LAND AT BROOKFIELD STABLES WARFIELD
INTERIM ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EcIA)
Written By: L. Gilbert Checked By: D. Wood Date: 11.12.2020 Document File Ref: BEW21975_EcIA Revision: * Date of last revision: Revised by:
QUALITY ASSURANCE
1.1. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (2nd Edition, December 2017).
1.2. The facts stated in this report are true to the best of our knowledge and belief, and any opinions expressed are held genuinely and in accordance with the accepted standards of the profession. ACD Environmental Ltd is a CIEEM Registered Practice.
Client: Bewley Homes
Site/job: Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Author: L. Gilbert
Technical review: D. Wood
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2 INTRODUCTION 3
3 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION 5
4 METHODOLOGY 9
5 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS 16
6 SCHEME DESIGN 38
7 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 39
8 BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN 53
9 CONCLUSIONS 55
APPENDIX 1: PHASE 1 HABITAT PLAN
APPENDIX 2: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX 3: FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX 4: POND LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 5: HSI RESULTS
Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of To provide an interim assessment of the ecological impacts of a proposed report development at Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield, based on the surveys carried out to date. A full assessment will be provided once update surveys have been undertaken in 2021. This will clearly identify any ‘significant effects’ on important ecological features (including designated sites or protected species) and detail any mitigation and/or compensation measures that are required, and how these could be secured. This report outlines likely impacts and potential mitigation and compensation solutions. Description of Outline planning application for residential development of up to 90 proposed dwellings including public, open space and associated infrastructure, development including a new cycle path connecting to Edmunds Lane. Application to include access with all other matters reserved. Brief The proposed development site (hereafter referred to as the Application description of Site) is currently in use as a horse livery yard. The Application Site the Site comprises species-poor, semi-improved grassland bound by hedgerows and woodland with scattered trees. There are numerous buildings and areas of hardstanding within the centre of the Application Site. Designated The Application Site falls within 5km of Thames Basin Heaths SPA, nature therefore mitigation will be required in the form of contributions to a SANG conservation and SAMM, to prevent impacts on the designated site. The Application Site sites also falls within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone, which states that the LPA should consult Natural England for ‘any residential development with a total net gain in residential units’.
Information to inform an Appropriate Assessment will be provided to demonstrate how impacts on Thames Basin Heaths SPA will be avoided. Potential mitigation options have been outlined within this report. Key habitats The most valuable habitats present within the Application Site comprise woodland, scattered mature trees and native species rich hedgerows with trees. Bull Brook runs adjacent to the western boundary of the Application Site. Key species The Application Site supports three bat roosts within two buildings: including a soprano pipistrelle maternity roost. Foraging and commuting bats use the habitats on-site and several trees have features suitable to support roosting bats. Nesting birds, including swallow, have been recorded within the outbuildings on-site and the hedgerows and trees offer good bird nesting and feeding opportunities. Key impacts • The removal of approximately 20m of the southern boundary hedgerow with trees and a small number of trees; • Demolition of the buildings that support bat roosts (including a maternity roost); and • Lighting impacts on retained hedgerows and woodland edge habitat during construction and operation, which could affect foraging/commuting routes of bats (including a maternity colony).
ACD Environmental 1 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Mitigation • Retention of the majority of the woodland and trees on-site with suitable RPA’s; • A sensitive lighting scheme to ensure dark corridors are retained around the development; • A 25m buffer between the development and the offsite Bull Brook; and • Implementation of precautionary measures of working, including seasonal restrictions and supervision of works by an ecologist where necessary. Compensation Creation of areas of species rich grassland within areas of open space and new tree planting throughout the development. Replacement roosting provision for bats will be incorporated into a number of buildings on-site. Full details will be outlined within the final EcIA and EPS licence application. Enhancements Integrated habitats for roosting bats, nesting birds and invertebrates will be incorporated into the design of the houses at a ratio of 1 box per property. Conclusions A full assessment of impacts will be carried out following completion of the surveys. The following surveys will be carried out in 2021: • Update bat emergence/ re-entry surveys of the buildings; • Ground level assessments for bats of trees likely to be impacted by the proposals both directly (e.g. felling) and indirectly (e.g. lighting); and • Climbing surveys/ endoscope inspections of trees for roosting bats. An EPS licence will be required to allow for the demolition of the buildings which support bat roosts. If required, EPS licences will be obtained for tree roosting bats. Information to inform an Appropriate Assessment will be provided to demonstrate how impacts on Thames Basin Heaths SPA will be avoided. Providing the measures outlined within this report are incorporated into the detailed scheme design and implemented, this development is capable of achieving a biodiversity net gain (11.36% habitat units and 40.25% hedgerow units), which has been demonstrated though the Defra Metric 2.0.
ACD Environmental 2 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1. This report provides an interim assessment of the ecological effects of the proposed development at Brookfield Stables, Warfield, hereafter referred to as the Application Site (see Image 1). The principal author of this report is Lily Gilbert MCIEEM. The client is Bewley Homes.
Background
2.2. The Application Site is situated in the semi-rural village of Warfield, which lies to the north of Bracknell. The Application Site is in-use as a horse livery yard. The Application Site is bordered by Bracknell Road to the north, Hayley Green Road to the east and the B3034 to the south. Bull Brook runs along the far western site boundary. The surrounding area comprises residential areas interspersed with grassland fields and areas of woodland.
2.3. The client intends to submit an outline planning application, which this report will accompany, for residential development of up to 90 dwellings including public, open space and associated infrastructure, including a new cycle path connecting to Edmunds Lane. Application to include access with all other matters reserved.
Competence
2.4. This report has been written by Lily Gilbert, a Senior Ecologist at ACD Environmental Ltd. Lily has seven years' experience working for commercial consultancy and specialises in European Protected Species (EPS) legislation and mitigation, holding licenses for bats, great crested newt Triturus cristatus, hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius and barn owl Tyto alba. She has significant experience of EcIA and is a Full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM).
2.5. A Technical Review of this report has been undertaken in line with ACD Environmental Ltd’s Quality Assurance procedures. The Technical Review was undertaken by Daniel Wood, Director of Ecology at ACD Environmental Ltd. Daniel has 14 years' experience working for commercial consultancy and specialises in European Protected Species (EPS) legislation and mitigation, holding licences for bats, great crested newts, hazel dormouse, barn owl and badger Meles meles. Daniel has significant experience of EcIA and has acted as Expert Witness at Public Inquiry. He is a Full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM).
Purpose of the report
2.6. The purpose of this Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is as follows:
ACD Environmental 3 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
• To identify and describe all potentially significant ecological effects associated with the proposed development;
• To set out the mitigation measures required to ensure compliance with nature conservation legislation and relevant planning policy, and to address any potentially significant ecological effects;
• To identify how mitigation measures will/could be secured;
• To identify any significant residual ecological effects and set out any compensation measures proposed to address these;
• To identify appropriate enhancement measures in order to achieve Biodiversity Net Gain; and
• To set out the requirements for post-construction monitoring.
Image 1: Application Site location and approximate site boundary shown in red. Map data (2017): Google. Imagery (2017): Getmapping plc.
ACD Environmental 4 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
3 PLANNING POLICY AND LEGISLATION
Legislation
3.1. The following pieces of legislation are of specific relevance to this assessment:
• The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 20191.
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 19812 (as amended, including by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). This piece of legislation is relevant because the Application Site is within the zone of influence of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is protected in England under this Act.
• Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 20063. Section 41 includes lists of habitats and species recognised as of ‘principal importance’ for the conservation of biodiversity. Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 requires all public bodies to have regard for biodiversity conservation when carrying out their function. This is commonly referred to as the ‘biodiversity duty’.
• Water Framework Directive 2000.
• Hedgerows Regulations 1997.
3.2. The following pieces of legislation have been considered, but are not considered to be of specific relevance in this case:
• Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (no badger setts are present within the Application Site or sufficiently close to be affected).
Planning policy
National Planning Policy Framework 20194
3.3. Paragraph 175 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications, local planning
1 Great Britain. The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No.579 [online]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111179512/contents 2 Great Britain. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 [online]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69/contents 3 Great Britain. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 [online]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents 4 Great Britain. National Planning Policy Framework (2019). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2
ACD Environmental 5 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
authorities should apply the following principles:
• If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
• Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
• Development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
Local Planning Policy
Bracknell Forest Local Plan
3.4. The Draft Bracknell Forest Local Plan, which enters pre-submission consultation in spring 2021, will set the long-term spatial vision and development strategy for the borough up to 2036. Once adopted, it will replace the saved policies in the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan (2002)5 and the Core Strategy (2008)6.
3.5. Local planning policy in Bracknell Forest is provided by the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted in 2008) and the Local Plan (adopted in 2002). Policies of relevance to ecology and biodiversity are as follows:
Policy CS14 - Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area:
3.6. The Council will carry out an assessment of the effects of a development proposal on the conservation objectives of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) where there is a risk of the proposal having a significant impact on the integrity of the site, either alone or in combination with other proposals. Proposals leading to a net increase in residential dwellings, within a straight-line distance of 5 kilometres from the SPA boundary, are likely to have a significant effect. The Council will not permit development which, either alone or in combination with other development, has an adverse effect upon the integrity of the SPA.
5 https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/bracknell-forest-borough-local-plan.pdf 6 https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/core-strategy-development-plan-document-february- 2008.pdf
ACD Environmental 6 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
3.7. Development outside the 400-metre zone will be permitted where it can demonstrate that it can remove any adverse effect by contributing towards avoidance and mitigation measures in line with the SPA Technical Background Document.
3.8. In order to assist the Council in making an Appropriate Assessment, where this is necessary, the developer will be required to provide such information as the Council may reasonably require for the purpose of the assessment.
3.9. The effective avoidance and/or mitigation of any identified adverse effects must be demonstrated and secured prior to approval of the development.
Policy EN1 – Protecting Tree and Hedgerow Cover:
3.10. Planning permission will not be granted for development which would result in the destruction of trees and hedgerows which are important to the retention, where applicable, of:
• A clear distinction between built up areas and the countryside; or
• The character and appearance of the landscape or townscape; or
• Green links between open spaces and wildlife heritage sites; or
• Internationally, nationally or locally rare or threatened species; or
• Habitats for local wildlife; or
• Areas of historic significance.
Policy EN2 – Supplementing Tree and Hedgerow Cover
3.11. In imposing landscape conditions to secure additional tree and/or hedge planting, the borough council will require developers to include in their schemes the planting of indigenous trees appropriate to the setting and character of the area and a variety of the other indigenous plants. According to circumstances, these may include grasses, heathland or wetland species.
Policies EN3 – Nature Conservation
3.12. Planning permission will not be granted for development likely to have a significant effect on the following areas unless their special value and character can be protected or there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest:
• Existing and potential Special Protection Areas;
• Existing and candidate Special Areas of Conservation; and
• Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
ACD Environmental 7 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
3.13. The borough council will seek to enter into agreements concerning enhancement schemes as part of development proposals; these will incorporate, where appropriate, the management of public access into the site.
Policy EN4 – Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites and Regionally Important Geological Sites
3.14. Planning permission will not be granted on or near Local Nature Reserves, Wildlife Heritage Sites, or regionally important geological/geomorphological site unless the proposed development will not affect the wildlife and habitats for which the site was designated or the special character of the site.
3.15. Development proposals on these sites must include conservation or enhancement schemes which, where appropriate, will set out the provision for, and management of, public access to and within them.
Policy EN14 – River Corridors
3.16. Planning permission will not be granted for development in a river corridor which would have an adverse effect on nature conservation interests, fisheries or open character of the landscape. Proposals which would reduce public access or make it less convenient, or impair established water-related recreation, will not be permitted.
Bracknell Forest Council Biodiversity Action Plan
3.17. The Local BAP provides a habitat-focused plan with BAP species acting as flagships to focus interest. The BAP will contribute to the Local Plan in the protection and enhancement of the biodiversity by assessing habitat connectivity, developing a system for biodiversity accounting to achieve net gain in planning applications, adopting a green infrastructure strategy and securing biodiversity enhancement projects.
3.18. The BAP has identified objectives and set targets for the continued enhancement and promotion of biodiversity within the local area.
ACD Environmental 8 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
4 METHODOLOGY
Scope of assessment
4.1. The EcIA focuses on ‘important ecological features’, i.e. those which are considered to be of relevance to the decision-making process and could be affected by the proposed development. Important ecological features include protected species, habitats/species of ‘principal importance’ for biodiversity conservation (i.e. Section 41 habitats/species7), birds of conservation concern8, invasive non-native plant species9, and habitats and species identified as priorities for conservation in the Bracknell Forest Biodiversity Action Plan.
Zone of influence
4.2. The ‘zone of influence’ (ZOI) is the area over which important ecological features (on-site or off-site) may be affected as a result of the proposed development and associated activities. The ZOI can vary for different ecological features, depending on their sensitivity to environmental change.
4.3. The ZOI for statutory designated sites has been informed by Natural England’s Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Impact Risk Zones10 (IRZs). IRZs define zones around each SSSI which reflect the particular sensitivities of the features for which it is notified and indicate the types of development proposal which could potentially have adverse impacts.
