part of the Burlingham Woodland Trails which link together Church & Drive, Belt and Long Plantations along a network of waymarked footpaths. A resumption of management in 1989 has included clear-felling of conifers, thinning, underplanting, and the implementation of a hazel coppice regime.”

Protected habitats 6.3. There are no Priority Habitats located on the site, and only one Priority Habitat located within 0.5km – Deciduous Woodland located approximately 0.3km southeast. 6.4. Other Priority Habitats to occur within 2km include Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh, Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pasture, Lowland Fens and Traditional Orchards.

Protected species 6.5. The biodiversity data search within 2km of the site indicated 380 protected species records. 6.6. The protected species recorded within 2km include 12 insect species, 57 bird species, otters, hedgehogs Erinaceus europaeus, water voles, brown hares Lepus europaeus and at least 10 bat species. 6.7. Records of note within 2km and relevant to the proposed development works are:

11 June 2018 16 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

• 13 records of barn owls between 2006 and 2011. • Four records of swifts between 2010 and 2011. • 75 records of otters between 2009 and 2013. • 13 records of hedgehogs between 2003 and 2015. • One record of a water vole from 2011, located approximately 1.4km southeast. • 120 records of bat species between 2009 and 2016 including common pipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelles Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, brown long-eared bats Plecotus auritus, serotines Eptesicus serotinus, noctules Nyctalus noctula, Leisler’s bats Nyctalus leisleri, Daubenton’s bats Myotis daubentonii, Natterer’s bats Myotis nattereri, barbastelles Barbastella barbastellus and other unidentified bat species. • 12 records of Natural England bat roosts between 1997 and 2012. Species include: unidentified pipistrelles Pipistrellus sp., soprano pipistrelles, brown long-eared bats, serotine, Natterer’s and an unidentified bat species.

Protected species licences 6.8. A 2km search on http://www.magic.gov.uk/ indicated no records of granted European Protected Species (“EPS”) Mitigation Licences.

11 June 2018 17 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

7. FIELD STUDY Habitats 7.1. The site consists of four buildings in varying states of repair, with areas of amenity grassland and hardstanding being encroached by scrub. 7.2. Figure 2 provides a phase 1 map of the habitats present on the site. The habitats on site have been defined using the handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey classification (JNCC, 1993). A full list of plant species recorded on site is attached in Appendix E.

Scrub (phase 1 habitat classification A2) 7.3. The site features several areas of scrub, which are encroaching on the dilapidated buildings and hardstanding. Species include: bramble Rubus fruticosus, nettle Urtica dioica, spear thistle Cirsium vulgare, wall bedstraw Galium parisiense, white dead-nettle Lamium album and willowherb Epilobium sp.

Parkland and scattered trees (phase 1 habitat classification A3) 7.4. The site contains several scattered trees. Species include: blackthorn Prunus spinosa, crack willow Salix fragilis, English oak Quercus robur, field maple Acer campestre and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna.

Amenity grassland (phase 1 habitat classification J1.2) 7.5. A large proportion of the site features an area of amenity grassland regularly managed as lawn. Species include: black medick Medicago lupulina, clover Trifolium sp., cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, daisy Bellis perennis, dandelion Taraxum officinale, perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, yarrow Achillea millefolium and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus.

Fence (phase 1 habitat classification J2.4) 7.6. The site contains a mixture of brick walls and timber post and rail fences on the site boundaries, which are being encroached by vegetation.

11 June 2018 18 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Buildings (phase 1 habitat classification J3.6) 7.7. There are four buildings on site that are in varying states of repair and being heavily encroached by scrub and ivy Hedera helix. Please refer to the bat section detailed below for further information.

Hardstanding (phase 1 habitat classification J5) 7.8. The site features large areas of gravel, compacted aggregates and rubble hardstanding, which are being encroached by scrub and scattered trees.

11 June 2018 19 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

1

1

1

Figure 2 Phase 1 habitats on site. Image © Microsoft, date accessed 18/05/18

11 June 2018 20 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Target note Comments number

Numerous burrows occupied by solitary bees. Species identified included: 1 common mourning bee Melecta albifrons and hairy-footed flower bee Anthophora plumipes. Table 2, phase 1 target notes.

Photo 2, amenity grassland and scrub in the northwest corner of the site, looking east.

11 June 2018 21 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 3, scrub between the dairy and main barns, looking north.

Photo 4, scrub and scattered trees situated on hardstanding along the southern boundary, looking southeast.

11 June 2018 22 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 5, scrub and scattered trees situated on hardstanding along the eastern boundary, looking east.

Photo 6, scrub and scattered trees situated on hardstanding along the eastern boundary, looking northeast.

11 June 2018 23 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Bats 7.9. There are four buildings located on site, as indicated in Figure 3 and photos 7-16.

2 3

1

4

Figure 3 Location and numbering of buildings located on site. Image © Microsoft, date accessed 25/05/18

Building one – dairy barn 7.10. The dairy barn is of brick construction, with the southern compartment featuring an open fronted east aspect. The roof is comprised of clay pantiles and timber barge boards on the gable ends. The east and west aspects feature a mixture of open eaves with exposed timbers, and brick and mortar capped eaves respectively. The barn contains a mixture of timber and metal framed windows, with those on the east aspect lacking glass. The building is in a fair condition, with metal support rods within the southern compartment. 7.11. Internally, the barn features three voids, that vary in size and structure.

i. The northern compartment features an inaccessible loft space which measures approximately 7m long, 3m wide and 1.5m high.

11 June 2018 24 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

ii. The two middle compartments feature open voids that are connected via an open doorway. The voids are lined with reed and plaster, with boarding between rafters that is rapidly deteriorating, exposing the lining and roof tiles above. The combined size of the void is approximately 13m long and 5m wide. A ridge beam is present within the roof structure, with minimal cobwebs present. iii. The southern compartment features an open void that measures approximately 10m long and 5m wide. The void is unlined, with tiles fixed directly on to battens. A ridge beam is present within the roof structure, with minimal cobwebs present.