Desk Study
4.4. The following information was requested from Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre for a search area of 2km around the Application Site boundary:
• Legally protected and notable species records;
• Invasive and non-native species records;
7 Section 41 (41) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, which came into force on 1st October 2006, requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principle importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. 8 Red list species are those that are globally threatened, whose population or range has declined rapidly in recent years (i.e. by more than 50% in 25 years), or which have declined historically and not recovered. Amber list species are those whose population or range has declined moderately in recent years (by more than 25% but less than 50% in 25 years), those whose population has declined historically but recovered recently, rare species (<300 breeding pairs or <900 wintering individuals), those with internationally important populations in the UK, those with localised populations, and those with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe. Species that meet none of these criteria are Green-listed. 9 Invasive non-native plants (Section 14) on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 10 Natural England (June 2019). Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (For use by Local Planning Authorities to assess planning applications for likely impacts on SSSIs/SACs/SPAs & Ramsar sites and determine when to consult Natural England).
ACD Environmental 9 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
• A map of designated wildlife sites; and
• Descriptions/citations for designated wildlife sites.
4.5. The data was received on the 2nd December 2020.
4.6. The MAGIC website11 was used to carry out a 4km data search for SSSIs, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) with an IRZ that falls within the Application Site, in November 2020.
Field surveys
4.7. A summary of ecological field surveys is provided in Table 1. Descriptions of full survey methods are provided in Appendix 3.
Table 1: Field surveys
Survey Surveyor/s Survey Study Area Relevant date/s guidelines
Extended Sophie Lancaster 09.07.2018 Red line JNCC (2010) Phase 1 Habitat MCIEEM boundary Survey
Bat Dusk Sophie Lancaster, 01.08.2018 Buildings 1, 2
Emergence/ Rosie Tobin-Moss and 3 15.08.2018 Dawn Re-entry (Graduate Collins (2016) 12 Surveys Ecologist at ACD 13.09.2018 Environmental Ltd), Jane Cole (Senior Ecologist at ACD Environmental Ltd), Jennifer Lackie (Ecologist at ACD Environmental Ltd), Greg Nightingale (Senior Ecologist at
11 Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside [online]. Available at: https://magic.defra.gov.uk/ 12 Collins,J.(ed.)(2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London
ACD Environmental 10 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Survey Surveyor/s Survey Study Area Relevant date/s guidelines
ACD Environmental Ltd), Rebecca Brown (Ecologist at ACD Environmental Ltd), Edward Clark (Ecologist at Iceni Ecology Ltd), Lily Gilbert (Senior Ecologist at ACD Environmental Ltd) and Victoria Mercier (Graduate Ecologist at ACD Environmental Ltd)
Hazel Rosie Tobin Moss, Installed in All suitable English Nature Dormouse Victoria Mercier July 2018 habitat within (2006)13 Surveys and Lily Gilbert with monthly red line checks boundary between August – November 2018. Update checks in April (27.04.20), May (21.05.20) and June (09.06.20) 2020.
13 https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Dormouse-Conservation-Handbook.pdf
ACD Environmental 11 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Survey Surveyor/s Survey Study Area Relevant date/s guidelines
Update Lily Gilbert 27.04.2020 Red line n/a walkover boundary MCIEEM survey
To be carried out in 2021
Update Spring 2021 Preliminary Roost Assessment of buildings
Update bat Spring/ emergence/ re- Summer entry surveys 2021
Ground level Winter 2021 tree assessments for bats
Endoscope/ Winter 2021 tree climbing inspections of potential roost features (if required)
Biodiversity Impact Calculations
4.8. Biodiversity net gain/loss calculations were assessed using the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 Beta Test (December 2019) calculation tool.
ACD Environmental 12 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
4.9. Habitat types were assigned in line with Phase 1 Habitat Survey guidance, following the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. As the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 uses the UK Habitat Classification system, the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 calculation tool was used to convert between Phase 1 and UK Hab Classifications for the habitats present on-site.
4.10. Baseline habitat measurements were carried out in line with the results of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Measurements were predominantly made using the QGIS mapping tool and the Tree Survey Plan, however habitats had been ground-truthed during the field survey. Proposed habitat measurements were taken from the proposed site layout plan using KeySCAPE 2020 and QGIS.
4.11. A full methodology for the Biodiversity Impact Calculations is included within Appendix 3.
Assessment methodology
4.12. The habitats and species evaluations and likely effects are made with reference to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment14.
4.13. The importance of ecological features has been assessed by carrying out a suite of specialist surveys (Table 2) to determine whether protected species/habitats, and/or species/habitats of conservation concern are present in the Application Site or its ZOI, then comparing their status at the international/national/county/regional/local scale, through the use of available contextual information, to establish the importance of those features in a geographical context.
4.14. The overall effect of the proposed development on a given feature has been predicted, considering the baseline data collected through desk study and field survey, and the various impacts expected to occur. An assessment has then been made as to whether the effect on each important ecological feature is likely to be significant or not.
4.15. Significance is the weight that should be attached to effects when decisions are made. For the purpose of EcIA, a likely significant effect is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation objectives for important ecological features (which could be species populations/groups of species, habitats, or a designated site), or for biodiversity in general. Effects have been considered significant at a wide range of scales, from national to local.
14 CIEEM (2019). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, Version 1.1. updated September 2019. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.
ACD Environmental 13 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
4.16. A sequential process has been adopted to avoid/mitigate, and if required, compensate for significant negative ecological effects. This is referred to as the ‘Mitigation Hierarchy’. Avoidance includes measures to change the design of the proposed development to avoid an impact occurring. Mitigation includes measures to avoid or reduce the negative impacts of the proposed development. Compensation addresses significant negative residual effects (those likely to occur after avoidance and mitigation have been considered). It is this objective of compensation, and not its location, that distinguishes compensation from ‘mitigation’.
4.17. In EcIA, it is only essential to assess and report significant residual effects that remain after mitigation measures have been taken into account. However, the potential significant effects without mitigation as well as the residual significant effects following mitigation have been presented where the mitigation proposed is experimental, unproven or controversial and/or to demonstrate the importance of securing the measures proposed through planning conditions or obligations.
Valuation
4.18. The value of important ecological features (sites, habitats, and species) is assigned according to their scale of importance using the following terms:
• International importance – ecological features of international importance such as SPAs and SACs, and/or sites that support internationally-important populations of species.
• National importance – ecological features of national importance such as SSSIs, features which meet the criteria for designation as a SSSI, and/or sites that support nationally-important populations of certain species.
• Regional importance – ecological features of regional importance, such as a species population that is of importance at a scale greater than the County, but does not meet the criteria for National Importance
• County importance – ecological features of county-scale importance, including features that have been designated as local wildlife sites, or meet the criteria for designation as a local wildlife site, and/or county-important populations of species
• Local importance – ecological features of local importance, including habitats or species populations listed as being of nature conservation importance (e.g. S41, local BAP, or listed in local planning policy) which are not considered to
ACD Environmental 14 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
be of County importance by virtue of the quality, size/number, rarity, the extent to which they are threatened throughout their range, or to their rate of decline.
Precautionary principle
4.19. The evaluation of significant effects is based on the results of the ecological surveys carried out in the Application Site and other available evidence. In cases of reasonable doubt, where it is not possible to robustly justify a conclusion of no significant effect, a significant effect is assumed. Where uncertainty exists, it has been duly acknowledged.
ACD Environmental 15 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Context
5.1. The Application Site is situated in the semi-rural village of Warfield, which lies to the north of Bracknell. The Application Site is in-use as a horse livery yard. The Application Site is bordered by Bracknell Road to the north, Hayley Green Road to the east and the B3034 to the south. Bull Brook runs along the far western site boundary. The surrounding area comprises residential areas interspersed with grassland fields and areas of woodland.
Designated Sites
5.2. SSSIs, SACs, SPAs and LNRs with IRZs within the boundary of Application Site are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Statutory designated sites with an IRZ within the Application Site. Name of Approximate Reason for designation statutory distance from designated Application sites Site
Hayley Green 170m south- Mixed deciduous woodland with ash Fraxinus Wood LNR east excelsior, willow Salix sp. and silver birch Betula pendula trees. It is an important wildlife habitat and supports grass snake Natrix helvetica helvetica and frog Rana temporaria.
Whitegrove 870m south- Ancient coppiced woodland with a good diversity Copse LNR west of plants and birds. Species include black cap Sylvia atricapilla and chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita. Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species include wild service tree Sorbus torminalis, bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula and ragged robin Lychnis flos-cuculi. Piggy Wood LNR 1.29km south- The wood and wildlife corridor with carpets of west spring flowers such as bluebells Hyacinthoides non-scripta, wood anemone Anemone nemorosa and wood avens Geum urbanum. Damselflies and dragonflies are found near the tributary of the Cut. Chawridge 2.1km north- An area of unimproved grassland, scrub and
ACD Environmental 16 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Name of Approximate Reason for designation statutory distance from designated Application sites Site
Bourne SSSI east broadleaved woodland containing species of plants local or rare in east Berkshire. Notable grassland species include sneezewort Achillea ptarmica, dyer's greenweed Genista tinctoria, meadow barley Hordeum secalinum, adder's tongue fern Ophioglossum vulgatum, pepper saxifrage Silaum silaus, hoary ragwort Senecio erucifolius, pale sedge Carex pallescens, trailing tormentil Potentilla anglica, devil's bit scabious Succisa pratensis and hairy violet Viola hirta. The neglected coppice includes the following notable species wild service tree, goldilocks buttercup Ranunculus auricomus, hart's-tongue fern Phyllitis scolopendrium and soft shield-fern Polystichum setiferum which are rare in Berkshire Jock’s Copse 2.7km south- Ancient coppiced woodland, mainly oak Quercus LNR west sp. and hazel Corylus avellane, with a good range of woodland flora, bird and insect life. BAP species of note include wild service tree, bullfinch, ragged robin. Other animals include badger Meles meles and all 3 species of woodpecker. Tinkers Copse 2.7km south- Woodland adjacent Jock’s Copse with same LNR west woodland type and notable species present. Englemere Pond 2.8km south- A large pond supporting reedswamp that supports SSSI east notable flora such as cotton grass Eriophorum angustifolium. Swampy woodland carr dominated by alder Alnus glutinosa is also present. There is a rich dragonfly population and breeding birds include reed warblers Acrocephalus scirpaceus, sedge warblers A. schoenobaenus and reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus. The site also includes secondary woodland and a small amount
ACD Environmental 17 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Name of Approximate Reason for designation statutory distance from designated Application sites Site
of heathland. Englemere Pond 2.8km south- The habitats detailed in SSSI description above LNR east also have been recorded to support sand martin Riparia riparia and swallows Hirundo rustica, variety of bats and grass snake. Plants include round leaved sundew Drosera rotundifolia in the boggy area. The woodland is mainly Scots pine Pinus sylvestris with heather patches including ling Calluna vulgaris, bell heather Erica cinerea and cross leaved heath E. tetralix. Winter migrants include siskin Sinus spinus and redpoll Carduelis flammea in the conifers. Temple Copse 3.16km south- Woodland near Jock’s Copse and Tinker Copse LNR west and of conservation note for the same reasons. Swinley Park and 3.3km south Important tree population, and the presence of Brick Pits SSSI features of value to invertebrate assemblages associated with decaying wood. Stag beetle is common and widespread in the local area. Farley Copse 3.65km south- Farley Copse is an ancient woodland and a LNR west remnant of a once extensive woodland habitat. The large red damselfly Pyrrhosoma nymphula and broad-bodied chaser Libellula depressa are recorded at the pond. Thames Basins 4.6km south Less open habitats of scrub, acidic woodland and Heath SPA conifer plantations dominate, within which are scattered areas of open heath and mire. The site supports important breeding populations of a number of birds of lowland heathland, especially Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus and Woodlark Lullula arborea, both of which nest on the ground, and Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata, which often
ACD Environmental 18 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Name of Approximate Reason for designation statutory distance from designated Application sites Site
nests in gorse Ulex sp. Scattered trees and scrub are used for roosting. Broadmoor to 4.6km south This site has an extensive mosaic of broadleaved Bagshot Woods woodland, coniferous plantation, dry and wet and Heaths SSSI heathland, valley mire, a series of base-poor ponds and a scarce breeding invertebrate assemblage. In particular, the heathland and coniferous plantation supports internationally important populations of woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler, and have a nationally important dragonfly and damselfly population. The site includes the valley bogs of Broadmoor Bottom and Wishmoor Bottom which form the most important remaining examples of this type of habitat in the area. Windsor Forest 4.95km east Largest continuous track of woodland and and Great Park parkland in Berkshire. Supports the internationally SAC rare click beetle Limoniscus wolaceus and stag beetle Lucanus cervus and a rich assemblage of other Red Data book beetles and flies. Red Data List fungi is also present in the form of Buglossoporus pulvinus, Phelinus robustus, Boletus regius and Hericium coralloides. There is also unimproved acid grassland, which supports notable flora such as adder's tongue fern Ophioglossum vulgatum and a lake named Great Meadow Pond which is of importance for waterfowl. Windsor Forest 4.95km east The primary reasons for qualifying is its Annex I and Great Park habitat; Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus SSSI robur on sandy plains and assemblage of violet click beetle.
ACD Environmental 19 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Name of Approximate Reason for designation statutory distance from designated Application sites Site
Annex I habitat present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site is; Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion.
5.3. Local (non-statutory) wildlife sites within 2km of the Application Site are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Local wildlife sites within 2km of the Application Site Name of Approximate Nature Conservation Interest LWS distance from Application Site
Beggars 15m south The site supports lowland meadow habitat Roost/Adj. with woodland strips. The last botanical Strawberry survey date was 1985, which recorded Hill LWS devil’s-bit scabious Succisa pratensis, great burnet Sanguisorba officinalis, betony Stachys officinalis, fen bedstraw Galium uliginosum and bluebell Hyacinthoides non- scripta. Big Wood 190m south-east The site supports lowland mixed deciduous LWS woodland. There are spring line flushes support the sphagnum S. squarrasum which is rare in Berkshire. Brickwork 790m south-west Brickworks Meadow is a small, unimproved Meadows grassland with blackthorn Prunus spinosa LWS scrub and a small strip of secondary woodland Whitegrove 870m south-west It is a lowland mixed deciduous woodland Copse site with some open areas of tall herb to the LWS south and an area of conifer plantation to the north. There are 15 ancient woodland
ACD Environmental 20 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Name of Approximate Nature Conservation Interest LWS distance from Application Site
indicator species and is included within the ancient woodland inventory. The grassland is recognised as MG5 Cynosurus cristatus- Centaurea nigra grassland, NVC Community. Notable birds recorded on site include bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula and skylark Alauda arvensis. Edmunds 990m south-west The site supports lowland meadow habitat Green managed by Bracknell Forest Council. LWS Notable fauna species recorded include small blue butterfly Cupido minimus and stag beetle Lucanus cervus. Adj. 990m south-east A group of three fields separated by Chavey hedgerows with wet areas next to a stream Down LWS that runs through the site. Paddock 1.1km north-east A cattle-grazed paddock, which is bisected adj, to the by a small headwater stream. ‘The Cut’ Cut appears to support a wide range of aquatic Proposed invertebrates, including freshwater mussels. LWS Chavey 1.25km south-east A small mixed, mainly broad-leaved, wood Down containing a small stream and spring which Pond LWS gives rise to a boggy area. Piggy 1.29km south-west The site supports lowland mixed deciduous Wood LWS woodland and wet woodland. Stirrups 1.28km north-east The site supports two unimproved damp Country meadows with a diverse flora community. House There is some evidence of ridge and furrow Hotel LWS with short Salix scrub in some of the furrows and overgrown hedgerow separates and surrounds the two fields. Maidens 1.74 north-east A group of lowland meadow habitat with one Green field contains a wooded moat. The meadows
ACD Environmental 21 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Name of Approximate Nature Conservation Interest LWS distance from Application Site
LWS support species of unimproved grassland such as: carnation sedge Carex panicea, sneezewort Achillea ptarmica, pepper- saxifrage Silaum silaus, great burnet Sanguisorba officinalis and ragged-robin Lychnis flos-cuculi. Round 1.99km east Lowland mixed deciduous woodland with a Copse and varying understorey which includes scrub in Weycroft areas. Carpets of bluebells is present in Copse areas. There are also areas of unmanaged LWS hazle Corylus avellana coppice, a dry ditch that supports primrose Primula vulgaris and ferns and a large pond.
Habitats
5.4. Habitats are listed in order of importance. All the features described are shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Map in Appendix 1.
5.5. The Application Site supports the following habitats:
• Woodland;
• Scattered Trees;
• Hedgerow:
o Intact species-poor;
o Native species-rich with trees;
• Grassland:
o Amenity grassland;
o Poor semi-improved grassland;
• Dense scrub;
• Waterbodies;
• Buildings and hardstanding; and
ACD Environmental 22 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
• Fences.
Woodland
5.6. There are small areas of mixed deciduous woodland in the north of the Application Site and along the southern boundary. The trees present within these areas are relatively mature and mainly comprise oak with a small number of beech Fagus sylvatica, sweet chestnut Castanea sativa and ash. The ground flora is relatively species poor because it is grazed by horses and relatively disturbed, which has created areas of bare ground. There is dense bramble scrub around the base of some trees along with areas of common nettle Urtica diocia and broadleaved dock Rumex obtusifolius.
5.7. The areas of woodland are assessed to be of local importance, given the mature trees, however the woodland is currently in poor condition due to the lack of ground flora and understorey vegetation and will likely deteriorate further whilst in-use as horse paddocks.
Scattered Trees
5.8. There are scattered trees throughout the Application Site, with concentrations in the north east and south of the Application Site. Trees are present within the horse grazed grassland fields and the majority are mature specimens and consequently have areas of flaking bark and cavities such as rot holes, woodpecker holes and dead wood. Scattered trees present on-site include oak, sycamore, crack willow Salix fragilis, goat willow Salix caprea, hybrid black poplar Populus x canadensis, Scots pine Pinus sylvestris and common alder Alnus glutinosa.
5.9. A number of the mature trees on-site were identified as veterans. Veteran is a term for describing a tree with habitat features such as wounds or decay. A veteran tree is a survivor that has developed some of the features found on an ancient tree, not necessarily as a consequence of time, but of its life or environment. A veteran may be a young tree with a relatively small girth in contrast to an ancient tree but bearing the ‘scars’ of age such as decay in the trunk, branches or roots, fungal fruiting bodies, or dead wood. These veteran features provide a valuable resource for wildlife15. The veteran trees within the Application Site are considered to be of local importance.
5.10. The majority of the scattered trees are mature and support features of value to wildlife. With this in mind, the scattered trees are considered to be of local importance.
15 Ancient Tree Guide no.4: What are ancient, veteran and other trees of special interest? http://www.ancienttreeforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ancient-tree-guide-4-definitions.pdf
ACD Environmental 23 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Hedgerow: Intact Species-Poor (J2.1.1)
5.11. All except one intact species-poor hedgerow within the Application Site are manicured, ornamental hedgerows of Leyland cypress X Cuprocyparis leylandii. The largest extent of Leyland cypress hedging extends around the interior of the surfaced canter track (Photograph 32), with other shorter lengths located around the stable buildings and bungalows.
5.12. A short (approximately 40m) hedgerow extends between two paddocks to the west of the canter track. This hedgerow extends along a dry ditch and comprises willows with mature sessile oak Q. petraea, gorse, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and bramble.
5.13. Leyland cypress is an introduced species, and not of conservation significance, therefore the Leyland cypress hedgerows are assessed to be of negligible importance. The other native species-poor hedgerow is made up of native varieties, however, is short in length and is not an important feature for habitat connectivity, therefore, is assessed to be of site importance.
Hedgerow: Native Species-Rich with Trees (J2.3.1)
5.14. Native species-rich hedgerows with trees extend along the Application Sites northernmost boundary, eastern and southern boundaries and western most boundary.
5.15. The western boundary hedgerow is approximately 50m in length, extending along the eastern bank of Bull Brook. The hedgerow comprises of the following tree standards: alder, field maple Acer campestre, wild cherry Prunus avium, elm Ulmus sp. and sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus with young hawthorn, bramble, common nettle and ivy Hedera helix.
5.16. The southern boundary predominantly comprises woodland, however, this thins out on the eastern end resulting a tree line that by definition is hedgerow habitat. The tree standards along this length include silver birch Betula pendula, beech, hazel, pedunculate oak, yew Taxus baccata, sweet chestnut Castanea sativa, holly Ilex aquifolium, willow Salix sp., sycamore, young ash with cherry laurel, bramble and bracken. A dry ditch also extends along its length, which is approximately 90m in length.
5.17. The eastern boundary hedgerow has a high tree standard density and is approximately 225m in length. The woody species present include pedunculate oak, field maple, beech, holly, gorse, hawthorn, blackthorn, sycamore, sessile oak, willow, cherry, aspen Populus tremula and Scot’s Pine Pinus sylvestris with bramble.
5.18. Along the northern boundary are two parallel hedgerows, both approximately 100m in length with pedunculate oak tree standards, Leyland cypress, cherry laurel, yew, beech, sycamore, holly, willow and bramble.
ACD Environmental 24 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5.19. All five hedgerows are assessed to be hedgerows of ‘Importance’, due to either the presence of at least seven woody species or six woody species and three notable features, such as, tree standards, intactness, parallel hedge and embankment.
5.20. Hedgerows are a priority Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat16, therefore, are inherently of ecological importance. Their value as ‘important’ hedgerows increases their nature conservation importance and, hedgerows are also highly regarded habitats within Local Planning Policies. Therefore, the hedgerows are assessed to be of local importance.
Grassland: Amenity (J1.2)
5.21. The amenity grassland makes up a small total area of the Application Site and is scattered in small patches around the buildings and hardstanding. The amenity grassland is well- maintained and at the time of the survey was mown to ground level. The grassland is dominated by perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne with dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg., creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans, white clover Trifolium repens, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, annual meadow-grass Poa annua and knotgrass Polygonum aviculare.
5.22. Overall, the amenity grassland is intensively managed and comprises only common and widespread species, therefore, is assessed to be of negligible ecological importance.
Grassland: Poor Semi-Improved Grassland (B6)
5.23. The poor semi-improved grassland makes up approximately 2.2ha of the Application Site and is subsequently the most dominant habitat. The grassland was parched at the time of the survey and was grazed at varying levels (Photographs 23 to 27). The south-east paddocks were heavily grazed and with patches of bare ground present. Furthermore, patches of ruderal growth were also recorded within many of the paddocks. The ruderal patches predominantly comprised broad-leaved dock and common nettle, which indicates that the grassland suffers from high nutrient inputs, which likely results from its current utilisation as horse paddocks.
5.24. The species recorded within the poor semi-improved grassland habitat included perennial rye- grass, creeping cinquefoil, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, prickly sow-thistle Sonchus asper, creeping buttercup, wood avens Geum urbanum, mare’s-tail Hippuris vulgaris, red fescue Festuca rubra, meadow buttercup R. acris, cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerate, willowherb Epilobium sp., smaller cat’s-tail Phleum bertolonii, common ragwort Senecio jacobaea, broad- leaved dock, curled dock R crispus, common fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica, sorrel R. acetosa, timothy P. pratense, soft rush Juncus effusus, mugwort Artemisia vulgaris, hedge woundwort Stachys sylvetica, meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius and common bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus.
16 UK BAP was superseded in 2012 by the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. However, UKBAP it is still referred to as the species and habitats agreed under UK BAP still form the basis of conservation action today.
ACD Environmental 25 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5.25. Patches of Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica are also scattered within areas of poor semi- improved grassland (Photographs 28 to 31). Japanese knotweed is an invasive species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This makes it illegal to plant or otherwise cause the species to grow in the wild.
5.26. Overall, the poor semi-improved grassland is large in extent, but does not support any notable species and is currently in poor condition and will likely deteriorate further whilst in-use as horse paddocks. Therefore, the poor semi-improved grassland is assessed to be of site importance.
Dense Scrub (A2.1)
5.27. Dense scrub is located in the far south-east corner of the Application Site comprising bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus, bracken Pteridium aquilinum and gorse and on the southern end the introduced species snowberry Symphoricarpos albus and Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica were recorded (see photographs 21 and 22).
5.28. Japanese knotweed is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This makes it illegal to plant or otherwise cause the species to grow in the wild.
5.29. Dense scrub is considered a valuable habitat although its distribution within the UK is common and widespread. The quality of the dense scrub within the Application Site is considered low as it supports introduced species. Overall, due to the small extent of scrub habitat within the Application Site and the presence of the highly invasive Japanese knotweed, the dense scrub is assessed to be of negligible importance.
Waterbodies
5.30. There are two ornamental ponds within the Application Site, in proximity to the buildings.
5.31. One of the ponds supports fish. The ponds have limited vegetation with water lilies Nymphaeaceae sp. and sweet flag Acorus calamus. The ponds are raised within areas of concrete paving.
5.32. The ponds are considered to be of site importance.
ACD Environmental 26 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Buildings (J3.6) and Hardstanding
5.33. There are multiple buildings concentrated within the centre of the Application Site. Building 1 (B1 within Appendix 1), is a weather boarded bungalow with a pitched, clay tiled roof (Photographs 13 to 16). The roof void is cluttered, with timber framing and breathable roofing membrane visible. A conservatory is present on the western elevation of the bungalow (Photograph 19). Building 2 (B2) comprises ship-lap elevations with a pitched, felt tiled roof (Photographs 17 to 18). The roof void within B2 is very low in height and the pitches are boarded.
5.34. To the north and east of the bungalows are stable buildings. Building 3 (B3) is a stable comprising ship-lap walls with corrugated pitched roofs, boarding underneath and timber framing (Photograph 2, 6 and 7). An identical stable building (B4) is parallel to building 3 and is attached to the largest stable building within the Application Site (Photograph 1 and 3), which comprises rendered brick elevations and a pitched, asbestos corrugated sheeting roof. The corrugated sheeting is exposed internally and comprises translucent sheets and thus, is well lit inside (Photograph 8). Adjoining the southern elevation of the large stable building is a rendered breezeblock stable building (B5) with a pitched, asbestos corrugated roof (Photograph 9). To the east of the breezeblock stable building are corrugated roofed lean-to’s (B6) and to the south of the lean-tos are a cluster of small stable buildings (B7). The cluster of stable buildings are of the same design of building 3 but smaller in size.