7.12. Although there are numerous roosting opportunities present under slipped, missing and/or raised tiles, and within gaps in the brickwork, there is a significant amount of natural light in the middle and southern compartments from the windows and doorways. There were no signs of bats internally or externally, but these may be obscured by the roof lining. 7.13. The dairy is assessed as low roost suitability for bats due to its location and roosting features.

Photo 7, north and west aspects of building one, looking southeast.

11 June 2018 25 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 8, internal view of building one, looking north.

Photo 9, open fronted east aspect of building one, looking southwest.

11 June 2018 26 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 10, internal view of the open fronted east aspect of building one, looking southwest.

Building two – main barn 7.14. The main barn is a brick structure dating from the late 17th century. Although the majority of the roof has collapsed, five timber trusses remain on the northern compartment and a partially collapsed clay pantile roof is present on the northeast section. 7.15. The northeast compartment measures approximately 5m long, 4m wide and 4m high, and is lined with bitumen felt. The barn is in a poor condition, with a significant amount of vegetation growth. 7.16. There are numerous roosting opportunities present within the brickwork and although there were no signs of bats internally or externally, weather conditions may removal all evidence present. 7.17. The main barn is assessed as moderate roost suitability for bats due to its location and roosting features.

11 June 2018 27 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 11, south and west aspects of building two, looking northeast.

Photo 12, northeast compartment of building two, looking west.

11 June 2018 28 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 13, internal view of the northeast compartment of building two, looking northwest.

Building three – garden store 7.18. The garden store has a complex construction and has partially collapsed. The structure features brick and flint walls on the north and east aspects, with a timber frame and corrugated tin on the south and west aspects. The roof is comprised of a mixture of clay pantiles on the northern section, with corrugated tin elsewhere. The building is in a poor condition, with a significant amount of vegetation growth. 7.19. Internally, the building features an open void spanning the length of the structure, measuring approximately 15m long and 4m wide. The void is partially lined with plastic sheeting and features a ridge beam. 7.20. There were no signs of use by bats on the building exterior or interior and the structure provides an unsuitable roost environment, with no suitable cavities for roosting bats. The garden store is assessed as negligible roost suitability for bats.

11 June 2018 29 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 14, west aspect of building three, looking east.

Photo 15, internal view of building three, looking south.

11 June 2018 30 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Building four – small barn 7.21. The small barn is of brick construction and was inaccessible during the survey. The roof is comprised of unlined clay pantiles, with open eaves and has partially collapsed on the south aspect. The building is in a poor condition, with a significant amount of vegetation growth. 7.22. Although the building couldn’t be accessed internally, the structure had a significant amount of natural light and provided no suitable roosting opportunities. No signs of bats were present on the building exterior. 7.23. The small barn is assessed as negligible roost suitability for bats due to its location and roosting features.

Photo 16, north and west aspects of building four, looking southeast.

11 June 2018 31 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 17, south and west aspects of building four, looking northeast.

Trees 7.24. The trees around the site boundary were assessed for bat roosting potential and were considered unsuitable due to their age and/or lack of features.

Foraging and commuting links 7.25. The landscape immediately adjacent to the site is considered of moderate value for foraging and commuting bats, with hedgerows and treelines providing foraging and commuting links to the wider landscape, including several blocks deciduous woodland. Hemblington Hall adjacent the site has the potential to provide roosting opportunities for bats. 7.26. The site itself provides low value foraging habitat for bats over scrub and around scattered trees, with bats mainly using nearby woodlands for foraging.

Birds 7.27. Birds in the UK are classified into three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Factors such as global threat level, population decline, breeding population decline and contraction of breeding range are taken into account to determine classification. 7.28. The following bird species were observed during the site visit:

11 June 2018 32 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Amber listed: Swift Apus apus

Green listed: Blackbird Turdus merula Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Collared dove Streptopelia decaocto Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Great tit Parus major Greenfinch Carduelis chloris Robin Erithacus rubecula Swallow Hirundo rustica Woodpigeon Columba palumbus

No status: Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

7.29. The site provides suitable nesting habitats for scrub, tree and building nesting species. Green listed blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus and robin Erithacus rubecula were observed nesting within the walls of main barn. 7.30. The site was considered suitable for breeding swifts, albeit no nests were observed during the site visit. 7.31. Skylarks use grassland habitats for nesting, but the site is considered too enclosed by tall boundary vegetation and buildings for use by skylarks. Extensive nesting habitat for skylarks is located in the near vicinity of the proposed site. No skylarks were recorded on site during the survey. 7.32. A collection of approximately 20 barn owl pellets were present within the dairy barn, with a further five present in the northeast compartment of the main barn. This evidence is indicative of roosting individuals, with no breeding sites identified. The site provides some suitable habitats with a mosaic of scrub, amenity grassland and rubble piles.

Great crested newts 7.33. There are no ponds within the survey site and four further ponds within 250m, which for the size of the development and nature of terrestrial habitat on the site, is a sufficient distance to consider for assessment (Figure 4). GCN are most likely to occupy good quality terrestrial habitat within 250m of a breeding pond (English Nature, 2001).

11 June 2018 33 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

7.34. The terrestrial habitats on the site are considered suitable for GCN, consisting of scrub and rubble piles. 7.35. Terrestrial habitats adjacent the site include a mixture of optimal (hedgerows, treelines and deciduous woodland) and unsuitable/suboptimal (arable fields, residential dwellings, gardens and hardstanding) GCN foraging, commuting and hibernating habitats. 7.36. Ponds one and two did not appear to exist, having been filled or dry for a prolonged period of time. Ponds three and four were assessed as average and good suitability for GCN respectively (Tables 3 and 4).

Photo 18, pond one dry for a prolonged time, looking southeast.

11 June 2018 34 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Pond three SI No. SI score Comment 1 1.00 Within UK Zone A 2 0.05 <50m2 surface area 3 0.90 Never dries 4 1.00 Good invertebrate diversity 5 1.00 50% shoreline shade 6 1.00 Waterfowl absent 7 1.00 Fish absent 8 0.89 8 ponds within 1km which aren’t separated by ecological barriers 9 0.33 Poor quality terrestrial habitat 10 1.00 80% macrophyte cover Mean 0.65 Average suitability for GCN Table 3, HSI score for pond three.