5.35. To the east of the stable buildings is an indoor riding arena (B8). This building is a large barn with mixed corrugated sheeting elevations and roof. The southern elevation is covered with climbing Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia. Internally the building is held up with steel framing and translucent corrugated sheeting and large openings between the walls and roof eaves allow light to enter the interior. Adjoining the eastern elevation of the arena is a corrugated roof lean-to and immediately north-east of the arena there is a bungalow comprising ship-lap elevations and a pitched, corrugated roof (Photograph 12).
5.36. Virginia creeper is listed as an invasive species on Schedule 9 of the UK Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended. Under the Act it is illegal to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant listed in Schedule 9 of the Act.
5.37. Hardstanding within the Application Site is concentrated around the buildings, car parking areas and a walkway to the outdoor riding arena, as shown in Appendix 1.
5.38. Overall, the buildings and hardstanding within the Application Site are assessed to be of negligible importance.
ACD Environmental 27 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Fence (J2.4)
5.39. The horse paddocks throughout the Application Site are divided up by post and rail fencing, as evident within Appendix 1. The fencing has resulted in a variation in the quality of the grassland present throughout the Application Site, with some paddocks evidently occupied by horses significantly more than others.
5.40. Overall, the fencing within the Application Site is assessed to be negligible importance.
Fauna
Bats
5.41. Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre returned records of common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle P. Pygmaeus, brown long eared Plecotus auritus, Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii, Nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, noctule Nyctalus noctula, Leisler’s Nyctalus leisleri, and serotine Eptesicus serotinus within 2km of the Application Site.
5.42. MAGIC returned records of the following European Protected Species (EPS) Mitigation Licenses for bats that have been granted within 2km of the Application Site:
• Destruction of a resting place for brown long eared and common pipistrelle bats 1.2k to the north west (2015-17837-EPS-MIT);
• Destruction of resting place for brown long eared and common pipistrelle bats 1.4km to the west (2016-20977-EPS-MIT); and
• Destruction of a breeding site for common pipistrelle and brown long eared bats 1.9km to the south east (EPSM2012-5252).
5.43. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 were assessed as having suitability to support bat roosts during the Preliminary Roost Assessment. Building 1 has a cluttered loft, with timber framing and breathable roofing membrane visible. Externally, there are numerous slipped roof tiles and gaps behind wooden boarding.
5.44. Buildings 2 and 3 both provide opportunities for roosting bats behind gappy ship-lap boarding.
ACD Environmental 28 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5.45. The habitats on-site have good suitability to be used by foraging and commuting bats. The perimeter hedgerows provide dark linear habitat corridors through the local landscape and are likely to be used by bats moving between roosts and higher quality foraging habitat. The horse grazed grassland and the mature trees provide a high-quality forging resource, however, it should be noted that the importance of the horse grazed grassland for foraging bats is likely to be partially reduced due to the widespread use of broad-spectrum de-wormers in horses, which are damaging to invertebrate development. This is likely to limit the assemblage/ number of invertebrates present on-site.
5.46. During the bat emergence surveys in 2018, general bat activity in proximity to the buildings was relatively low with noctule, common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats recorded foraging over the grassland and around the trees. Given the proximity of the Application Site to larger parcels of offsite woodland, there is some potential for the Application Site to support rare species of foraging and commuting bats, for example barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus and Bechstein’s Myotis bechsteinii, although the Application Site itself does not support optimal habitat for these species.
5.47. The foraging and commuting bat interest is considered to be of importance within the zone of influence, which in this case is considered to be the habitats on-site and all connected linear habitats such as hedgerows, watercourses and tree lines.
Roosting Bats
5.48. Bat roosts were confirmed to be present within two of the buildings on-site during surveys in 2018.
5.49. Building 1 was found to support a soprano pipistrelle day roost for an individual bat and a soprano pipistrelle maternity roost. An individual soprano pipistrelle bat was recorded emerging from the western elevation of building 1 on the 01.08.2018. The bat emerged from beneath ship-lap boarding above the porch extension. No bats were recorded emerging from this building during the second emergence survey on the 15.08.2018. Approximately 15 soprano pipistrelle bats were recorded emerging from the roof on the eastern elevation of building 1 on the 14.09.18. The bats emerged from several areas where the two pitches of the roof meet.
5.50. Building 3 was found to support a soprano pipistrelle day/ satellite roost. Three soprano pipistrelle bats were recorded emerging from beneath ship-lap boarding on the southern elevation of building 3 on the 13.09.18. No bats were recorded emerging from building 3 during the previous two surveys.
ACD Environmental 29 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Image 2: Confirmed soprano pipistrelle maternity (yellow star) roost and day/ satellite (orange) roosts.
5.51. Update surveys will be carried out in Spring and Summer 2021 to update the baseline and record any changes to the way bats are utilising the buildings on-site. These update surveys will be used to inform an EPS licence application.
Table 4: Summary of 2018 Preliminary Roost Assessment and Bat Emergence Surveys
Building Suitable features Suitability to support roosting Number bats
1 Access into loft Confirmed soprano pipistrelle maternity roost and day/ satellite Gaps under boarding, roof tiles, soffits. roost.
2 Access into loft Medium suitability – no bat roost confirmed. Gaps under ship-lap boarding
3 Gaps under ship-lap boarding Confirmed soprano pipistrelle day/ satellite roost.
ACD Environmental 30 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5.52. Soprano pipistrelle is widely distributed across the UK, with the exception of the very northern parts of Scotland. Along with the common pipistrelle it is one of Britain’s commonest bat species. Populations of pipistrelles have declined in the last few decades. This is at least partly as a result of modern agricultural practices. Their reliance on buildings for roosting makes them vulnerable to building renovations, exclusion and toxic remedial timber treatment chemicals17.
5.53. Soprano pipistrelle summer roosts can support colonies of an average size of 200 bats, but they can be even larger with numbers reaching several hundred, to over a thousand bats. Therefore, this roost is relatively small, compared to what is typical for the species.
5.54. A soprano pipistrelle maternity roost is considered to be of moderate conservation significance18.
5.55. As the Application Site support a maternity roost and two day/ satellite roosts for soprano pipistrelle bats, the bat interest is considered to be of at least local importance.
5.56. A number of trees were recorded as having features suitable to support roosting bats during the Phase 1 Survey. Woodpecker holes, knot holes and split branches were recorded on numerous trees throughout the Application Site. The trees on-site will be surveyed in detail from the ground in 2021 to determine whether they have any features suitable to support roosting bats. If suitable features are identified, further tree climbing/ endoscope surveys may be carried out to record evidence of roosting bats, if impacts are considered likely.
Birds
5.57. The data search returned a number of bird records within 2km of the Application Site. These species have been grouped by their UK conservation status according to the RSPB, where birds are split into conservation priority from red (most critical group), amber (next most critical group) to green (least critical group)19 as follows:
• Red listed species comprising; cuckoo Cuculus canorus, fieldfare Turdus pilaris, house sparrow Passer domesticus, song thrush Turdus philomelos, lapwing Vanellus vanellus, lesser spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos minor, yellow wagtail Motacilla flava, skylark Alauda arvensis and starling Sturnus vulgaris.
• Amber listed species comprising; bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, barn owl Tyto alba, dunnock Prunella modularis, house martin Delichon urbicum, kingfisher Alcedo atthis, kestrel Falco tinnunculus, snipe Gallinago gallinago, redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus,
17 https://cdn.bats.org.uk/pdf/About%20Bats/sopranopipistrelle_11.02.13.pdf?mtime=20181101151303 18 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature 19 Information on RSPB listings here: https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/uk-conservation-status- explained/
ACD Environmental 31 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
woodcock Scolopax rusticola, green woodpecker Picus viridis and tawny owl Strix aluco.
5.58. The Application Site is in an area that is of intrinsically high value to birds given the amount of woodland within the local area. Boundary habitats and scattered trees provide suitably dense and mature vegetation for both nesting and foraging activities for a range of small birds including blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus, great tits Parus major and goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, which were all observed on-site during the Phase 1 survey.
5.59. Barn swallow were recorded nesting within the numerous stable buildings and barns on-site during the Phase 1 survey. There are nesting opportunities on-site for cavity nesting species because of the presence of mature and veteran trees, which could support tree creepers Certhia familiaris and woodpeckers Picidae sp..
5.60. As the grassland is currently grazed by horses, there are very limited opportunities for ground nesting species such as skylark and yellowhammer.
5.61. Various raptors were identified on or near the Application Site during the Phase 1 survey and subsequent site visits. These include common buzzard Buteo buteo, tawny owl Strix aluco and red kite Milvus milvus. Although barn owl have been recorded nearby, the grassland on-site is considered to be sub-optimal foraging habitat because there is no thatch layer or tussocks. Equally, none of the buildings were deemed suitable for nesting or roosting barn owl because they are subject to regular disturbance.
5.62. Given the context, the bird interest on-site is considered to be of local importance.
Great crested newt
5.63. TVERC returned numerous records of great crested newt within 2km of the Application Site. The nearest records of great crested newt are from ponds located:
• 766m west (great crested newt eggs in 2001, great crested newts confirmed absent following eDNA analysis in 2017);
• 880m south (great crested newt eggs in 2012);
• 1.1km south west (breeding pond confirmed in 2014); and
• 1.8km north east (3 great crested newts in 2005).
ACD Environmental 32 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5.64. There are two ornamental ponds within the Application Site. HSI Assessments of both of these ponds returned ‘below average’ and ‘poor’ scores for great crested newts respectively. The high density of fish within pond 2 means the presence of great crested newts is highly unlikely. Similarly, the ornamental structure of pond 1 (steep stone sides) and the sub-optimal surrounding habitat makes the likelihood of finding great crested newts in this pond very low.
5.65. There are four ponds within 250m of the Application Site; pond 3 is situated within Westmorland Park and lies 20m to the south of the Application Site’s southern boundary, over the B3034 road. This balancing pond was created in the early 1990s to store excess water during heavy rainfall. It is owned and maintained by Thames Water.
5.66. According to the park’s website20, pond 3 is stocked with fish (carp, tench and roach) and supports water birds including ducks, moorhens and swans. The pond has little submerged vegetation and therefore is unlikely to support rarer species such as great crested newts.
5.67. Pond 4 is situated 50m to the south west of the Application Site within an area of trees on the road corner between Strawberry Hill and the B3034. From online mapping, this pond appears to be small and well shaded by the surrounding trees. Given its proximity to the road, it is likely to be ephemeral and is likely to hold run-off water from the adjacent roads. This pond is on the boundary of Beggars Roost/Adj. Strawberry Hill Local Wildlife Site and great crested newt are not included within the site description.
5.68. Pond 5 is situated 125m to the north of the Application Site within the grounds of Warfield House.
5.69. Pond 4 is situated 200m to the north west of the Application Site within the grounds of Warfield House.
5.70. There is one further pond situated between 250m and 500m of the Application Site, 490m to the north. From aerial mapping, this pond appears to be small and is surrounded by trees to the west of Malt Hill.
5.71. MAGIC returned one record of a great crested newt EPS licence within 2km of the Application Site, 1.8km to the south east. This licence (EPSM2010-2285) allowed for the destruction of a great crested newt resting place.
5.72. The habitats on-site are largely sub-optimal for terrestrial great crested newts. The horse grazed grassland is subject to frequent disturbance and is kept relatively short. The perimeter hedgerows and woodland corridor do provide some opportunities for sheltering within tree roots and in small mammal holes etc. however, the lack of woodland ground flora means there are limited opportunities for sheltering great crested newts.
20 https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/parks-and-countryside/parks-visit/westmorland-park
ACD Environmental 33 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5.73. The Application Site is not connected to any known great crested newt breeding ponds and connectivity is restricted by the B3034, B3022, Hayley Green Road and Bull Brook, which form the Application Site boundaries.
5.74. Given the above, great crested newts are considered likely absent from the Application Site and they will not be considered further in this report.
Reptile
5.75. TVERC returned records of grass snake Natrix helvetica, slow worm Anguis fragilis and adder Vipera berus within 2km of the Application Site. The adder was recorded 350m to the east of the Application Site in 2009 and the nearest slow worm and grass snake were recorded approximately 180m to the south east of the Application Site at Hayley Green Wood LNR. None of the records are either adjacent to, or in habitat well connected to the Application Site.
5.76. The habitats on-site have low suitability to support reptiles as the grassland is well grazed and lacks the tussocks and thatch layer that is associated with optimal reptile habitat. The grassland is also subject to frequent disturbance and sheltering opportunities within log/ vegetation piles are restricted to the perimeter habitats.
5.77. The Application Site is relatively isolated from other suitable reptile habitat due to the presence of busy roads, however small numbers of grass snake could use Bull Brook, which runs along the western site boundary and subsequently utilise suitable areas of the Application Site.
5.78. It is considered highly unlikely that the Application Site could support a significant population of reptiles, however, individual (or small numbers) of grass snake could pass through the Application Site via Bull Brook. The reptile interest is considered to be of site importance.
Hazel Dormouse
5.79. TVERC returned no records of hazel dormouse within 2km of the Application Site.
5.80. The hedgerows and woodland corridor on-site are species rich and offer good structural diversity, suitable to support hazel dormouse and other small mammals.
5.81. No evidence of hazel dormouse (or any other small mammals) was found during the nest tube surveys in 2018 or 2020. Therefore, hazel dormouse are considered likely absent from the Application Site and will not be considered further in this report.
Water vole
ACD Environmental 34 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
5.82. TVERC returned no records of water vole within 2km of the Application Site. The Berkshire Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT’s) Water Vole Recovery Project21 has recorded an increase (78% over the last ten years) in known water vole sites in these counties. However, the National Water Vole Mapping Project suggests water vole presence has declined by 30% between 2006 and 2015.
5.83. There are no apparent records of water vole within Bull Brook, which runs along the sites western boundary and is a tributary of The Cut river. The brook is considered sub-optimal for water vole as the banks are shallow and the section adjacent to the Application Site is heavily overgrown with bramble scrub. The west of the Application Site (adjacent to Bull Brook) is predominantly horse grazed grassland, which offers little suitability for water vole.
5.84. There is low potential for water vole to utilise Bull Brook, which runs offsite along the western site boundary. If present within the brook, it is considered highly unlikely that water vole would enter the Application Site. Indirect impacts on the adjacent offsite brook will be avoided through precautionary measures, which are outlined in Section 7 of this report.
Otter
5.85. TVERC returned one record of otter within 2km of the Application Site. This record is from 2016, 365m to the north east of the Application Site, close to the B3022. This record is proximate to The Cut; therefore, it is considered likely that the otter was dispersing along this river. Although Bull Brook does connect to The Cut, albeit over 3km to the north west of the Application Site, it is considered unlikely that otter would disperse this far from the main river. The length of Bull Brook adjacent to the Application Site is sub-optimal for otter and is unlikely to provide good foraging habitat.
5.86. The habitats on-site are unsuitable for otter. Indirect impacts on the adjacent offsite brook will be avoided through precautionary measures, which are outlined in Section 7 of this report.
Badger
5.87. TVERC provided numerous records of badger within 2km of the Application Site. The majority of the records are of badgers crossing roads or of roadkill.
5.88. During the surveys undertaken at the Application Site, no evidence of badger activity was observed at any time.
5.89. The Application Site supports habitat, which is suitable for foraging badger, however it does not appear that any badgers are currently using the Application Site, or areas adjacent to its
21 https://www.bbowt.org.uk/wildlife/wildlife-conservation/water-vole-recovery-project
ACD Environmental 35 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
boundaries. Consideration must be given to their highly mobile nature, therefore their status on-site is subject to change.
Invertebrates
5.90. The data search provided records of the following protected or notable invertebrate species within 2km of the Application Site:
• Stag beetle Lucanus cervus – prefers oak woodlands, but can be found in gardens, hedgerows and parks. The larvae depend on old trees and rotting wood to live in and feed on.
• Cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae – relies on its larval foodplant, ragwort and groundsel, being present.
• Small blue butterfly Cupido minimus – relies on sheltered sites that contain a good amount of kidney vetch, together with grasses and shrubs, which are used for perching and roosting.
• White admiral butterfly Limenitis Camilla – relies on deciduous woodland but can also be found in conifer plantations, so long as Honeysuckle is available.
5.91. Habitats of potential value to invertebrates within the Application Site include veteran trees, fallen deadwood and poor semi improved grassland. Areas of less heavily grazed grassland are likely to be important resources for invertebrates. Flowers including yellow composites, umbellifers, birds foot trefoil, thistles and vetches provide good food sources and nectar for bees and wasps, grasshoppers and crickets, moths and butterflies, flies and beetles.
5.92. Mature and veteran trees provide sheltered areas of habitat (still air) that are favoured by invertebrates and mature trees with decaying trunks provide the most benefit to saproxylic invertebrates.
5.93. The habitats on-site are relatively common within the local area; therefore, the invertebrate interest is considered to be of site importance only.
Other mammals
5.94. The data search returned records of brown hare Lepus europaeus, harvest mouse Micromys minutus and hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus within 2km of the Application Site.
5.95. Brown hare are unlikely to be present on-site given its proximity to busy roads and the use of
ACD Environmental 36 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
the Application Site as a livery yard.
5.96. Harvest mouse rely on long tussocky grassland, reedbeds, hedgerows, farmland and woodland edge habitat. Although the habitats on-site offer some suitability for harvest mouse, the lack of tall grassland and the level of disturbance on-site makes their presence unlikely.
5.97. Hedgehogs (a Species of Principal Importance) rely on a matrix of grassland, woodland, gardens and arable fields and are therefore likely to be present within the Application Site.
ACD Environmental 37 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
6 SCHEME DESIGN
6.1. The proposed development is being designed with close collaboration between the ecologist, arboriculturist, landscape architect and drainage engineer to minimise impacts and create a workable scheme that adds value.
6.2. The design of the proposed development has followed the mitigation hierarchy; firstly impacts to biodiversity have been largely avoided by retaining the more valuable habitats on-site. This includes the majority of the mature trees and hedgerows. Secondly, adverse effects have been avoided or minimised through mitigation measures such as appropriate buffers. Lastly, where there is the potential for significant residual adverse ecological effects despite the mitigation proposed, these have been offset by appropriate compensatory measures.
6.3. The following avoidance measures have incorporated into the proposed layout:
• Retain all mature and veteran trees wherever possible, with appropriate RPA’s;
• Reduce impacts on Bull Brook by incorporating a large area of open space in the west of the development;
• Position buildings and roads towards the centre of the development to minimise impacts on boundary habitats; and
• Minimise the amount of vegetation needing to be removed to create the access along the southern boundary.
Image 3: Constraints and opportunities – December 2020
ACD Environmental 38 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
7.1. In accordance with CIEEM guidelines, the following important ecological features have been identified with the potential to be affected by the proposed development and carried forward for further assessment:
Table 5: Important ecological features brought forward for impact assessment.
Statutory sites Thames Basin Heaths SPA, Hayley Green Wood LNR, SSSI’s within 2km
Local Wildlife sites Beggars Roost/ Adj. Strawberry Hill
Habitats Woodland, scattered trees, hedgerows, Bull Brook (offsite)
Species and species groups Roosting bats, nesting birds
7.2. The following ecological features have been scoped out of the ecological impact assessment, owing to the conclusion that no significant effects are predicted:
Table 6: Ecological features scoped out of the impact assessment.
Statutory sites All others within 5km
Non-statutory sites All others within 2km
Habitats Grassland, waterbodies, dense scrub, buildings and hardstanding, fences.
Species and species groups Great crested newts, reptiles, hazel dormouse, invertebrates, otter, water vole, badgers and other mammals
7.3. The Application Site falls within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone (IRZ), which highlights that there are possible risks to a nearby SSSI from any residential developments with a total net gain in residential units. As the proposed development meets these criteria, the LPA should consult Natural England specifically on this matter. It is not possible to determine which IRZ corresponds to which SSSI, therefore further investigation into potential impacts on specific SSSI designated features is not possible at this stage.
ACD Environmental 39 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.4. Due to the proximity of the Application Site to Thames Basin Heaths SPA, a site-specific mitigation strategy will need to be agreed with Natural England and the LPA to prevent impacts on the SPA’s designated features. This information will need to be presented in a Report to Inform and Appropriate Assessment, which will enable the LPA to carry out the Appropriate Assessment.
7.5. As the Application Site falls within the 400m - 5km zone from Thames Basin Heaths SPA, this development will be required to demonstrate that it can avoid any likely significant effect on the SPA. This can be done using the mitigation measures known as SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) and SAMM (Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Measures).
7.6. The Application Site is not of a sufficient size to create a bespoke SANG, therefore, Bewley Homes will be consulting the LPA and Natural England on potential capacity within a council- owned (strategic) SANG. Developments using council-owned SANGs as mitigation contribute towards their enhancement, ongoing management and maintenance through a combination of s106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
7.7. The level of the financial contribution depends upon the number of dwellings in the scheme, the number of bedrooms they contain and their distance from the SPA.
7.8. There are a number of strategic and bespoke SANGs within proximity to the Application Site, details of which can be found in the Bracknell Forest Council Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document22.
7.9. Following consultation with the LPA and Natural England, full details of the proposed mitigation strategy will be outlined with a Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment.
7.10. Impacts on nearby non-statutory designated wildlife sites, namely the Beggars Roost/ Adj. Strawberry Hill LWS, will be avoided by incorporating large areas of open space within the development. Options to improve the local network of public footpaths and parks will be explored with the LPA to discourage large numbers of residents from using the local wildlife sites for recreation. Manageable numbers of increased visitors are unlikely to generate adverse impacts. The lack of facilities within the LWS means that residents are more likely to visit country parks and areas of woodland and the high number of LWSs in the locality, reduces the risk of high numbers of visitors frequenting one particular site.
22 https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/thames-basin-heaths-spa-supplementary-planning- document.pdf
ACD Environmental 40 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Invasive Species
7.11. There are stands of Japanese knotweed within the south of the Application Site as shown in Appendix 1. It is an offence to cause or allow Japanese knotweed to spread under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 section 114 (2), as it is one of the plants listed in the schedule. All waste containing Japanese knotweed comes under the control of Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
7.12. A contractor specialising in the eradication of invasive weeds will be employed to safely remove Japanese knotweed from the Application Site.
7.13. A management plan will be produced by the specialist contractor. This will include the preferred disposal method, time scales and on-going monitoring. There are three main methods of control: chemical, removal and burying. Trials have shown that a combination of methods proves the most effective.
7.14. Providing the Japanese knotweed is appropriately eradicated, there should be no long-term residual effects.
Woodland and Scattered Trees
7.15. Without appropriate mitigation, there is potential for the areas of woodland and scattered trees to be directly impacted through felling or indirectly impacted by an increase in noise, vibration and dust during construction activities. Trees could be damaged by the tracking of vehicles or earthworks if root protection areas are not fenced off.
7.16. Once operational, there is potential for the woodland to be negatively impacted by recreational pressures from the proposed development such as disturbance and littering.
Avoidance/Mitigation Measures
7.17. The areas of woodland in the north and south of the Application Site have been retained as part of the layout. The majority of the scattered trees have also been retained within areas of open space. A small number of trees including two early mature common alder to the south of building 1 and an overmature crack willow in the north east of the Application Site will be removed. Root Protection Areas (RPAs) will be established around the woodland and retained trees in line with BS5837:2012 and will be clearly marked out through the use of Heras fencing or similar.
ACD Environmental 41 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.18. Retained areas of woodland will be protected from the development with a suitable buffer, which will comprise a matrix of species rich grassland and scrub to create a woodland edge habitat. The proposed scrub will help to provide a visual screen and buffer between the development and the existing woodland. The buffers will be subject to a low intensity management regime to create a semi-natural woodland edge habitat of high importance to wildlife.
7.19. Gardens have been kept well away from the existing boundary habitats to ensure the woodland and trees are only managed by the appointed management company.
7.20. Potential impacts on the woodland and scattered trees during construction will be further minimised by the use of suitable solid hoarding around the construction area and dust control measures, such as water suppression and extraction.
7.21. Scrub will be left to grow along the woodland edge to provide shelter for wildlife whilst also acting as a deterrent to people, dogs and cats.
7.22. Existing areas of woodland will be enhanced by allowing the natural regeneration of ground flora and understorey vegetation, which has been damaged by long term horse grazing.
Significance of Residual Effects
7.23. As the existing areas of woodland and scattered trees are largely being retained and will be adequately protected and buffered from the development, the residual effect is not anticipated to be significant.
Hedgerows
7.24. Under the current proposals, approximately 20m of hedgerow with trees along the southern boundary of the Application Site will be removed to facilitate the new access road into the development from the B3034. This section of hedgerow and trees comprises five holly trees, one hornbeam and one oak tree.
7.25. The proposed cycle path link will require the removal of one small holly tree. The path is within the root protection area of a number of trees and will therefore be built to a no-dig specification.
7.26. All the trees proposed for removal are low quality in arboricultural terms. The ecological value of these trees and their suitability to support protected species will be assessed during the ground level tree assessment in early 2021.
7.27. All other hedgerows will be retained and protected from the development.
7.28. The existing hedgerow and trees have not been included within private gardens; therefore, sensitive management can be more closely controlled to maximise their ecological value.
Avoidance/Mitigation Measures
ACD Environmental 42 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.29. An RPA will be established around the retained hedgerows. This area will be fenced off with Heras fencing during construction to protect it from traffic and machinery.
7.30. The section of hedgerow to be removed along the southern boundary will be kept to a minimum and connectivity will be retained through the tree canopies overhanging the proposed access road. This will ensure connectivity for wildlife is maintained along this boundary.
7.31. The condition of the retained hedgerows will be improved through the removal of cherry laurel, which will be replaced with native species. Hedgerows will be thickened and gaps filled in with native hedgerow planting and hedgerows will be sensitively managed and encouraged to grow wide and bushy and to a height of 1.8m.
7.32. A species rich, native hedgerow will be planted along the northern and north western site boundary to provide a net gain in the amount of hedgerow on-site and to improve habitat connectivity around the Application Site.
7.33. Tree species, which provide fruit, nut or good sheltering opportunities will be planted within the development to enhance the value of the Application Site for wildlife.
Significance of Residual Effects
7.34. As the existing hedgerow and trees are largely being retained and protected from the development and new hedgerows would comprise a mix of native species, overall, there will be an increase in the length of hedgerow and number of trees on-site, and the residual effect is likely to be positive.
Poor semi-improved grassland
7.35. The majority of the grassland on-site will be lost as a result of the proposed development. A proportion of this will be a temporary loss, as grassland will be re-created within the gardens and areas of open space during the landscaping of the development.