Photo 19, pond three, looking southwest.

11 June 2018 35 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Pond four SI No. SI score Comment 1 1.00 Within UK Zone A 2 0.40 200m2 surface area 3 0.50 Dries ≥3 years in 10 4 1.00 Good invertebrate diversity 5 1.00 5% shoreline shade 6 1.00 Waterfowl absent 7 1.00 Fish absent 8 0.86 7 ponds within 1km which aren’t separated by ecological barriers 9 0.33 Poor quality terrestrial habitat 10 1.00 80% macrophyte cover Mean 0.75 Good suitability for GCN Table 4, HSI score for pond four.

Photo 20, pond four, looking south west.

11 June 2018 36 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Pond 2

Pond 4

250m

Pond 3

Pond 1

Figure 4 Ponds within 250m of the proposed site. Image © MAGIC, date accessed 25/05/18

11 June 2018 37 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Water voles, otters, white-clawed crayfish 7.37. The site and ditches directly adjacent the site are considered unsuitable for water voles, otters and white-clawed crayfish, with no burrows, holts or signs of use observed.

Reptiles 7.38. The habitats on the site are considered suitable for reptiles, consisting of scrub and rubble piles. 7.39. Habitats located on the site boundaries including scrub and walls could be used as commuting habitats by reptiles if they were present in the area. 7.40. Terrestrial habitats adjacent the site include a mixture of suboptimal (hedgerows, treelines and deciduous woodland) and unsuitable (arable fields, residential dwellings, gardens and hardstanding) reptile foraging, commuting and hibernating habitats.

Badgers 7.41. No signs of badger presence were found on or near the site and although the habitats on site were considered unsuitable for badger setts, suitable foraging and commuting habitat is present within the amenity grassland and scrub. 7.42. Habitats within the local vicinity include arable fields, hedgerows, treelines and deciduous woodland, providing suitable habitats for badger setts, foraging and commuting.

Other animals 7.43. The following bee species were observed during the site visit:

No status: Common mourning bee Melecta albifrons Hairy-footed flower bee Anthophora plumipes

7.44. Numerous solitary bee burrows were observed within the internal and external walls of buildings one and two, as indicated in Figure 2 and Photo 21.

11 June 2018 38 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Photo 21, internal wall of the northwest corner of building two, looking west.

11 June 2018 39 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Protected sites 8.1. The development footprint falls outside all identified protected sites (statutory and non- statutory). There are two statutory protected sites and six non-statutory protected sites located within 2km of the site.

• The closest statutory protected site (South Walsham Fen LNR), is located approximately 1.4km north of the site and designated for its semi-improved grassland. • The closest non-statutory protected site (Walsham Wood CWS), is located approximately 0.7km northwest of the site and designated for its deciduous woodland.

8.2. The proposed development falls outside of any Sites of Special Scientific Interest (“SSSI”) Impact Risk Zones relating to rural residential developments. 8.3. The proposed development is expected to have no effects on statutory or non-statutory protected sites or their qualifying features, owing to its relatively small scale, distance to protected sites and limited predicted impacts beyond the area of works.

Habitats 8.4. The habitats on the site are of moderate ecological value, being a mixture of amenity grassland scrub, scattered trees, buildings and hardstanding. There are no priority habitats on the site. 8.5. The proposed works will require extensive vegetation clearance of the habitats on site and the conversion/demolition of the buildings. This is expected to result in a low scale loss of nesting habitat for scrub, tree and building nesting birds, and a low scale loss of foraging features for bats. Please refer to the bat section below for predicted impacts on buildings and trees with potential bat roosts. 8.6. As a precautionary measure, the following mitigation is recommended to avoid impacts on habitats from the proposed works:

i. A soft landscaping scheme including the planting of new trees and hedgerows between plots and around the site, using native species (see appendix H for suggested species). ii. Construction works carried out in accordance with British Standards Institution (2012), BS 5837:2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – recommendations, to protect trees which are to be retained and their root protection areas.

11 June 2018 40 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Bats 8.7. Buildings one (dairy barn) and two (main barn) are assessed as low and moderate bat roosting potential respectively. Although there were no signs of bats internally or externally, evidence may be obscured by the roof lining or removed by recent weather conditions. 8.8. Buildings three (garden store) and four (small barn) are assessed as negligible bat roosting potential, with no signs of bat use and a lack of suitable roosting conditions. 8.9. The proposed conversion/demolition of the buildings is likely to materially modify or destroy potential bat roosting locations. Buildings one (dairy barn) and two (main barn) will require further surveys and mitigation to avoid impacts on bats, with mitigation detailed below. 8.10. The trees on and adjacent to the site are assessed as of negligible bat roosting potential, due to their age and/or lack of features. 8.11. The site itself provides low value foraging habitat for bats over scrub and around scattered trees. 8.12. The following mitigation is recommended to determine bat species present, the nature of their use of the building and any roosting locations:

i. At least one bat activity survey (comprised of one dusk emergence) to be conducted on building one (dairy barn) between May and August, to meet current bat survey guidelines (Collins, 2016). ii. At least two bat activity surveys (comprised of one dusk emergence and one pre-dawn return-to-roost survey) to be conducted on building two (main barn) between May and September, to meet current bat survey guidelines (Collins, 2016). iii. If bats are found to be present and roosting within the building(s), further activity surveys and a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence may be required for the development. iv. Lighting schemes should follow guidance from the Bat Conservation Trust and CIE 150:2003. Warm-white (long wavelength) lights with UV filters should be fitted as close to the ground as possible. Lighting units should be angled below 70° and equipped with movement sensors, baffles, hoods, louvres and horizontal cut off units at 90°.