7.36. Without appropriate mitigation, retained areas of grassland will be subjected to varying degrees of disturbance as a result of increased recreational use. Without suitable pathways, signage and facilities, retained grassland is likely to be used for dog walking etc. and so will be subject to increased trampling, littering and dog waste.
Avoidance/Mitigation Measures
7.37. Areas of species rich grassland and wildflower meadow are proposed within the open space in the west of the development. This area will be sensitively managed for wildlife and mown pathways will be maintained to discourage people from disturbing the whole area.
7.38. Within the development, at least three different types of grassland should be planted, including:
• Emorsgate Seeds tussocky wild-flower mix (EM10F) or hedgerow margin meadow mix (EH1F 42) - 2m wide margin alongside the northern boundary hedgerow; and
ACD Environmental 43 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
• Emorsgate Seeds general purpose meadow mixture (EM3) within areas of open space.
7.39. Areas of open space will be managed by a private management company and the wildflower mixes will undergo a minimal management regime, of a maximum of two cuts a year in March/April and August/September. All arisings will be removed after each cut to help prevent weed species from dominating.
7.40. Shrub planting throughout the development will help to offset the loss of the grassland by providing opportunities for pollinators. Species of benefit to wildlife, which should be included within the soft landscaping scheme include red barberry Berberis thunbergii, dogwood Cornus sanguinea, Hebe sp., English Lavender Lavandula angustifolia, Mahonia media, daisy bush Olearia haastii, Japanese andromeda Pieris japonica, shrubby cinquefoil Potentilla fruticosa, sweet box Sarcococca confussa and skimmia ‘Rubella’ Skimmia japonica.
Significance of Residual Effects
7.41. This existing importance of the grassland is limited by its current management and condition, which is likely to deteriorate further over time. Providing areas of species rich grassland are created within the proposed development and carefully managed, the residual effect is likely to be neutral.
Bull Brook (offsite)
7.42. Without appropriate mitigation, there is potential for pollutants to enter Bull Brook during both the construction and operational phases of the development, which would negatively impact on the water quality and plant species present.
7.43. During the course of construction works, good practice measures relating to disposal of chemicals and waste must be followed to ensure these do not enter the brook.
7.44. At the time of writing, infiltration testing has not been carried out at the Application Site. It is proposed that all surface water runoff from impermeable areas at the development is attenuated on-site via SuDS and discharged into the existing Bull Brook watercourse at the western site boundary, mimicking the existing natural greenfield runoff regime.
7.45. Due to the presence of shallow perched groundwater at the Application Site, all SuDS will be sealed with an impermeable membrane to prevent the ingress of groundwater. A range of SuDS types and components will be utilised to manage water quality, water quantity and amenity provision within the Application Site. This includes trapped road gullies, permeable paving and cellular attenuation tanks. Water will discharge into Bull Brook via a flow control chamber restricting peak flows to the greenfield Qbar rate of 16.2 l/s.
ACD Environmental 44 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.46. A set-back outfall will be utilised to allow for deposition of sediment before reaching the brook. The new channel will be seeded with native emergent aquatic plants to increase its biodiversity value.
7.47. The proposed layout includes a 25m buffer between Bull Brook and the nearest groundworks on-site. This buffer comprises an area of open space, which will include species rich grassland around the proposed outfall. The western boundary hedgerow will be thickened with native hedgerow planting and scrub will be allowed to grow up to further buffer the existing hedgerow and Bull Brook from the development.
Significance of Residual Effects
7.48. Providing the drainage scheme on-site is carefully designed, the residual effect is likely to be neutral.
Fauna
7.49. Care will be taken during clearance/groundworks to ensure wildlife is not harmed and if any protected species are found when the ecologist is not in attendance, works will stop, they will not be handled and ACD Environmental Ltd contacted in the first instance.
7.50. Any excavations will be covered when works are not taking place to ensure that they do not fill with water and prevent the potential for wildlife to become trapped (especially badger) and avoid encouraging amphibians during the course of the works.
Bats
7.51. Three bat roosts were confirmed to be present within the buildings on-site in 2018. These buildings will be demolished under the current proposals; therefore, update emergence/ re- entry surveys will be carried out in spring/ summer 2021 to verify these findings and to inform a European Protected Species Mitigation Licence application.
7.52. A soprano pipistrelle maternity roost and two soprano pipistrelle day/ satellite roosts were found within buildings 1 and 3 on-site. Maternity roosts for common bat species are considered to be of moderate conservation significance, therefore, demolition of these buildings will take place outside of the maternity season (May – September) and like for like replacement roosts will be provided within a number of the new buildings in proximity to the existing roosts. The new roosts will be in place prior to demolition of the existing buildings so that bats are not left without a roost.
7.53. The new roosts will be suitable to support a maternity roost and associated satellite roosts and will include roosting opportunities between roof tiles and 1F roofing membrane, behind weatherboarding and within integrated bat boxes such as the Habibat maternity roost box.
ACD Environmental 45 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.54. Full details of the proposed replacement roosts and timing of works will be detailed within the updated EcIA (following the update surveys) and the EPS licence application. Providing the loss of the bat roosts are suitably compensated for, the residual effect on roosting bats is unlikely to be significant.
7.55. A small number of trees will be felled and a number of retained trees are likely to be impacted by an increase in disturbance and lighting as a result of the development. Detailed ground level tree assessments for bats and tree climbing/ endoscope surveys will be carried out in winter 2020/2021 of trees that are going to be impacted by the proposals to determine whether any bat roosts are present.
7.56. Without appropriate mitigation, these trees are likely to be subject to an increase in disturbance during construction activities and a long-term increase in lighting once the development is operational. This could negatively impact upon any bat roosts present and could cause bats to abandon their roosts.
7.57. In the absence of mitigation, the removal of the section of southern boundary hedgerow with trees to create the site access could result in the severance of a linear corridor and a net decrease in foraging and commuting habitat in the local area. This in turn could increase foraging and commuting pressure on off-site habitats and could force bats to increase their range; utilising longer and more energy-demanding commuting routes. This could have a detrimental effect on the conservation status of the local populations.
7.58. Without appropriate consideration, foraging and commuting bats are likely to be impacted by the increase in lighting from the new development. This could alter and restrict bat movements within the local area and lead to a loss in available foraging habitat for the local bat populations.
7.59. Lighting has been shown to have an adverse effect on bats through direct avoidance of illuminated areas and increased mortality of invertebrate prey. Where inappropriate lighting occurs close to roost sites, bats may abandon their roost or delay their emergence, which limits their foraging opportunities. Lighting a commuting or foraging route may also impact upon the integrity of a roost, even if the roost itself is not directly affected.
Avoidance/Mitigation Measures
7.60. All of the trees with features suitable to support roosting bats that are likely to be either directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed development will be subject to a tree climbing/ endoscope inspection survey. The purpose of this survey is to establish which trees support bat roosts and to characterise the roosts, if present. If evidence of bats is found, further surveys will likely be required, and a licence may be required from Natural England prior to the start of works if the works/ development are likely to impact on the bat roost/s.
7.61. If no evidence of bats is found and the ecologist is confident that all of the features with suitability for bats have been thoroughly checked, no further works are required.
ACD Environmental 46 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.62. If in the future any of the retained trees on-site require works such as pruning, as a minimum, these trees will need to be inspected using an endoscope by an ecologist with the appropriate licence, immediately prior to the works. If evidence of bats is found, a mitigation strategy will be produced and a licence from Natural England is likely to be required prior to felling the tree.
7.63. The layout has been carefully designed to avoid isolating any trees with bat roosting potential within a built-up area. Trees are primarily situated within areas of open space, which have connectivity along dark corridors with the site’s boundary habitats.
7.64. To minimise the impact of the proposed development on commuting and foraging bats, the lighting scheme will be sensitively designed. During the construction phase, the following mitigation will be followed:
• All works will be undertaken during normal working daylight hours. No artificial lighting will be left on at the site outside of normal working hours;
• Where security lighting is required it is recommended that they are motion sensitive with hooded luminaires and directed away from the vegetated boundaries and any scattered trees; and
• If the schedule of works are to be amended to include the use of lighting not in line with the recommended security lighting above, a suitably qualified ecologist will be consulted prior to installing lighting on site.
7.65. Suitable lighting mitigation during the operational phase of the development is as follows:
• External lighting within the development will adhere to the relevant lighting standards but not surpass these requirements;
• Where feasible, external lighting is to be motion activated and will be low level bollard lighting, task related and designed to avoid light spill;
• All lighting on site must have focussed luminance on their target area preventing light pollution into other areas. This will be achieved by using: directional downlights illuminating below the horizontal plane; all lights fitted with hoods or rear deflectors; and, using the lowest necessary lighting column and achieve beneath 1 lux at 2m above ground level;
• Narrow spectrum lights must be used with no UV content such as warm white LED. Blue and white lights will be avoided; and
• Once the lighting scheme has been finalised, it will be reviewed by a suitably qualified ecologist.
ACD Environmental 47 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.66. Linear commuting corridors will be retained for bats around the perimeter of the development. Connectivity will be enhanced for bats through the planting of a new species rich hedgerow along the northern boundary, which will connect the Bull Brook corridor to the proposed replacement bat roosts. The existing areas of woodland on-site will be strengthened through new planting to provide an improved foraging resource for bats.
7.67. Connectivity will be retained along the southern boundary hedgerow by maintaining connectivity between the tree canopies. Lighting will be carefully designed here to provide dark areas for bats to pass over the access road.
7.68. Whilst rare species could exploit the Application Site in small numbers, they would not be significantly affected by the proposals, given the provision of ecological buffers and creation of ecologically-valuable habitats.
Significance of Residual Effects
7.69. Providing the above mitigation is adhered to, the overall residual effect on bats is unlikely to be significant.
Birds
7.70. Approximately 20m of hedgerow with trees will be removed to facilitate the new access road into the development. Without appropriate mitigation there is a risk of killing or injuring birds and disturbing nests during the removal of vegetation. The remaining hedgerows and trees are being retained and buffered from the development.
7.71. There will be a long-term reduction in the amount of grassland available for birds to forage on. The grassland on-site has very low suitability for ground nesting birds.
7.72. Without mitigation, increased disturbance as a result of construction noise, dust and vibration is likely to affect the ability of birds nesting within the hedgerows and trees adjacent to the works area to hold territory and breed successfully, if construction takes place in the breeding season. Ambient noise level increases would be variable, but at times there could be considerable increases in noise levels.
7.73. Without suitable mitigation, the hedgerows and trees will be subject to an increase in disturbance long-term. Management may also be conducted at unsuitable times of the year, which could negatively impact nesting birds.
7.74. There will be an increase in the number of domestic cats within the Application Site, which could negatively impact nesting birds if they are able to access the hedgerows and predate birds. Currently in the UK it is estimated that 24% of households have a cat, with 43% of these households having more than one cat Felis catus23.
23 https://www.pdsa.org.uk/get-involved/our-campaigns/pdsa-animal-wellbeing-report/uk-pet-populations-of-dogs-cats- and-rabbits
ACD Environmental 48 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
7.75. A questionnaire survey of the numbers of animals brought home by domestic cats was conducted between 1st April and 31st August 1997. A total of 14,370 prey items were brought home by 986 cats living in 618 households. Mammals made up 69% of the items, birds 24%, amphibians 4%, reptiles 1%, fish < 1%, invertebrates 1% and unidentified items 1%. A minimum of 44 species of wild bird, 20 species of wild mammal, four species of reptile and three species of amphibian were recorded24.
7.76. Without suitable mitigation, domestic cats are likely to be have a minor negative effect on nesting birds, significant at the site level.
Avoidance/ Mitigation Measures
7.77. Protection of the RPA’s by Heras fencing as detailed within the hedgerow and tree mitigation above will reduce disturbance impacts on nesting birds within the retained habitats during construction.
7.78. Information on cat predation will be included within householder information packs. Additional suggestions such as how to appropriately provide food for birds, putting a bell on the cat’s collar and keeping cats indoors overnight will also be outlined within the information pack.
7.79. To further protect nesting birds from predation, thorny species such as blackthorn, hawthorn and Guelder rose are to be included within the new hedgerow planting and infill strengthening.
7.80. Inherent mitigation is included within the proposals in the form of new hedgerows, scattered trees and introduced shrub planting, which will provide an overall net gain in nesting and foraging habitat on-site.
7.81. Wherever possible, suitable bird nesting habitat will be retained and protected from the proposed works. Clearance of the section of hedgerow and demolition of the buildings will take place outside of the bird nesting season (generally taken to be March to August inclusive). If vegetation removal must be undertaken during the bird nesting, the area will be checked in advance, by an ecologist, for the presence of nesting birds. If there is no evidence of nesting birds, the clearance work will be completed within 48 hours of inspection. If any active nests are identified, vegetation clearance will cease and an appropriate buffer zone will remain until it has been confirmed that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer in use.
Significance of Residual Effects
7.82. With the above mitigation measures, the overall residual effect on nesting birds is unlikely to be significant.
24 Woods M., McDonald R.A. & Harris S. (2003). Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Review 33, 174-188.
ACD Environmental 49 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Badger
7.83. During construction, there will be an increase in the number and type of hazards, which could potentially harm a badger. In the absence of mitigation, there will be open trenches and pipes, which badgers could become trapped in.
7.84. The proposed development will result in the long-term loss of foraging habitat for badger; however, it is not considered that any local population would rely on the Application Site for foraging to any significant extent, given the abundance of suitable habitat in the wider area.
Avoidance/ Mitigation Measures
7.85. In the absence of mitigation, the excavations associated with the proposed development have the potential to cause harm/injury to any badgers which happen to pass through the construction site. The effect without mitigation is unlikely to be significant at any geographical scale but would be negative.
7.86. Therefore, to mitigate, the following measures will be implemented:
• Excavations will be covered at the end of each working day and any temporary exposed pipes will be capped to prevent badgers gaining access during the night;
• Any excavations within the construction site that have to be left open overnight will be provided with a means of escape should a badger enter. This may be in the form of a roughened plank of wood placed in the trench as a ramp to the surface;
• Any excavations will be inspected each morning to ensure no badgers have become trapped overnight. Should a badger become trapped in an excavation it is likely to attempt to dig itself into the side of the trench and form a temporary sett. Should a trapped badger be encountered, the advice of an ecologist would be sought;
• The storage of topsoil or other ‘soft’ building materials within the construction site would be given careful consideration. Badgers will readily adopt such mounds as setts. To avoid the adoption of any mounds by badgers, mounds would be kept to a minimum and any essential mounds subject to daily inspections; and
• The storage of any chemicals within the construction site would be contained in such a way that they cannot be accessed or knocked over by any roaming badgers.
Significance of Residual Effects
7.87. Providing the mitigation detailed above is followed, the overall residual effect on badgers is not considered to be significant.
ACD Environmental 50 Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Land at Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Reptiles
7.88. Although the habitats on-site are largely unsuitable for reptiles, it is considered that there is still a low risk that individuals or small numbers of common reptiles (e.g. slow worm, grass snake) may occasionally be present within suitable habitats. Therefore, as a precaution, any log piles or rubble piles scheduled for removal will be dismantled using hand tools only. If reptiles are encountered works must stop and the advice of an ecologist sought.
7.89. During construction, it is important that any building materials are stored on raised pallets to ensure to ensure these do not provide attractive habitats for reptiles.
7.90. The grassland and ruderal vegetation will be kept short prior to the start of construction on-site to prevent reptiles from colonising it in the interim period.
Other Wildlife
7.91. Without mitigation, there is the potential to directly impact hibernating or resting hedgehog during the removal of the sections of hedgerows
7.92. There will also be a temporary loss of grassland habitat for foraging hedgehog during construction. A large amount of the grassland will be reinstated within the gardens, which will offer good foraging habitat for hedgehog.
7.93. Hedgehog will forage within residential gardens; therefore, gaps will be left under fence lines or holes will be created within fence panels to allow hedgehogs to move through the development.
7.94. Whilst the nesting bird supervision works are underway, during clearance works the ecologist will also check for hedgehog.
ACD Environmental 51 Table 7: Impact summary table
Feature Scale of Impact (before Type of Effect Mitigation/ Residual Means of importance mitigation) impact (without Compensation effect securing (construction mitigation) mitigation or operational)
Woodland and Local Minor loss Construction Significant Tree Protection Neutral AIA, LEMP scattered trees negative Fencing and CEMP Inappropriate Operational impact at local management level Replacement tree planting
Enhancement of retained woodland Hedgerows Local Minor loss Construction Significant Tree Protection Neutral AIA, LEMP negative Fencing and CEMP Inappropriate Operational impact at local management level Infill planting and new hedgerow planting
Implement suitable management scheme
Bats - roosting Local Destruction of bat Construction Significant Timing restrictions for Neutral EPS roosts negative demolition Mitigation impact at local licence level Replacement roosting provision
Bats – foraging Local Lighting Operational Significant Ecology input into Non - Sensitive and commuting negative lighting strategy significant lighting Loss of foraging habitat Construction impact at local negative strategy level Severance of linear Construction habitats Birds Local Destruction/disturbance Construction Significant Tree Protection Neutral LEMP and of nests negative Fencing CEMP
impact at site
Minor loss of level Nesting bird checks Operational nesting/foraging habitat Increased predation by Nesting and foraging cats habitat compensation and enhancement
Educate residents about cat predation
Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Brookfield Stables, Warfield
8 BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN
8.1. In order to comply with Local and National planning policy and planning policy guidance, the following enhancements will be delivered as a commitment to the planning application:
• Habibat swift boxes integrated in 25% of houses - (north, north east and north west orientations);
• Habibat small bird nest boxes integrated in 25% of houses - (north, north east and north west orientations);
• Schwegler No.10 Swallow Nests (or similar) in 25% of car ports - (north, north east and north west orientations);
• Habibat 3S bat boxes integrated in 25% of houses - (south, south-west and south-east orientations);
• Schwegler 1FR bat tubes integrated in 25% of houses - (south, south-west and south-east orientations);
• Four bat ‘bark boxes’ installed on mature trees around the site perimeter;
• Green & Blue bee bricks integrated into 25% of houses - (south facing wall at least 1m from the ground);
• All dead wood currently on-site will be moved to create log piles in the area of open space in the west of the Application Site to be of benefit to wildlife;
• The development will contain private gardens, which will provide habitats for hedgehogs
which are a UK BAP priority species28. To ensure hedgehogs are able to access the new garden habitats, close board fencing will include a small hole (13cm x 13cm) cut into the base of the panel to facilitate hedgehog movement by creating a ‘hedgehog highway’. This will not be undertaken on close board fencing close to the boundary roads to try to discourage hedgehogs from crossing the roads. This size gap is too small for most pets to fit through; but to encourage residents not to block holes signs can be placed above the gaps to illustrate their purpose.
• One hibernacula measuring at least 1m x 1m x 10m (above ground H x W x L) and buried to a depth of 0.5m will be created within the proposed open space in the west of the Application Site. This will be created by first digging a 2m x 1m hole to a depth of 0.5m, loosely filling the hole with rubble, hardcore and logs and stacking to a height of 1m before loosely covering with topsoil and turf. This will provide a valuable shelter for reptiles, small mammals and invertebrates.
ACD Environmental 53
Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Brookfield Stables, Warfield
Biodiversity Metric
8.2. The Defra Metric 2.0 has been utilised to show whether the proposed development will achieve a Biodiversity Net Gain. A summary of the results is provided below.
Table 8: A summary of the results of the Defra Metric 2.0. Habitat units 10.91 On-site baseline Hedgerow units 5.59
Habitat units 12.15 On-site post intervention Hedgerow units 7.84
Habitat units 1.24 Total net unit change Hedgerow units 2.25
Habitat units 11.36% Total net % change Hedgerow units 40.25%
8.3. A Biodiversity Net Gain will be achieved if the measures outlined within this report are incorporated into the detailed scheme design and implemented. A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan should be a condition of any planning permission to ensure that the proposed habitat creation is successful and the condition of the habitats is maintained at the condition stated in the Metric long- term.
ACD Environmental 54
Interim Ecological Impact Assessment Brookfield Stables, Warfield
9 CONCLUSIONS
9.1. This report provides an interim assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development on the Application Site based on the current survey data.
9.2. There are no designated sites within the Application Site, however several SSSIs and Thames Basin Heaths SPA are located within 5km, therefore consultation between the LPA and Natural England will be required. A combined mitigation strategy, which includes contributions to a strategic SANG and SAMM will need to be secured through the S106. The mitigation strategy will be detailed in a Report to Inform an Appropriate Assessment.
9.3. The following Phase two surveys will be completed in 2021:
• Update bat emergence/ re-entry surveys of the buildings in Spring and Summer 2021; and
• Tree climbing/ endoscope inspections of trees with potential bat roosting features.
9.4. Habitats of importance on-site include the woodland, scattered trees and species rich hedgerows with trees. The proposed development will result in the loss of a small number of trees and a short section of the southern boundary hedgerow to facilitate an access road.
9.5. Three bat roosts, including a soprano pipistrelle maternity roost are present within the buildings on- site. An EPS mitigation licence will be required prior to demolition of the buildings. This licence will be informed by the results of the update bat surveys and will include detailed designs of the replacement bat roosts as well as a works schedule and precautionary methods of working.
9.6. Key mitigation measures include:
• Retention of the majority of the woodland and trees on-site with suitable RPA’s in areas of open space;
• A sensitive lighting scheme to ensure dark corridors are retained around the development;
• A 25m buffer between the development and the offsite Bull Brook; and
• Implementation of precautionary measures of working, including seasonal restrictions and supervision of works by an ecologist where necessary.
9.7. Opportunities to enhance the proposed development for wildlife have been outlined within this report. The proposed development is capable of achieving a biodiversity net gain, providing the measures detailed within this report are incorporated into the detailed scheme design and implemented.
ACD Environmental 55
APPENDIX 1: PHASE 1 HABITAT PLAN
APPENDIX 2: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1: View of stable buildings Photograph 2: View of stable building
Photograph 3: View of hardstanding between Photograph 4: View of cluster of smaller stable buildings blocks with corrugated roofs and ship-lap elevations
Photograph 5: View of lean-to, east of the larger Photograph 6: View of interior of the smaller stable stable block and the gravel and tarmac buildings, with boarded ceilings and ship-lap hardstanding stable divides
Photograph 7: View of interior of smaller stable Photograph 8: View of interior of largest stable building with boarded ceiling building with corrugated asbestos roof with translucent panels
Photograph 9: Breezeblock stable building Photograph 10: View of corrugated riding school attached to the southern elevation of the larger stable building.
Photograph 11: View of interior of riding school Photograph 12: View of lean-to’s to the east of the with steel framing riding school and ship-lap building with corrugated roof in the distance
Photograph 13: View of western most elevation of Photograph 14: View of south-west elevations of building 1 building 1 with decking area
Photograph 15: View of northern elevation of Photograph 16: View of building 1 roof void, which building 1 is cluttered, with timber framing and breathable roofing membrane
Photograph 17: View of eastern elevation of Photograph 18: View of roof void of building 2 building 2
Photograph 19: View of conservatory on the Photograph 20: View of woodchip paddock western elevation of building 2 and garden shed
Photograph 21: View of dense scrub on south-west Photograph 22: View of the gorse present within boundary the dense scrub habitat
Photograph 23: View of parched, heavily grazed Photograph 24: View of parched, grazed poor poor semi-improved grassland in south-east semi-improved grassland paddock with patches of ruderal species growth
Photograph 25: View of parched, grazed poor- Photograph 26: Parched and heavily grazed poor semi-improved grassland semi-improved grassland
Photograph 27: View of poor semi-improved Photograph 28: View of Japanese knotweed grassland within western most paddock, which has growth on southern boundary not been recently grazed.
Photograph 29: View of Japanese knotweed Photograph 30: View of Japanese Knotweed on growth around a scattered tree within the centre of edge of south-east paddock the poor semi-improved grassland field
Photograph 31: View of Japanese knotweed Photograph 32: View of Leyland cypress hedgerow spreading further into field from the southern extending around the interior of the race track boundary
Photograph 34: Gaps behind boarding on building Photograph 35: Ornamental pond with fish in 1 garden
Photograph 36: Ornamental pond in garden Photograph 37: Eastern elevation of building 1
APPENDIX 3: FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
9.8. The Phase 1 Habitat Map is shown in Appendix 1.
9.9. The Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology25 was used to classify the Application Site into habitat types, as listed in the Phase 1 Manual. Where appropriate, dominant species codes within habitat types were recorded. Descriptive target notes were used for particular areas of interest.
9.10. Incidental records of fauna were made during the Phase 1 Habitat survey and the habitats identified were evaluated for their potential to support legally protected species and species of Principal Importance.
Limitations
9.11. There were no limitations associated with the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey.
Hedgerow survey
9.12. The Phase 1 Survey included an assessment of hedgerows against criteria for ‘important hedgerows’ under the Hedgerows Regulations 199726. The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 includes criteria for determining ‘Important’ hedgerows, which are contained within Schedule 8. There are a number of characteristics that can classify a hedgerow as important under the broad headings of archaeology and history and wildlife and landscape. Only the wildlife and landscape criteria formed part of the assessment. These criteria incorporate the following considerations: whether the hedgerow is intact/defunct, number of woodland species contained in Schedule 2 and woody species in Schedule 3; associated features (e.g. hedgerow connection points and associated area of woodland, parallel hedgerow, pond, ditch and/or wall); and presence of protected species (in which case the hedgerow is considered ‘important’ by default).
Limitations
9.13. There were no limitations associated with the Hedgerow survey.
Badger field signs survey
9.14. Badger field signs surveys comprised walking the perimeter and interior boundaries of the Site, searching for evidence of badgers, in accordance with Harris et al27 (1989) and Scottish Natural Heritage28 (2018).
9.15. Where badger setts were found, they were described using the following criteria:
25 JNCC, (2010), Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. JNCC, Peterborough. 26 Great Britain. Hedgerow Regulations 1997 [online]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made 27 Harris, S., Cresswell, P., and Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying Badgers. Mammal Society. 28 Scottish Badgers (2018). Surveying for Badgers: Good Practice Guidelines. Version 1.