8.13. The outcomes of further activity surveys will inform the detailed recommended mitigation for bats. We consider that the conversion of the buildings into a new residential dwelling will be able to accommodate this in the form of a bat loft and/or bat boxes (see Appendix C for examples). 8.14. Building Regulations state that the energy efficiency of buildings must be improved where possible and that contractors must assess the condensation risk within the roof space and make appropriate provisions in line with BS 5250:2011. This British Standard states that both High

11 June 2018 41 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Resistance (bitumen type 1F) and Low Resistance (breathable roof membranes “BRM”) underlays are acceptable as long as appropriate ventilation is provided. As BRM are proven to entangle bats through regular contact, which also compromises the integrity of the membrane, the Bat Conservation Trust recommend only traditional type 1F bitumen is used.

Birds 8.15. The site provides nesting habitats for scrub, tree and building nesting birds. The site habitats are not considered suitable for ground nesting species. 8.16. The proposed works will require the conversion/demolition of the buildings and clearance of vegetated habitats including scrub and scattered trees. This is expected to result in a low scale loss of nesting habitat for nesting birds. 8.17. Any works affecting bird nesting habitat such as management of scrub, trees or buildings would ideally need to be conducted outside the main nesting season, which lasts from March to August. If work is planned during the bird nesting season then a precautionary check of all habitats, should be conducted by a qualified ecologist immediately prior to starting any work. If any nesting birds are found, an appropriate protection zone from the nest will be required and should be maintained until the young have fledged. 8.18. As enhancements, we recommend the installation of:

i. One integrated swift box for every building on site (Schwegler Brick Nest Box Type 25 – Appendix F). ii. One small bird box for every building on site (Schwegler 1B or 2H Nest Box – Appendix F). iii. One barn owl box erected on a building or tree on site (Appendix F). iv. Native hedgerows to be planted with trees between plots and around the site (see appendix H for suggested species).

8.19. Natural England and Local Planning Authorities (“LPA”) have recognised a significant decline in swift populations across the country, and are actively endorsing integrated swift boxes to provide a net gain in biodiversity, as is encouraged by NPPF 2012.

Great crested newts 8.20. Terrestrial habitats on site were considered suitable for GCN, comprising of a mixture of scrub and rubble piles.

11 June 2018 42 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

8.21. Aquatic habitats within 250m of the site were assessed for their suitability for GCN. Ponds three and four were assessed as average and good suitable for GCN respectively, while the remaining ponds were dry. 8.22. The data search indicated no records of GCN within 2km of the site. 8.23. The proposed works are expected to impact a relatively small portion (≈0.2ha) of locally valuable GCN terrestrial habitats, that may be used as a commuting route between ponds three and four. Aquatic habitats will be unaffected. Proposed works include the conversion the buildings and clearance of scrub/rubble piles, which involves a risk of injuring or killing individual GCN potentially present within the site. 8.24. The following mitigation is recommended to avoid potential impacts on GCN from the proposed works:

i. An eDNA survey to be conducted on ponds three and four to determine GCN presence/absence from water samples collected in suitable weather between April and June. eDNA surveys detect pond occupancy from GCN using traces of DNA shed into the pond environment. Further surveys to determine a population class size estimate may be required if GCN are found to be present.

8.25. The outcomes of further surveys will inform the detailed recommended mitigation for GCN, which could include the need for a European Protected Species Mitigation licence for GCN. We consider that the development will be able to accommodate this in the form of habitat creation, hibernacula construction and translocations, if required.

Water voles, otters and white-clawed crayfish 8.26. The data search indicated one record of a water vole and 75 records of otters within 2km of the site. 8.27. No suitable habitat is present on or near the site, no impacts are expected from the proposed development and no mitigation is required.

Reptiles 8.28. The habitats on site were considered suitable for reptiles, comprising of a mixture of scrub and rubble piles. 8.29. The data search indicated no records of reptiles within 2km of the site. 8.30. The proposed works will require extensive vegetation clearance of the scrub and rubble piles on site. This is expected to result in a very low scale loss (≈0.2ha) of suitable reptile habitat.

11 June 2018 43 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

8.31. As a precautionary measure, the following mitigation is recommended to avoid impacts on reptiles from the proposed works:

i. Vegetation on site should be cut and maintained short (maximum height of 10cm) until the start of works, to discourage animals from using these areas.

8.32. After these precautionary mitigation measures, we predict no impact on reptiles as a result of the development plans, and no further surveys are necessary.

Badgers 8.33. The data search indicated no records of badgers within 2km of the site. 8.34. No suitable habitat is present on or near the site for badger setts, no impacts are expected from the proposed development and no mitigation is required.

Other animals Hedgehogs 8.35. The surrounding habitat of the site is considered suitable for hedgehogs, which have been recorded within 2km. To maintain potential hedgehog routes within the site and between the site and further habitats, we recommend that any fencing installed is porous and provides access openings for hedgehogs (see Appendix G for examples).

Bees 8.36. Bees have declined significantly over recent decades, with nearly half of the 270 British wild bees designated as Nationally Scarce or Red Data Book species. At least 19 bees are thought to have become extinct over the last 200 years, which shows a rate of nearly one extinction for every decade (BWARS, 2012). 8.37. The following mitigation is recommended to compensate for the loss of solitary bee nesting habitat from the proposed works:

i. The provision of a south or east facing external wall from soft red brick, measuring at least 3m by 3m. A grid of 100 tunnels (10mm diameter, 1” deep) should be drilled in at a height of at least 1m and spaced 1” apart. In addition, artificial wooden solitary bee habitat is recommended in a suitable location.

11 June 2018 44 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

General wildlife 8.38. General mitigation to protect wildlife during the construction period are as follows:

• Any excavations on the construction site should be covered during the night to prevent animals from falling in. • Lighting of the construction site at night should be minimised as far as practicable, to reduce the risk of possible disruption to nocturnal animals such as bats and badgers. • Construction materials should be stored off the ground on pallets, to prevent providing shelter for animals and subsequent harm when materials are moved.

Conclusion 8.39. In overall conclusion, no significant ecological constraints were identified that would adversely affect the proposed development at the site. 8.40. Further bat activity and GCN eDNA surveys are recommended to formulate an appropriate mitigation strategy for bats and GCN. 8.41. Without a mitigation strategy, the proposed works would be expected to result in a net loss for biodiversity. 8.42. However, with the recommended mitigation and suggested enhancements incorporated into the layout, there is an opportunity to enhance the value of the site for local wildlife, resulting in a net gain for biodiversity, as is encouraged by the National Planning Policy Framework.

11 June 2018 45 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, J., Beebee, T., Buckley, J. Gent, T. and Orchard, D. (2011), Amphibian Habitat Management Handbook, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation: Bournemouth

Barn Owl Trust (2012), Barn Owl Conservation Handbook, Pelagic Publishing: Exeter.

BWARS (2012). An Introduction to Bees in Britain. Bees, Wasps & Ants Recording Society.

British Standard BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity - Code of Practice for planning and development.

British Standards Institution (2012), BS 5837:2012, Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations.

CIEEM (2017), Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.

Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016), Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.), The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Eaton, M.A., Aebischer, N.J., Brown, A.F., Hearn, R., Lock, L. Musgrove, A., Noble, D., Stroud, D., Richard, G. (2015) Birds of conservation concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 108, 708-746.

Edgar, P., Foster, J. and Baker, J. (2010) Reptile Habitat Management Handbook, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation: Bournemouth

English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, Peterborough.

Froglife (1999), Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snakes and lizard conservation, Froglife advice sheet 10.

Gent, A.H. and Gibson, S.D. eds. (1998), Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual, Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Griffiths, R.A., Raper, S.J., Brady, L.D. (1996). Evaluation of a standard method for surveying common frogs (Rana temporaria) and newts (Triturus cristatus, T. helveticus, and T. vulgaris). Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No. 259.

International Commission on Illumination (2003), CIE 150:2003, Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations.

JNCC (1993), Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - a Technique for Environmental Audit, England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, reprinted JNCC, Peterborough.

Langton, T., Beckett, C. and Foster, J. (2001) GCN Conservation handbook. Froglife.

McLean, I.F.G., JNCC (Drafted by) on behalf of the Inter-agency Translocations Working Group (2003), A Habitats Translocation Policy for Britain.

Mitchell-Jones (2004), Bat mitigation guidelines, English Nature: Peterborough

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. and Jeffcote, M. (2000), Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155.

Pearce, G.E. (2011), Badger behaviour, conservation and rehabilitation, Pelagic Publishing: Exeter.

Stone, E.L. (2013), Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation, University of Bristol.

Strachan R, Moorhouse T and Gelling, M., (2011) Water Vole Conservation Handbook Third Edition, University of Oxford: Abingdon

11 June 2018 46 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix A Map of protected sites within 2km

11 June 2018 47 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 48 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix B Protected sites citations

County Wildlife Sites citations

CWS Last Name Description no. surveyed This site is an area of marshy grassland which is bordered by ditches and a small stream. It is fairly heavily grazed by cattle. A moderately improved area of marshy grassland which is moderately species-rich. It is dominated by a mixture of plants particularly creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), marsh horsetail (Equisetum palustre), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis) and hairy sedge (Carex hirta). One large patch South in the centre is dominated by dense lesser pond-sedge (Carex acutiformis). 1419 Walsham Other plants present include meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris), 1996 Meadows common sorrel (Rumex acetosa), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), red clover (Trifolium pratense) and fleabane (Erigeron borealis). The grassland is grazed by cattle and becomes drier and more degenerated towards the east and south. There are a few ditches cutting through the site which are impeded with vegetation. These contain frequent soft rush (Juncus effusus) with water-cress (Nasturtium officinale), water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), and common spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris) among others. This site comprises a very complex area of woodland on either side of a stream feeding a large ornamental lake. Wet woodland is located within the valley floor and moving up slope the woodland becomes drier and acid. There are some plantation areas and evidence of recoppicing and thinning. The lake is mesotrophic with a scattered floating aqautic layer of patches of yellow water lily (Nuphar lutea). There is a very scattered fringe of marginal vegetation with lesser pond-sedge (Carex acutiformis), common reed (Phragmites australis), iris (Iris pseudacorus) and hemp-agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum). On the valley floor upstream of the lake there is a dense virtually inaccessible boggy area of alder (Alnus glutinosa) coppice some of which is quite mature. The area is particularly species-rich. Grey willow (Salix cinerea) and birch (Betula spp.) form an understorey in areas while the ground flora is generally dominated by bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), lesser pond-sedge and common reed. Other species present include Mousehold 1423 bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara), iris, nettle (Urtica dioica), broad buckler 1996 Plantation fern (Dryopteris dilatata) and wavy bitter-cress (Cardamine flexuosa). On the slopes up from the valley floor the woodland is dominated by mature sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) with a mature, and in places, a dense layer of hazel (Corylus avellana) coppice. Silver birch (Betula pendula) forms an understorey. There are also some very mature sweet chestnut coppice. In places Scot’s pine (Pinus sylvestris) has been planted with the broadleaved trees. The ground flora is dominated by bramble with occasional wood sage (Teucrium scorodonia), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta). On the top of the slope on the west side of the site there is mature oak dominated woodland with dense sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) understorey with occasional silver birch over a scattered scrub layer of hazel and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). The ground flora is dominated by bramble, bracken and honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum). South This site is an area of dense fen and swamp vegetation, with areas of species 2003 Walsham rich marshy grassland. The marsh has formed in a shallow depression on 1996 Fen either side of a flowing stream. Common reed (Phragmites australis)

11 June 2018 49 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

dominates areas to the east and west on both sides of the stream. These also have abundant red sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima) and occasional great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) and cleavers (Galium aparine), bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara), rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis) and lesser pond- sedge (Carex acutiformis). Similar areas occur adjacent but further towards the middle of the site, but in these reed is more or less absent with reed sweet-grass dominating. On the northern side of the stream is a large patch of dense, continuous lesser pond-sedge with occasional wild angelica (Angelica sylvestris), marsh horsetail (Equisetum palustre), meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre). Centrally on the south side of the stream is an area of shorter, more species rich marsh. Marsh horsetail is abundant with frequent branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum), rough meadow grass and in places angelica. Other species include creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), marsh marigold (Caltha palustris), bog stitchwort (Stellaria alsine),common sorrel (Rumex acetosa), watermint (Mentha aquatica), ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi), hemp-agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum) and southern marsh orchid. The ditches and alongside the stream are dominated by alder (Alnus glutinosa), sallow and downy birch (Betula pubescens) over water forget-me-not (Myosotis scorpioides) and watermint. Other areas are dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus) with false fox sedge (Carex otrubae). Along the south western edge are dense sallow (Salix cinerea). Oak (Quercus robur), white poplar (Populus alba) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) occur along the others, with hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and hazel (Corylus avellana) over bramble (Rubus fruticosus). Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland with public access, owned by Norfolk County Council. Historically, the wood was part of the northern boundary of the former Burlingham Park Estate. It now constitutes part of the Burlingham Woodland Trails which link together Church & Drive, Belt and Long Plantations along a network of waymarked footpaths. There are traces of a parish boundary earthbank in the centre of the wood, and there are raised earthbanks along the northern and southern boundaries. The wood has a history of past and recent management. The eastern part was replanted in 1938-9 with ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and other native species. The western half was replanted in 1989, mainly with native broadleaved species, following the clear-felling of a larch (Larix) plantation. An area at the centre of the wood has been thinned and the shrub layer coppiced. The woodland lies over loam soils and is undulating, with a series of brows and hollows. The canopy is open in places, particularly at the western end. Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) dominates along the northern boundary, Belt 2038 with ash dominant towards the centre. In the northeast corner, oak 1997 Plantation (Quercus robur) is frequent, with occasional sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa). There is a well-developed understorey and shrub layer in places, with hazel (Corylus avellana), wych elm (Ulmus glabra), oak, sycamore, and elder (Sambucus nigra). Coppiced sycamore is regenerating vigorously. The composition of the ground flora partly reflects recent management, with tall, coarse vegetation in areas where the canopy has been cleared or thinned. There are patches dominated by nettle (Urtica dioica), bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and male-fern (Dryopteris filis-max), with bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) dominant on the sandy brows at the western end. In the more heavily shaded areas, the ground flora is sparse and species-poor, dominated by ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea), with patches of three- nerved sandwort (Moehringia trinervia), red campion (Silene dioica) and Dryopteris ferns. More diverse patches support lords-and-ladies (Arum maculatum), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), wood avens (Geum urbanum), bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and hedge woundwort (Stachys

11 June 2018 50 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

sylvatica). False brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) also occurs, particularly along the boundaries. In addition, deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna), stinking iris (Iris foetidissima), early-purple orchid (Orchis mascula), soft shield-fern (Polystichum aculeatum) and common figwort (Scrophularia nodosa) are all known to occur. A largely wooded site within a valley that is a tributary of the River Bure. The dominant woodland comprises alder (Alnus glutinosa). Within this crack willow (Salix fragilis) is present. The ground layer is dominated by dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis) and nettles (Urtica dioica). Other species present include great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), wild angelica (Angelica sylvestris), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and soft rush (Juncus effusus). On the drier valley slopes there is acid woodland comprising mature oak (Quercus robur) and young silver birch (Betula pendula) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). There are some large old coppice stools of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and sweet chestnut (Castanea satavia), although there has been no recent cutting. Shrub species include Walsham 1424 crabapple (Malus sylvestris), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyana) and 1996 Wood blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). The groundflora of this drier woodland is dominated by bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), but also includes bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and red campion (Silene dioica). Within the valley forming the north-west part of the site there is an area of sallow (Salix cinerea) dominated carr together with bittersweet (Solanum dulcamara), enchanter’s-nightshade (Circaea lutetiana), angelica (Angelica sylvatica) and red campion. North of the stream is a large area of tall dense marshy vegetation which includes great willowherb, meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and soft rush (Juncus effusus). The stream itself has reed canary-grass, yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus) and sedges (Carex sp.). Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland with public access, owned by Norfolk County Council. Planted prior to 1808, the woodland comprised part of the former Burlingham Park Estate. It now constitutes part of the Burlingham Woodland Trails which link together Church & Drive, Belt and Long Plantations along a network of waymarked footpaths. A resumption of management in 1989 has included clear-felling of conifers, thinning, underplanting, and the implementation of a hazel coppice regime. Prior to recent management, the woods contained a larger proportion of conifers, including a stand of European larch (Larix decidua). The woodland lies over loam soils and is damp in places. It is generally flat, with several hollows at the southern end of Drive Plantation. There are areas of moderately dense high forest dominated by ash (Fraxinus excelsior), oak (Quercus robur) and occasionally beech (Fagus sylvatica), with a well-developed understorey and Church & shrub layer of hazel (Corylus avellana), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), 2031 Drive field maple (Acer campestre) and elder (Sambucus nigra). In addition, parts 1997 Plantations of Drive Plantation have been cleared and underplanted with native species including wild cherry (Prunus avium), spindle (Euonymus europaeus), oak, hazel and field maple. There are also small areas allocated to both coppice and coppice with standards. Interspersed are occasional conifers including douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western red-cedar (Thuja plicata), and there are small monospecific stands of yew (Taxus baccata) and cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) near the adjacent church. The composition of the ground flora partly reflects current management, with tall, coarse vegetation in some areas where the canopy has been thinned or removed. In these areas, dominant species include nettle (Urtica dioica), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), cow parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris), cleavers (Galium aparine) and false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius). Elsewhere, bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), herb-robert (Geranium robertianum), bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta) and nettle are abundant. Other

11 June 2018 51 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

woodland herbs include lords-and-ladies (Arum maculatum), wood avens (Geum urbanum), common twayblade (Listera ovata), dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis), three-nerved sandwort (Moehringia trinervia), primrose (Primula vulgaris), lesser celandine (Ranunculus ficaria), wood dock (Rumex sanguineus) and common dog-violet (Viola riviniana), with the grasses false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum), hairy brome (Bromus ramosus) and giant fescue (Festuca gigantea). Stinking iris (Iris foetidissima) and grey sedge (Carex divulsa) are occasional. There is a large colony of hart’s-tongue (Phyllitis scolopendrium) around part of the boundary at the southern end of the site. In addition, bugle (Ajuga reptans), pignut (Conopodium majus), enchanter’s-nightshade (Circaea lutetiana), soft shield- fern (Polystichum setiferum) and remote sedge (Carex remota) are all known to occur.

11 June 2018 52 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix C Legislation European Protected Species Bats All bat species in Britain are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 through inclusion on Schedule 5. They are also protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (which were issued under the European Communities Act 1972), through inclusion on Schedule 2. On 1st April 2010, these Regulations, together with subsequent amendments, were consolidated into the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. European protected animal species (“EPS) and their breeding sites or resting places are protected under Regulation 39. It is an offence for anyone to deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal or to deliberately take or destroy their eggs. It is an offence to damage or destroy a breeding or resting place of such an animal. It is also an offence to have in one's possession or control, any live or dead European protected species. The threshold above which a person will commit the offence of deliberately disturbing a wild animal of a European protected species has been raised. A person will commit an offence only if he deliberately disturbs such animals in a way as to be likely significantly to affect (a) the ability of any significant groups of animals of that species to survive, breed, or rear or nurture their young, or (b) the local distribution of abundance of that species. The existing offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended which cover obstruction of places used for shelter or protection (for example, a bat roost), disturbance and sale still apply to European protected species. This legislation provides defences so that necessary operations may be carried out in places used by bats, provided the appropriate Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (in England this is Natural England) is notified and allowed a reasonable time to advise on whether the proposed operation should be carried out and, if so, the approach to be used. The UK is a signatory to the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe, set up under the Bonn Convention. The Fundamental Obligations of Article III of this Agreement require the protection of all bats and their habitats, including the identification and protection from damage or disturbance of important feeding areas for bats.

Water Vole The water vole received limited legal protection in April 1998 through its inclusion in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) for some offences. Legal protection makes it an offence to:

• intentionally kill, injure or take (capture) a water vole;

11 June 2018 53 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

• possess or control a dead or live water vole, or any part of a water vole; • intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy access to any structure or place which water voles use for shelter or protection or disturb Water Voles while they are using such a place; • sell, offer for sale or advertise for sale live or dead Water Voles

Water voles, their breeding sites and resting places are protected by law. In most cases, work can be planned to avoid harming water voles. If works cannot avoid disturbing them or damaging their habitats, you may be able to get a licence from Natural England.

Badger The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and its subsequent amendment in 1985 made it an offence to take, kill, injure or ill-treat a badger. The badger gained further protection under the auspices of The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) which consolidates all former protective legislation in relation to badgers, except their inclusion on Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Under the 1992 Act, the badger sett is protected against obstruction, destruction, and damage; furthermore, the animal’s access to and from the sett must not be impeded. It should be noted that the concept/definition of the sett extends beyond the main sett to include annexe, subsidiary and outlying setts. However, although the badger and its sett are protected (including access to the sett), the wider habitat and foraging ground is not.

Otters Otters are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and revised by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2004, making it an offence to:

• intentionally kill, injure or take an otter; • possess or control any (live or dead) otter, or any part of or anything derived from an otter; • intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection by an otter; • intentionally or recklessly disturb an otter while it is occupying a structure or place for that purpose; • to sell, offer for sale, possess or transport for the purpose of sale any (live or dead) otter or part or derivative of an otter; • to advertise for buying and selling such things.

Furthermore, otters are included on Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994), making it an offence to:

11 June 2018 54 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

• deliberately to capture or kill a wild animal of a European protected species; • deliberately to disturb any such animal; • deliberately to take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; or • damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

Otters are also listed as a priority species on the UK and Biodiversity Action Plans.

Reptiles Reptiles such as common lizard, slowworm, grass snake or adder are protected under Section 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) as amended. The legislation makes it illegal to deliberately or recklessly kill or injure any native reptile. This protection therefore requires that reasonable effort be made to avoid harm to reptiles during developments on land occupied by reptiles.

Barn Owls The Habitats Regulations (1994), as amended, states that a person commits an offence in the case of Barn Owl only if this species is disturbed in the breeding season. This applies equally to all those bird species listed under Schedule 1.

Breeding Birds It is an offence to kill, injure or take any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built (even of "pest" species); take or destroy the eggs of any wild bird.

Dormice Dormice are protected from being killed, injured, captured or disturbed and their resting and breeding places should not be damage or destroyed.

White-Clawed Crayfish This crayfish is listed under Annex II of the habitats directive and areas are designated as Special Areas of Conservation to protect this species. Outside of this a licence is required to capture this species. It is listed as a priority species under the Biodiversity Action Plan and is a Species of Principal Importance under section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.

11 June 2018 55 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Great Crested Newts Great crested newts are protected under both English and European law. It is an offence to kill, injure, disturb or take great crested newts or to damage or destroy their places of shelter, whether the animals are present or not.

Natural England Licensing - EPS Mitigation Licensing Since September 2000, building development that affects bats or their roosts needs a Development Licence under the Habitats Regulations (1994), administered in England by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Since October 2006, licences have been granted by Natural England.

Licences can be obtained from the Wildlife Management and Licensing Service at Natural England to allow certain activities that would otherwise constitute an offence, for the purposes of development.

11 June 2018 56 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix D Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index

11 June 2018 57 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 58 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 59 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 60 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 61 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 62 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 63 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix E Plant species recorded on site

English name Scientific name Black medick Medicago lupulina Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bracken Pteridium aquilinum Bramble Rubus fruticosus Broad buckler fern Dryopteris dilatata Clover Trifolium sp. Cock's-foot Dactylis glomerata Common vetch Vicia sativa Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris Crack willow Salix fragilis Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense Daisy Bellis perennis Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Dock Rumex sp. Dove's-foot cranesbill Geranium molle Elder Sambucus nigra English oak Quercus robur Fescue Festuca sp. Field forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis Field maple Acer campestre Ground elder Aegopodium podagraria Ground ivy Glechoma hederacea Hairy-tare Vicia hirsuta Hart's tongue Asplenium scolopendrium Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Herb-robert Geranium robertianum Hoary plantain Plantago media Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium Ivy Hedera helix Lesser burdock Arctium minus Mallow Malva neglecta Mouse-ear Cerastium sp. Nettle Urtica dioica Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne Ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Wall bedstraw Galium parisiense White dead-nettle Lamium album Willowherb Epilobium sp. Yarrow Achillea millefolium Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus

11 June 2018 64 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix F Examples of bat and bird boxes (images sourced from www.nhbs.com, www.habibat.co.uk and www.manthorpe.co.uk) Integrated bat box Integrated bat box Habibat Bat Box 1FR Schwegler Bat Tube

Standalone bat box Standalone bat box 2F Schwegler Bat Box (General purpose) 1FF Schwegler Bat Box with built-in wooden rear panel

Recommendations for installing bat boxes: (Sourced from Bat Conservation Trust www.bct.org) Ideally, several boxes should be put up facing in different directions to provide a range of conditions. Locate boxes: • Where bats are known to feed close to hedges and tree lines (some bats use a tree line or hedgerow for navigation, putting boxes near these features may help the bats find the box). • Boxes should be put as high as possible in sheltered sunny places. Ideally at least 4m above the ground (where safe installation is possible). • Sheltered from strong winds and exposed to the sun for part of the day (usually south or southwest). • On buildings, boxes should be placed as close to the eaves as possible. Bats need time to find and explore new homes, and it may be several months or even years before boxes have residents. Once bats find a place they want to live they can return over and over again. Droppings on the landing area, urine stains around the lower parts of the box and chittering noises from inside on warm afternoons and evenings are signs of occupation.

11 June 2018 65 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Small bird nesting box Small bird nesting box 1B Schwegler Nest Box 2H Schwegler Robin Box

Integrated swift box Integrated swift box Schwegler Brick Nest Box Type 25 Manthorpe Swift Brick

Integrated barn owl box Standalone barn owl box Schwegler Barn Owl Nest Box 23 Eco Barn Owl Nest Box

11 June 2018 66 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Recommendations for installing bird boxes: (Sourced from British Trust for Ornithology www.bto.org and Manthorpe www.manthorpe.co.uk) The highest priority when siting a nest box must be to provide a safe and comfortable environment in which birds can nest successfully. Tips for putting up a nest box: • Boxes should be sited 1-3m from the ground, ideally on tree trunks but can be placed on the side of a shed or wall. Avoid areas where foliage obscures the entrance hole. • Don’t place boxes too close to another nest box of the same type, as this may promote aggressive behaviour between neighbours. • Shelter your nest box from prevailing wind, rain and strong sunlight. The box should face between north and east, and angled vertically or slightly downwards to prevent rain entering. • Make sure cats cannot get into the box. • Keep nest box away from bird feeders. • Use galvanized or stainless steel screws or nails. If fixing boxes to trees, galvanised wire can be used to tie the box to the trunk or hang it from a branch. Make sure to regularly inspect these fittings (every two or three years) to ensure the box remains securely attached.

Tips for putting up swift bricks/boxes: • Locate ≥5m high on the gable wall of the property and above the level of the insulation zone. • Where possible, install in locations that are unlikely to receive large amounts of direct sunlight during the hottest times of the day, ideal places include below the overhang of the verge and barge board.

Tips for putting up barn owl boxes: • The box should be installed on a building or tree in open farmland, on an isolated hedgerow or along the edge of a woodland. • Boxes should be sited at least 4m from the ground, with a clear flight-path for entry and exit. • Where possible, install boxes facing southeast or away from the prevailing wind.

11 June 2018 67 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix G Examples of hedgehog friendly fencing (images sourced from www.quercusfencing.com and www.jackson-fencing.co.uk) Quercus Fencing Jacksons-Fencing Hedgehog friendly oak woven fencing panels Hedgehog friendly gravel board for use with slotted posts

Recommendations for installing hedgehog friendly fencing: (Sourced from Hedgehog Street www.hedgehogstreet.org) A hedgehog friendly fence should have a gap measuring at least 13cm by 13cm in the gravel board. These gaps allow any hedgehog to pass through but are too small for nearly all pets.

At least one hedgehog friendly fence panel should be located on each side of your garden, to provide unimpeded access.

Almost all fencing materials can be made hedgehog friendly, but may require DIY adaptations. Please note that some concrete gravel boards contain metal rods running along the length of the boards to provide strength and rigidity, and cannot be cut. To overcome this, a gap can be left between the gravel board and post to provide the required gap.

11 June 2018 68 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix H Native species suitable for planting and sowing The plants should be obtained from specialist nurseries and preferably be of local genetic stock. 1. Native Shrub and Tree Species Shrubs Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Buckthorn Rhamnus catharticus Crab apple Malus sylvestris Dog rose Rosa canina Dog wood Cornus sanguinea Field maple Acer campestre Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Hazel Corylus avellana Holly Ilex aquifolium Spindle Euonymus europaeus Wild privet Ligustrum vulgare Trees Ash Fraxinus excelsior Pedunculate oak Quercus robur Silver birch Betula pendula Wild cherry Prunus avium

2. Native Wildflower Species Grasses Common bent Agrostis capillaris Crested dog's-tail Cynosurus cristatus Meadow fescue Festuca pratensis Red fescue Festuca rubra Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis Small timothy Phleum bertolonii Smooth meadow-grass Poa pratensis Sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum Yellow oat-grass Trisetum flavescens Herbs Bird's-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus Black knapweed Centaurea nigra Common cat's-ear Hypochoeris radicata Common sorrel Rumex acetosa Common vetch Vicia sativa Cowslip Primula veris Field scabious Knautia arvense Lady's bedstraw Galium verum Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris Meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratensis Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Red clover Trifolium pratense Selfheal Prunella vulgaris Yarrow Achillea millefolium

11 June 2018 69 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Appendix I Proposed plans

11 June 2018 70 Hemblington Hall Barns Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

11 June 2018 71