• Number of well-used holes - one or more of the features: well-worn entrance; freshly excavated soil; bedding material
• Number of partially-used holes - leaves or twigs in entrance and/or mosses and other plants growing in or around entrance)
• Number of disused holes - partially or completely blocked, with considerable amount of excavation required for reoccupation
9.16. Where feasible, badger setts were classified into the following:
• Main sett - continuously used, breeding and over-wintering sett for a social group of badgers. Only one main sett will exist in each social groups territory, and will be relatively centrally located within the group’s range
• Annexe sett - annexe of the main sett, linked by well-used paths to the main sett (but not connected underground). Not continuously used
• Subsidiary sett - distant from the main sett. Several entrances, but with no well-used paths connecting to the main sett, and only used seasonally
• Outlier sett - distant from the main sett. Small, with only one of two entrances only. Used for short periods sporadically, with no obvious, well-used paths connecting to other setts.
Limitations
9.17. There were no limitations associated with the badger field signs survey.
Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment
9.18. A Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) was carried out29. This is an external and internal inspection survey, the purpose of which is to search for bats/evidence of bats and assess the likelihood of bats being present and the need for further survey and/or mitigation.
9.19. A systematic search was made of the building and the ground, especially below potential access points where present. Such features include windows sills, window panes, walls, tiles, weather boarding, lead flashing, eaves, behind surfacing materials and under tiles, and other cracks and crevices that provide protection from the elements. Such features are known to be used by roosting bats.
9.20. The internal inspection included searching for the following evidence of roosting bats:
• Roosting bats within crevices or free-hanging
29 Collins J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
• Bat corpses e.g. on the floor, in uncovered water (header) tanks or other containers in roof voids
• Bat droppings beneath roosting features
• Feeding remains e.g. moth/butterfly Lepidoptera spp. wings and beetle Coleoptera spp. wing casings
• Scratch marks and characteristic staining from urine and/or fur oil beneath roosting features e.g. on roofing timbers and walls within roof voids
• ‘Clean’ gaps associated with bat roosts
• Bat-fly Nycteribiid spp. pupal cases
• Droppings, corpses, feeding remains and/or bat-fly pupal cases beneath roof insulation, which indicates use by bats before the insulation was installed
• Clean swept floors, which may indicate evidence has been removed
9.21. The internal inspection included searching for the following features:
• Gaps within the structure of the roof e.g. mortise joints and junctions between roof timbers and between timbers and walls, and between the roof lining and roof covering
• Gaps within the structure of walls and potential access points to cavity or rubble-filled walls
• Gaps around the structure chimneys or within disused chimneys
• Suitable locations for free-hanging bats and/or night/feeding perches e.g. timber beams
• Gaps between lintels above windows or doors
• Light gaps in the roof indicating access points to the outside
• Cool areas suitable for torpor or hibernation e.g. cellars.
9.22. The following equipment was used for the bat survey:
• Binoculars
• Powerful torch to illuminate dark corners from the ground
• Ladder
• Collection pots and labels for corpses and droppings;
• Camera to record evidence and potential roosting sites; and
• Personal protective equipment (e.g. boots, gloves, helmet, mobile telephone).
Limitations
9.23. There were no limitations to the Preliminary Roost Assessment.
Bat Emergence Surveys
Table 9: Bat Survey Conditions
Date 01/08/2018
Survey Emergence
Sunset time 20:51
Start time 20:35
End time 22:21 Weather Temperature 18°C, no wind, no rain and no cloud cover.
Date 15/08/2018
Survey Emergence
Sunset time 20:28
Start time 20:00
End time 21:58
Weather 19°C to 16°C, light wind, no rain, 100% cloud cover.
Date 13/09/2018
Survey Emergence
Sunset time 19:23
Start time 19:10
End time 20:53
Weather 16°C, no wind, no rain, 30% cloud cover.
9.24. There were no time or weather limitations associated with the dusk emergence surveys.
9.25. In accordance to BCT guidance, “the possibility of late-emerging and early-returning species were considered in setting times for the surveys.” As the buildings did not support large roof voids that are favoured by later emerging species that roost within buildings, such as brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus and Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri, it was deemed that a set of three dusk emergence surveys would be more effective at determining presence/likely absence and roost status than including a dawn survey. Dawn re-entry times for bat species are highly variable30 and none of the dusk emergence surveys reported concerns for potentially missed late emergences, to rationally determine the requirement for a dawn re-entry survey.
9.26. The seasonal timings for the surveys were also optimal as it covered maternity roosting season and the mating season and subsequently, the survey effort was able to confidently confirm roost types. Due to the nature of the roosting features, they are likely subject to temperature fluctuations and were deemed sub- optimal for hibernation roosts. Overall, the reliability of the bat surveys are considered to be good.
Bird nesting
9.27. Evidence of nesting birds recorded during the PRA and any incidental bird observations/birds heard were noted.
9.28. The assessment included searching for the following with regard to barn owl:
• Birds present - roosting or nesting within buildings/trees;
• Birds present - corpses;
• Pellets - undigested feeding remains;
• Nests - formed on layers of degraded pellets;
• Droppings or ‘liming’ - often present on/below roosts such as roof timbers;
• Eggs - intact/broken or within nest/below nest; and
• Feathers - adult or natal down.
9.29. The internal inspection of the buildings included searching for the following features with regard to barn owl:
• Suitable access points (e.g. open doorways);
• Suitable ledges for nesting; and
30 H. Andrews (2016). A review of Emperical Data in Respect of Emergence and Return Times Reported For The UK’s 17 Native Bat Species. AEcol 2016.
• Suitable timbers for roosting.
Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index Assessment
9.30. The two ponds on-site were assessed for their suitability to support great crested newt, using the HSI scoring system31.
9.31. This method seeks to quantify the potential of a pond to support great crested newt by numerically assessing ten indices thought to influence their presence.
9.32. The indices considered are:
• Location
• Pond area
• Water quality
• Percentage shade
• Percentage water fowl
• Presence of fish
• Number of ponds in the wider landscape
• Suitability of terrestrial habitat
• Percentage macrophyte cover
9.33. The HSI system is not a substitute for presence/absence surveys and is not intended to predict the occurrence of great crested newt. However, a correlation between the presence of great crested newts and a high HSI score is observed in ponds.
Limitations
9.34. Offsite ponds were not assessed due to access restrictions. Information gathered from online mapping, the planning portal and background knowledge of the local area meant that sufficient information could be gathered on nearby ponds without the need for HSI assessments.
31 Available at: http://www.arguk.org/download-document/9-great-crested-newt-habitat-suitability-index-arg-advice-note-5
Hazel dormouse survey
9.35. The hazel dormouse nest tube survey was set up in July 2018. A total of 50 nest tubes were deployed in the Application Site covering the woody habitat potentially suitable for hazel dormouse. Monthly checks for hazel dormouse were carried out between August and November 2018 and April and June 2020 accumulating 23 points in accordance with the Index of Probability32.
Limitations
9.36. The hazel dormouse survey was split over two years (2018 and 2020). Although not standard practice, this is not considered to be a limitation because the dormouse tubes were left in place for the duration of the survey period, therefore, hazel dormouse had longer to find and utilise the tubes (in comparison to recognised best practice).
Biodiversity Impact Calculations
Assessment Framework
9.37. Biodiversity net gain/loss calculations were assessed using the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 Beta Test (December 2019) calculation tool.
9.38. The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 is accompanied by a ‘Calculation Tool’. This was used to calculate the biodiversity units for the Application Siter before (baseline) and after development. The User Guide33 has been followed.
Habitat Type Transformation
9.39. Habitat types were assigned in line with Phase 1 Habitat Survey guidance, following the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 uses the UK Habitat Classification system. The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 calculation tool has been used to convert between Phase 1 and UKHAB Classifications for the habitats present on-site.
Habitats - Linear
9.40. Linear features (hedgerows and lines of trees) have been measured in kilometres and the height and condition of the habitats were recorded during the habitat survey. The Defra ‘Hedgerow Survey Handbook’34 was used to determine whether or not a feature is a hedgerow and to accurately describe the type of hedgerows present.
32 Natural England (2015). Hazel or common dormice: surveys and mitigation for development projects [online]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/hazel-or-common-dormice-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects 33 Ian Crosher A , Susannah Gold B , Max Heaver D , Matt Heydon A , Lauren Moore D , Stephen Panks A , Sarah Scott C , Dave Stone A & Nick White A . 2019. The Biodiversity Metric 2.0: auditing and accounting for biodiversity value. User guide (Beta Version, July 2019). Natural England A – Natural England, B – Imperial College, University of London, C – Environment Agency, D – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 34 19 DEFRA. 2007. Hedgerow Survey Handbook. A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK. Defra, London. PB1195.
Habitat Measurements
9.41. Baseline habitat measurements were carried out in line with the results of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Measurements were predominantly made using the QGIS mapping tool, however habitats had been ground-truthed during the field survey.
9.42. Proposed habitat measurements were taken from the proposed site layout plan using KeySCAPE 2020. These measurements are an approximation and the calculations will be re-run once a detailed soft landscaping scheme has been produced.
9.43. Measurements were entered to the nearest 0.01ha in area and 1m in length.
Distinction Assessments
9.44. Habitats are assigned to distinctiveness bands. These are based on an assessment of the distinguishing features of a habitat or linear feature, including the consideration of species richness, rarity (at local, regional, national and international scales), and the degree to which a habitat supports species rarely found in other habitats.
9.45. The distinctiveness band of each habitat is preassigned in the Biodiversity Metric 2.0. The bands are based upon the UK habitat classification system. A combination of simple rules and expert judgement have been used to assign each habitat type to the appropriate distinctiveness band. The distinctiveness categories used are tailored to habitat type.
9.46. Distinction Assessments are assigned scores according to Table 10.
Table 10: Distinction Assessment Category Scores Multiplier Very High 8 Priority habitats as defined in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act that are highly threatened, internationally scarce and require conservation action e.g. blanket bog High 6 Priority habitats as defined in Section 41 of the NERC Act requiring conservation action e.g. lowland fens Medium 4 Semi-natural habitats not classed as a Priority Habitat Low 2 Habitat of low biodiversity value. Temporary grass and clover ley; intensive orchard; rhododendron scrub Very Low 0 Little or no biodiversity value e.g. hard
Category Scores Multiplier standing or sealed surface
Condition Assessments
9.47. Parcels of habitat will be in different ecological condition. The metric therefore takes account of variants in habitat condition. Habitat conditions have been assigned in accordance with the Condition Assessment Criteria35 which accompanies the Metric 2.0.
9.48. For created habitats, a target condition has been selected for each habitat depending on the habitat type and any perceived risk of degradation (e.g. from public use). A LEMP will be designed for the Application Site to include management prescriptions required to maintain habitats at the target condition.
9.49. Condition Assessments are assigned scores as shown within Table 11.
Table 11: Condition Assessment. Category Score Good 3 Fairly Good 2.5 Moderate 2 Fairly Poor 1.5 Poor 1 N/A agriculture 1 N/A other 0
Strategic significance and connectivity
9.50. The spatial location of a habitat is treated as a component of the quality of a habitat parcel in the same way as distinctiveness or condition. Two distinct spatial components are used - strategic significance and connectivity.
9.51. In this case, the following rules were used to classify a habitat/features connectivity:
• Low and Medium distinctiveness habitats/features = low connectivity.
• High and very high distinctiveness habitats/features = medium connectivity.
9.52. To classify the strategic significance of habitat features the local Biodiversity Action Plan was used.
35 Natural England. (2019). The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 Technical Supplement Beta Edition. Natural England: Bristol, UK
9.53. Where habitats are not within an area in the local strategy but do have some strategic significance as a result of connections with valuable off-site habitats (e.g. woodland, rivers), these have been assigned a moderate strategic significance (‘location ecologically desirable but not in local strategy’) with a multiplier of 1.1.
Risk Factors
9.54. As part of any proposed habitat creation and restoration, risk factors must be taken into account to correct for disparity, delay or risk. These values are preassigned within the Metric 2.0 and take into consideration the following factors:
• Temporal risk (i.e. time to target condition); and
• Difficulty of creation and restoration.
Limitations
9.55. Although the Metric 2.0 is a valuable tool underpinned by ecological evidence, there are certain limitations that must be considered when applying the metric. The key principles and rules for the use of the Metric 2.0 have been followed at all times, in line with these limitations. Further detail is available within the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 User Guide36.
9.56. As detailed soft landscape plans will not be produced until the detailed design stages, the results are an approximation, based on the likely layout and landscaping of the development and as such are not an accurate analysis of the final scheme.
36 Natural England. (2019). The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 User Guide Beta Version. Natural England: Bristol, UK
APPENDIX 4: POND LOCATION PLAN
APPENDIX 5: HSI RESULTS
Head Office Rodbourne Rail Business Centre Grange Lane Malmesbury SN16 0ES Tel: 01666 825646
Surrey Office The Old Mill, Fry’s Yard Bridge Street Godalming GU7 1HP Tel: 01483 425714
Hampshire Office Crescent House Yonge Close Eastleigh SO50 9SX Tel: 02382 026300
Email: [email protected] Website: www.acdenvironmental.co.uk
ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS * PROTECTED SPECIES LICENSING * MITIGATION * IMPACT ASSESSMENT ARBORICULTURAL SITE MONITORING AND SUPERVISION * ARCHAEOLOGY LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT * LANDSCAPE AUDIT * PROJECT MANAGEMENT EXPERT WITNESS* LANDSCAPE DESIGN & PLANNING LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT