Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to- Energy Facility
Appendix 10-1 – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. AECOM
Appendix 10-1: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy (WtE) Facility
Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR)
WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
October 2019
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Quality information
Prepared by Checked by Approved by
Ashley Welch John Simmons Neil Titley Graduate Ecologist, GradCIEEM Technical Director CEcol CEnv Technical Director MCIEEM George Willkinson Graduate Ecologist GradCIEEM
Revision History
Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position
00 29/03/18 Draft JS J Simmons Associate Ecologist
01 02/05/18 Updated draft JS J Simmons Associate Ecologist
02 19/10/19 Updated draft JS J Simmons Technical Director
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Prepared for: WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd.
Prepared by:
AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited Midpoint Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP UK
T: +44(0)1256 310200 aecom.com
Limitations
AECOM (“AECOM”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Wheelabrator Technologies Inc (“Client”) in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.
Where any conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others, it has been assumed that all relevant information has been provided by those parties and that such information is accurate. Any such information obtained by AECOM has not been independently verified by AECOM, unless otherwise stated in the Report. AECOM accepts no liability for any inaccurate conclusions, assumptions or actions taken resulting from any inaccurate information supplied to AECOM from others.
The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between March 2018 and October 2019 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances. AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to AECOM’s attention after the date of the Report.
Copyright
© This Report is the copyright of AECOM. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 6 1. Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Project Background...... 8 1.2 Site Description ...... 8 1.3 Scope ...... 8 2. Wildlife Legislation and Planning Policy ...... 10 2.1 Wildlife Legislation ...... 10 2.2 National Planning Policy ...... 10 2.3 Local Planning Policy ...... 10 3. Methods ...... 12 3.1 Desk Study ...... 12 3.2 Field Survey ...... 12 3.2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...... 13 3.2.2 Appraisal of Potential Suitability of Habitats to Support Protected and Notable Species ...... 13 3.2.3 Assessment of Buildings for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats ...... 13 3.2.4 Assessment of Trees for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats ...... 14 3.3 Desk Study and Field Survey Limitations ...... 14 3.4 Quality Assurance ...... 15 4. Results ...... 16 4.1 Nature Conservation Designations ...... 16 4.1.1 Statutory Designations ...... 16 4.1.2 Non-statutory Designations ...... 17 4.2 Habitats ...... 18 4.2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Types ...... 18 4.2.2 Notable Habitats ...... 34 4.3 Protected and Notable Species ...... 35 4.3.1 Great Crested Newt ...... 37 4.3.2 Bats ...... 38 4.3.3 Hazel Dormouse ...... 40 4.3.4 Birds ...... 40 4.3.5 Barn Owl ...... 40 4.3.6 Reptiles ...... 41 4.3.7 Badger ...... 41 4.3.8 Terrestrial Invertebrates ...... 41 4.3.9 Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals ...... 41 5. Identification of Ecological Constraints and Recommendations ...... 42 5.1 Approach to the Identification of Ecological Constraints ...... 42 5.2 Constraints and Requirements for Further Survey: Designations ...... 43 5.2.1 Statutory Sites ...... 43 5.2.2 Non-Statutory Sites ...... 43 5.3 Constraints and Requirements for Further Survey: Habitats ...... 44 5.4 Constraints and Requirements for Further Survey: Species ...... 45 5.4.1 Great Crested Newt ...... 45 5.4.2 Bats ...... 45 5.4.3 Hazel Dormouse ...... 46 5.4.4 Breeding Birds ...... 46 5.4.5 Barn Owl ...... 47
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
5.4.6 Reptiles ...... 47 5.4.7 Badger ...... 47 5.4.8 Terrestrial invertebrates ...... 48 5.4.9 Summary ...... 48 5.5 Opportunities for Ecological Enhancement ...... 50 6. Conclusions ...... 52 7. References ...... 53 Appendix A Figures ...... 55 Appendix B Legislation and Planning Policy ...... 56 Appendix C Grading of features with suitability to support roosting bats ...... 59 Appendix D Target Notes ...... 60 Appendix E Desk Study Data ...... 64
Figures
Figure 1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map ...... Appendix A Tables
Table 1: Summary of Local Planning Policy ...... 11 Table 2: Desk Study Data Sources...... 12 Table 3: Sites with Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation ...... 16 Table 4: Sites with Non-Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation ...... 17 Table 5: Habitats Present, in Descending Order Based on Spatial Area Occupied ...... 19 Table 6: Notable Habitats within the Site ...... 35 Table 7: Protected and notable species relevant or potentially relevant to the Proposed Development ...... 36 Table 8: Initial Assessment of Buildings for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats ...... 38 Table 9: Initial Assessment of Trees for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats ...... 38 Table 10: Scale of Constraint to Development ...... 42 Table 11: Summary Appraisal of Features of Ecological Constraints and Recommended Further Action ...... 48 Table 12: Requirements for Further Survey ...... 50
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Executive Summary
AECOM was instructed by Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. Energy for Waste Holdings Ltd (“WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd”) to carry out a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) at the Site of the proposed Harewood Waste to Energy (WtE) Facility (hereafter ‘the Proposed Development) on the access road, Barton Stacey, Hampshire. The Proposed Development is a WtE facility capable of producing low carbon electricity and heat through waste derived fuels from various sources.
The central grid reference for the Site is SU 43942 42826 and the boundary of the Site is shown in Figure 1. The Site is approximately 8.76 ha in size and is adjoined to the east by a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) facility, and to the south and west by land controlled by the Ministry of Defence (MOD).
In order to inform the PEA, a desk study and extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken to identify any potential constraints with regards to protected species and habitats. In addition, an initial inspection of all buildings and trees within the Site was undertaken to assess their suitability to support roosting bats.
The extent of the Site has evolved as design works have progressed during 2018/2019, with the PEA updated as necessary to cover the full extent of the Site. The following terms are used to describe sub-sections of the Site, with extents of each area shown in Figure 1:
Construction Area: a roughly rectangular area of land located to the north of the access road, west of the MRF and IBA facilities and east of The Street (also known as Long Parish Road);
Existing Bund:·bund on the eastern boundary of the Site that adjoins the existing MRF and IBA facilities; and
Laydown/Works Area: A triangular field to the north of and adjoining the Construction Area which is identified for use for as a laydown area.
Three national statutory designated sites for nature conservation are present within a 2 kilometre (km) radius of the Site. These are the River Test Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), East Aston Common SSSI and Bransbury Common SSSI, which are located between 0.7 km and 1.8 km from the Site. Given the nature of the Proposed Development, further work will be required to consider the potential for adverse impacts on these sites due to exhaust stack emissions derived from the energy from waste plant, and potential increased in vehicle movements. Therefore, an air quality impact assessment that assesses the impacts of air quality changes on designated sites and other notable habitats will be required as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application. Additionally, it is also recommended that a Construction Environmental Management Plan is implemented prior to site works to negate any potential impact during construction and operational phases of the Proposed Development to these designated sites.
A total of eight non-statutory designated sites for nature conservation are located within 2 km of the Site, the closest of which are Longparish Cornfield Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC) (0.1 km to the north of the Site) and Drayton Down (area 1) SINC, which is located 0.2 km to the east of the Site.
The Site supports a range of habitats including areas of semi-improved grassland, young broadleaved plantation, improved grassland, species rich hedgerows and scrub. The hedgerows and mature trees around the boundaries of the Site provide habitat for a range of faunal species and should be retained wherever possible. The remainder of the Construction Area and Existing Bund predominately contain habitats of limited vale for biodiversity.
The Laydown/Works Area in the north of the Site contains an area of semi-improved grassland containing a range of calcareous and neutral grassland species. In addition this area contains some species that are a remnant of the previous land-use, plantation woodland. The unusual combination of species produces a mosaic of grassland and scrub that is of greater value due to its increased structural diversity. Losses of this area should be minimised wherever possible.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 6/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Given the Site’s context within the wider landscape, potential habitat exists for breeding birds, barn owl, reptiles, great crested newts and bats. Further survey for each of these species/species groups is recommended to inform a subsequent Ecological Impact Assessment
In accordance with local planning policies and to achieve no net loss in biodiversity (and where possible net gains) through the Proposed Development, the following measures are recommended:
Avoid, where possible, removing linear habitat features such as hedgerows and tree lines which could be of importance to bats, reptiles, birds, invertebrates and other species. This includes the broadleaved woodland considered to qualify as habitat of principal importance;
Avoid, where possible, removing trees identified as having suitability to support roosting bats;
Minimise the loss of grassland habitat from the Laydown/Works Area in the north of the Site;
Provision of biodiverse green roofs, if the architectural design allows;
Provision of bat boxes within retained trees to replace the loss of suitable bat roosting features;
Creation of species-rich mosaic of grassland and scrub within the Laydown/Works Area following completion of construction;
Creation of additional grassland species rich grassland within an external site to offset the temporary and permanent losses of habitat as a consequence of the Proposed Development; and
Creation of species-rich hedgerow, either on-site or within a local, external site to offset the loss of habitats.
The scale of ecological enhancement required for the development to achieve biodiversity net gain will be dependent on the final design and the associated scale of habitat loss, and can be estimated when a draft design is available.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 7/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Background
AECOM was instructed by Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. Energy-for-Waste Holdings Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd’) to carry out a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of the site of the proposed Harewood Waste-to-Energy(WtE) Facility (hereafter referred to as the ‘Proposed Development’).
The Proposed Development is a WtE facility capable of producing low carbon electricity and heat through waste derived fuels from various sources of processed municipal solid waste (MSW) and commercial and industrial waste. The facility will have an electrical generating capacity of up to 65 megawatts electrical (MWe) gross, with the net power exported to the national grid. Further details of the Proposed Development are provided within PEIR Volume I: Chapter 4: Proposed Development.
1.2 Site Description
The Site is located on the A303 Enviropark site, which is situated on the access road, Barton Stacey, Hampshire, approximately 180 m north of the A303. The Site is located between grid references SU 43690 43221 (north), SU 43960 42770 (south), SU 44126 42911 (east) and SU 43754 42971 (west), covering an area of approximately 8.6 ha. The boundary of the Site is shown in Figure 1.
The Site is bounded to the east by a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) facility. Beyond these facilities is a shooting range. The Site is bounded to the south by the access road to the MRF and IBA facilities, beyond which lies open space controlled by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the A303. The Street runs along the western boundary, beyond which lies scrub woodland and a driver training site. Agricultural land and a solar farm are located to the north.
The Site is mostly undeveloped, open space comprising an area of grassland. A prefabricated Portakabin, hardstanding car park and access road are located in the south-east corner of the site that currently serves the adjacent MRF and IBA facilities. A small area of broadleaved trees runs along the northern boundary and a mix of grassland, woodland and scrub is located to the west.
The extent of the Site has evolved as design works have progressed during 2018/2019, with the PEA updated as necessary to cover the full extent of the Site. The following terms are used to describe sub-sections of the Site, with extents of each area shown in Figure 1:
• Construction Area: a roughly rectangular area of land located to the north of the access road, west of the MRF and IBA facilities and east of The Street (also known as Long Parish Road); • Existing Bund:·bund on the eastern boundary of the Site that adjoins the existing MRF and IBA facilities; and • Laydown/Works Area: A triangular field to the north of and adjoining the Construction Area which is identified for use for as a laydown area.
1.3 Scope
This PEA was commissioned to identify whether there are known or potential ecological receptors (nature conservation designations, and protected and notable habitats and species) that may constrain or influence the design and implementation of the proposed development. The approach applied when undertaking this PEA accords with the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (Ref. 1) The PEA addresses relevant wildlife legislation and planning policy as summarised in Section 2 of this report, and is consistent with the requirements of British Standard 42020:2013 Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development.
In order to inform preparation of this PEA, a desk study, extended Phase 1 habitat survey, and inspection of suitability of buildings and trees to support roosting bats were undertaken by an appropriately experienced AECOM ecologist. The purpose of these surveys was to identify ecological
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 8/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
receptors within the Site and the wider potential zone of influence of the Proposed Development. The potential zone of influence was defined with reference to the project description provided by WTI/EfW Holdings Ltd. Additional details are provided in Section 3: Methods.
The purpose of the PEA was to:
• Identify and categorise all habitats present within the Site and any areas immediately outside of the Site where there may be potential for direct or indirect effects (the “zone of influence”);
• Carry out an appraisal of the potential of the habitats recorded to support protected or notable species of fauna and flora; and
• Provide advice on any potential ecological constraints and opportunities in the zone of influence, including the identification (where relevant) of any requirements for follow-up habitat and species surveys and/or requirements for ecological mitigation.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 9/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
2. Wildlife Legislation and Planning Policy
2.1 Wildlife Legislation
The following wildlife legislation is potentially relevant to the proposed development:
• Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended) (Ref. 2);
• Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 (Ref. 3) ;
• Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (Ref. 4);
• Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (Ref. 5);
• The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 (Ref. 6) (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations); and,
• The EU Invasive Alien Species Regulations 2014 (Ref. 7). The above legislation has been considered when planning and undertaking this PEA using the methods described in Section 3, when identifying potential constraints to the Proposed Development, and when making recommendations for further survey, design options and mitigation.
Further information on the requirements of the above legislation is provided in Appendix B.
2.2 National Planning Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Ref. 8) was revised and republished on 19th February 2019 and details the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
The NPPF states the commitment of the UK Government to minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity. As stated in Paragraph 170, this includes the establishment of coherent ecological networks. In addition, Paragraph 174 of the NPPF states that plans should “…identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity” and should “promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species”.
The NPPF specifies the obligations that the Local Authorities and the UK Government have regarding statutory designated sites and protected species under UK and international legislation and how this is to be delivered in the planning system. Protected and/or otherwise notable habitats and species can be a material consideration in planning decisions and may therefore make some sites unsuitable for particular types of development, or if development is permitted, mitigation measures may be required to avoid or minimise impacts on certain habitats and species. Where impact is unavoidable, compensation may be required.
In addition, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (Ref. 9). includes guidance on policies to protect biodiversity within the ‘natural environment’ section, which includes landscape, biodiversity and ecosystems, green infrastructure and brownfield land, soils and agricultural land. 2.3 Local Planning Policy
Relevant local planning policies for the Test Valley Borough are detailed in the following documents:
• Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan, 2013 (Ref. 10);
• Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan, 2011 – 2029 (adopted 2016) (Ref. 11);
• Test Valley Borough Council Biodiversity Action Plan, 2008 (Ref. 12); and,
• Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (Ref. 13).
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 10/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Table 1 provides a summary of relevant local planning policies. For the precise wording of each specific policy please refer back to the source document. This planning policy has been considered when assessing potential ecological constraints and opportunities identified by the desk study and field surveys; and, when assessing requirements for further survey, design options and ecological mitigation, as described in Section 5.
Table 1: Summary of Local Planning Policy
Document Planning Policy Purpose
Hampshire Policy 1: Sustainable Where the plan is silent or policies are out of date permission will be Minerals and minerals and waste granted unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Examples Waste Plan development of material considerations given include Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and sites protected under the Birds and Habitat Directives.
Policy 3: Protection of States that minerals and waste development should not have a habitats and species significant effect on designated or important habitats, species or designated sites, and where possible should seek to create, enhance, or restore.
Development likely to have significant adverse effects on designated or important sites, habitats or species will only be permitted where merits of the development outweigh likely environmental damage and appropriate mitigation/compensation is provided.
Test Valley E5 Biodiversity Development will conserve, and where possible restore and/or Borough Revised enhance biodiversity. Development that results in the loss, Local Plan deterioration or harm to habitats or species will not be permitted unless the benefit outweighs the adverse effect, it is demonstrated that no alternate site is viable, and measures can be provided that avoid, mitigate, and/or compensate for any adverse impact of development.
E6 Green Development will be permitted that protects, conserves, and where Infrastructure possible enhances the borough’s Green Infrastructure network, avoids the loss, fragmentation, severance, or negative impact on the function of the Green Infrastructure network and provides mitigation where an adverse impact is anticipated. In addition, where it is necessary for development to take place on Green Infrastructure areas, appropriate replacement is provided.
Test Valley N/A The Test Valley Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets priority species Biodiversity and habitats within the Borough. The priority habitats lowland wood Action Plan pasture and parkland, lowland calcareous grassland and lowland meadow are relevant to the Site. Relevant priority species include the barbastelle bat (Barbastella barbastella), hazel dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius), stone curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus), and juniper (Juniperus communis).
Hampshire N/A The Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets priority species Biodiversity and habitats within the County. The priority habitats lowland wood Action Plan pasture and parkland, lowland calcareous grassland and lowland meadow are relevant to the Site. Relevant priority species include the barbastelle (Barbastella barbastella), serotine (Eptescius serotinus), Bechstein’s (Myotis bechsteinii) and common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) bats, seed eating farmland birds, bumblebees, and butterflies such as the Adonis blue (Polyommatus bellargus).
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 11/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
3. Methods
3.1 Desk Study
A desk study was carried out to identify nature conservation designations, and protected and notable habitats and species potentially relevant to the proposed development.
A stratified approach was taken when defining the desk study area, based on the likely zone of influence of the proposed development on different ecological receptors and, an understanding of the maximum distances typically considered by statutory consultees. Accordingly, the desk study identified any international nature conservation designations within 10 km of the Site; other statutory sites, non-statutory sites, and protected and notable habitats and species within 2 km of the Site.
The desk study was carried out using the data sources detailed in Table 2. Protected and notable habitats and species include those listed under Schedules 1, 5, and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (Ref. 2); Schedules 2 and 5 of the Habitats Regulations (Ref. 6); species and habitats of principal importance for nature conservation in England listed under section 41 (s41) of the NERC Act (Ref. 4); and other species that are Nationally Rare, Nationally Scarce, or listed in national or local Red Data Lists and Biodiversity Action Plans.
Table 2: Desk Study Data Sources
Data Source Accessed Data Obtained
Multi-Agency Geographic 6h March 2018 • International statutory designations within 10 km Information for the Countryside • Other statutory designations within 10 km (MAGIC) website (Ref. 14) • Ancient woodlands and notable habitats within 1 km • Information on habitats and habitat connections (based on aerial photography) relevant to interpretation of planning policy and assessment of potential protected and notable species constraints • Review of Habitats of Principal Importance within 21st September 2018 2km to identify any habitat extents outside of designated sites that may be particularly sensitive to air pollution impacts.
Hampshire Biodiversity 27th March 2018 • Non-statutory designations within 2 km Information Centre (HBIC) • Protected and notable species records within 2 km (records for the last 10 years only)
Ordnance Survey 1:2500 21st March 2018 • Information on habitats and habitat connections Pathfinder maps and aerial (based on aerial photography) relevant to photography interpretation of planning policy and assessment of potential protected and notable species constraints
Previous Ecological Survey 21st March 2018 & 21st • CEC Ltd. (2011) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Reports September 2019 Ecological Survey Report (Ref. 15); • CEC Ltd. (2012) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Ecological Survey Report (Ref. 16); • Ward Associates (2013) Ecological Assessment: A303 Recycling Centre, Barton Stacey, Hampshire (Ref. 17).
3.2 Field Survey
The field survey comprised a Phase 1 habitat survey and an appraisal was made of the potential suitability of the habitats present to support protected and notable species.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 12/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
3.2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey
A Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken in accordance with the standard survey method (Ref. 18). Phase 1 Habitat survey is a standard method of environmental audit. It involves categorising different habitat types and habitat features within a survey area. The information gained from the survey can be used to determine the likely ecological value of a site, and to direct any more specific survey work which may need to be carried out prior to the submission of a development consent order application. The standard Phase 1 habitat survey method was “extended” to record target notes on protected, notable, and invasive species.
An initial extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken on 8th March 2018, covering the Construction Area (see Figure 1). The survey area encompassed all safely accessible parts of the Construction Area with notes made on adjacent habitats, where access permission had been granted in advance of survey, or this land was visible from within the Site or from public rights of way, or other publicly accessible areas.
Subsequently an updated survey was undertaken on 3rd May 2019 to cover the Existing Bund and Laydown/Works Area, with a further update to gather more information in relation to the Existing Bund area on 25 September 2019. The Construction Area has also been subject to regular walkover surveys during 2019 as part of protected species surveys, during which regular observations of the grassland sward have been made.
The aim of the surveys was to identify any known or potential ecological features of interest that may constrain or influence the design and implementation of the Proposed Development.
Habitats were mapped in accordance with the standard Phase 1 habitat survey methodology (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010). Where relevant ecological receptors were present, target notes were recorded and the position of these shown on the Phase 1 habitat map (See Appendix A – Figure 3). Typical and notable plant species were recorded for different habitat types and reflect the conditions at the time of survey.
3.2.2 Appraisal of Potential Suitability of Habitats to Support Protected and Notable Species
The Phase 1 Habitat survey was ‘extended’ to include an appraisal of the potential suitability of the habitats present to support protected and notable species of plants or animals (as defined in Section 2.1). Field signs, habitat features with potential to support protected species, and any sightings or auditory evidence were recorded when encountered. An initial external assessment of buildings and trees to assess suitability to support roosting bats was undertaken (see Section 3.2.3), but no detailed surveys were carried out for any other species.
A note was made of visible instances of invasive non-native plant species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica). Locations of plants or stands of any such invasive non-native plant species found were recorded.
Section 5 of this report identifies further requirements for species survey based on the results of the habitat survey.
3.2.3 Assessment of Buildings for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats
An initial external inspection of buildings within the Construction Area was undertaken by two suitably experienced AECOM ecologists on 8th March 2018. This survey was conducted in line with the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (Ref. 19).
Close focusing binoculars were used to conduct an external assessment of all buildings within the Site. All potential bat access/egress points and features with the potential to support roosting bats (e.g. cracks, crevices, roof voids) were recorded along with any evidence which may have indicated the location of roosts, such as:
• Stains around entrance holes (resulting from the deposition of oil secretions in bat fur);
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 13/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
• Scratch marks around entrance holes (resulting from bat claw holds);
• Bat droppings;
• Feeding remains; and
• Odours or noise characteristics of bats.
On the basis of the external survey, the overall risk of each building to support roosting bats was classified using a scale of negligible, low, moderate, high, or confirmed (see Appendix C). This assessment was based on both the intrinsic suitability of the features to support roosting bats and other evidence giving an indication of the likelihood of use (e.g. presence of droppings, cobwebs, or exposure to elements).
3.2.4 Assessment of Trees for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats
An initial external inspection from the ground of all trees within the Site was undertaken with each tree being classified in relation to the same criteria described in Section 3.2.3. All trees were examined from the ground using close focusing binoculars for potential roost features such as loose bark, cavities and ivy that could be utilised by bats. Trees were also checked for any signs of bats such as droppings, scratch marks, staining and feeding remains. The grading system used to determine the suitability of potential roost features to support roosting bats is contained within Appendix C.
3.3 Desk Study and Field Survey Limitations
The aim of a desk study is to help characterise the baseline context of a proposed development and provide valuable background information that would not be captured by a single site survey alone. Information obtained during the course of a desk study is dependent upon people and organisations having made and submitted records for the area of interest. As such, a lack of records for a particular habitat or species does not necessarily mean that the habitat or species do not occur in the study area. Likewise, the presence of records for particular habitats and species does not automatically mean that these still occur within the area of interest or are relevant in the context of the proposed development.
The initial Phase 1 habitat survey visit to the Construction Area was undertaken in March 2018 outside of the optimal period for botanical survey. The recording of invasive non-native plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and other protected and/or notable species was constrained by the time of year that the initial survey was undertaken. Most such species are not visible or cannot be reliably mapped outside the growing season (May to September), and some species are only apparent during certain months. In addition populations of annual plant species may fluctuate markedly between years dependent on the growing conditions present in any given season.
However, despite being outside of the optimal survey season, the survey undertaken in March 2018 recorded all habitat types within the Site to an appropriate level of botanical detail to inform the initial scoping of further surveys. The Construction Area has subsequently been subject to walkover surveys during a range of protected species surveys during 2018 and 2019, and no significant change in the species composition has been noted. Based on the combined information this is not considered to represent a significant constraint to the results and conclusions for this area of the Site.
Surveys of the Laydown/Works Area and the Existing Bund were undertaken within the optimal survey period and were not constrained.
Where habitat boundaries coincide with physical boundaries recorded on OS maps the resolution is as determined by the scale of mapping. Elsewhere, habitat mapping is as estimated in the field and/or recorded by hand-held GPS. Where areas of habitat are given they are approximate and should be verified by measurement on site where required for design or construction. While indicative locations of trees are recorded this does not replace requirements for detailed specialist arboricultural survey.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 14/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
3.4 Quality Assurance
The AECOM Ecologists who conducted the surveys and authored this report are members, at the appropriate level, of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and follow their code of professional conduct when undertaking ecological work.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 15/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
4. Results
4.1 Nature Conservation Designations
4.1.1 Statutory Designations
Table 3 details the statutory nature conservation designations of sites identified by the desk study, based on the method given in Section 2.1 of this report.
There are no internationally designated sites (i.e. Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation or Ramsar sites) within 10 km of the Site.
A total of three statutory designated sites are located within 2 km of the Site. The River Test Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is the nearest designation, located 0.7 km away from the Site. The Site lies within the SSSI Impact Risk Zone for the River Test SSSI.
There are a further six statutory designated sites located between 2 km and 10 km of the Site, namely Chibolton Commons SSSI, Bere Mill Meadows SSSI, Brockley Warren SSSI, Micheldever Spoil Heaps SSSI, Stockbridge Down SSSI and Anton Lakes Local Nature Reserve (LNR).
Table 3: Sites with Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation
Designation Reasons for Designation Distance from the Site
River Test SSSI A classic example of a chalk stream and one of the 0.7 km north & most species-rich lowland rivers in England. The Test 0.8 km south supports a high diversity of invertebrate species and is especially rich in aquatic molluscs.
East Aston Common Lies within the flood plain of the upper reaches of the 1.4 km north SSSI Test Valley, an area of special interest for its extensive east tall sedge-rich fen communities and chalk stream associated riparian habitats.
Bransbury Common Lies on a flood plain of the upper Test Valley consisting 1.8 km south- SSSI of common land and a disused water meadow. The west meadow and the common embrace a remarkable range of grassland and grass/sedge communities, probably unparalleled in southern England.
Chibolton Commons Includes a section of the River Test flood plain together 5.3 km south SSSI with surrounding fen, sallow car, and unimproved west marshy meadow. The site supports a species rich and ecologically diverse flora, the communities of the flood plain marsh being particularly important, with many exacting species now rare or scarce.
Bere Mill Meadows SSSI Comprises a group of damp unimproved herb-rich 5.7 km north neutral grassland on the flood plain of the upper Test east Valley. The meadows represent a type of vegetation formerly widespread in the chalk stream valleys but now much diminished.
Brockley Warren SSSI Largest of the few remaining areas of chalk grassland 6.0 km south and chalk scrub of the Hampshire chalk plateau. It west supports a mosaic of chalk scrub mainly of juniper, bramble and hawthorn with scattered planted pines. The juniper is now mostly moribund and there is little recent regeneration.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 16/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Designation Reasons for Designation Distance from the Site
Micheldever Spoil Heaps Nineteenth century chalk spoil heaps derived from 7.7 km east SSSI railway cuttings, and now exhibiting various stages of colonisation by a range of plant communities. The site is identified as of ‘exceptional’ botanical value.
Anton Lakes LNR The reserve is made up of a range of habitats following 8.1 km north its use for gravel extraction. The River Anton rises from west springs within the reserve, flowing down through a series of old watercress beds, providing a habitat for the locally rare long-stalked yellow sedge. The river then flows into the lakes, which are themselves home to a variety of birds including the beautiful great-crested grebe. Other habitats include areas of chalk grassland and fen meadow.
Stockbridge Down SSSI Stockbridge Down comprises a wide range of chalk 8.9 km south scrub and grassland communities occupying a north- west west facing chalk scarp with an extensive plateau on clay-with-flints.
4.1.2 Non-statutory Designations Table 4 details the non-statutory nature conservations designations identified by the desk study based on the method given in Section 2.1 of this report. A total of eight Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are present within 2 km of the Site. The designations are listed in descending order, with those closest to the Site listed first.
Table 4: Sites with Non-Statutory Designations for Nature Conservation
Designation Reasons for Designation Distance from the Site
Longparish Cornfields Supports the following notable species: pheasant’s eye 0.13 km north SINC (Adonis annua), dwarf spurge (Euphorbia exigua), fine leaved fumitory (Fumaria parviflora), red hemp nettle (Galeopsis angustifolia), prickly poppy (Papaver argemone), shepherd’s needle (Scandix pecten- veneris), night flowering catchfly (Silene noctiflora), common hedge parsley (Torilis arvensis) and narrow fruited cornsalad (Valerianella dentata).
Drayton Down (area 1) 22.73 ha site comprising unimproved grassland among 0.2 km east SINC other habitats. The site supports hairy rock cress (Arabis hirsuta), basil thyme (Clinopodium acinos) and brown hare (Lepus europaeus).
Lower Mills Meadow 0.82 ha site designated on the basis of two SINC 0.75 km north criteria: - Semi-improved grassland which retain an element of unimproved grassland - fens, flushes, seepages, springs, inundation grasslands that support a flora and fauna characteristic of unimproved and waterlogged conditions.
Longparish Meadow 2.04 ha site comprising agriculturally unimproved 0.80 km north SINC grassland.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 17/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Designation Reasons for Designation Distance from the Site
Lower Farm Meadow 0.31 ha site comprising agriculturally unimproved 1.25 km north- SINC grasslands with areas of open freshwater which west support assemblages of floating/submerged/emergent plant species, invertebrates, birds or amphibians. The site also supports flat-sedge (Blymus compressus), a notable species.
Test Way, North of 0.68 ha area of ancient semi-natural woodland. 1.4 km north- Middleton SINC west
Middleton Wood SINC 1.92 ha area of ancient semi-natural woodland. 1.5 km north- west
Tidbury Ring Wood 4.39 ha area of ancient semi-natural woodland. 1.9 km east SINC
In addition to the areas of ancient semi-natural woodland that occur within designated sites there is one additional area of ancient woodland listed on Natural England’s ancient woodland inventory is located within 2 km of the Site, namely Chimple Row (2.6 ha) an ancient and semi-natural woodland located 2 km to the south west of the Site.
Harewood Forest, an extensive area of ancient and semi-natural woodland (288ha) is located approximately 2.4 km to the west of the Site.
4.2 Habitats
4.2.1 Phase 1 Habitat Types
The habitats recorded, their extent, and distribution are shown in Table 5 and Figure 3. The areas are approximate and only comprise habitats present within the Site, the area in which development is to occur. The associated target notes (TN) are provided in Appendix D. Relevant information from the desk study on particular habitats is noted in Table 5.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 18/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Table 5: Habitats Present, in Descending Order Based on Spatial Area Occupied
Habitat Brief description Area (ha) % of Site area
Hardstanding and The south-east corner of the Construction Area 0.28 3.2 buildings comprises hard-standing surfaces in the form of a road and car park. In addition, a single pre-fabricated building is also present.
Improved grassland A large field, part of which previously supported 1.85 21.5 plantation woodland, and the remainder of which shows evidence of previous cultivation. It is located within the centre of the Construction Area and currently supports moss dominated improved grassland.
Semi-improved The Laydown/Works Area comprises a large 3.9 (Calcareous 45.3 grassland grassland field with varying structure and diversity semi-improved) and patches of developing scrub. This is classified as calcareous semi-improved grassland, as are short
sward areas of grassland on the slopes of the Existing Bund in the east of the Site. 0.32 (Neutral semi- 3.7 improved) Neutral semi-improved grassland is present west of the main area of improved grassland. 0.08 (Species poor 1.0 semi-improved)
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 19/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Habitat Brief description Area (ha) % of Site area
Amenity grassland Amenity grassland surrounds the pre-fabricated Site 0.25 2.9 Office buildings and car park within the Construction Area. Hedgerows An intact species-rich hedgerow adjoins the western N/A N/A boundary of the Site with The Street. Along the boundary between the Construction Area and the Solar Farm a species-poor intact hedgerow with trees was present. An intact species-rich hedgerow was present along the entire boundary of the Laydown/Works Area. Broadleaved A large linear stretch of young broadleaved plantation 0.96 11.1 woodland - plantation woodland runs along the northern boundary of the Construction Area. In addition, two small patches one containing mature trees and another with semi- mature trees are located along the west boundary of the Construction Area. Broadleaved A narrow strip of broadleaved woodland comprised of 0.08 0.9 woodland – semi- mature sycamore and beech trees is present along natural the boundary of the Construction Area with The Street. A small triangular parcel of land in the northern tip of the Laydown/Works Area adjoining the northern boundary of the Site comprised mature sycamore and horse chestnut. Ephemeral/short Two formerly used pavements/roads within the 0.16 1.9 perennial western section of the Construction Area have been colonised by dense moss cover and typical ephemeral/short perennial plants. Tall ruderal Small areas of tall ruderal vegetation are located 0.11 1.3 within the Laydown/Works Area. Broadleaved A row of immature and semi-mature trees are located N/A N/A scattered trees along in the south west of the Construction Area. The Existing Bund to the east of the Construction Area contains young broadleaved planted trees. Scrub Linear belts of scrub are present on both east and 0.38 4.5 west boundaries of the Laydown/Works Area. Scattered scrub (not included within the area stated) is also present throughout the grassland within the Laydown/Works Area. Bare ground A large patch of bare ground is located in the eastern 0.23 2.7 area of the Construction Area. In the centre of the Laydown/Works Area there is a small area of bare ground utilised as a burning pit. Total = 8.6 ha The habitats are described in greater detail below.
4.2.1.1 Semi-improved grassland
Semi-improved grassland containing species more indicative of base rich soils was recorded within two main areas. It was the dominant habitat within the Laydown/Works Area in the north of the Site. In addition there were areas of calcareous semi-improved grassland present on the Existing Bund in the west of the Site (e.g. TN1 Plate 4).
The western margin of the Construction Area contains species-poor semi-improved grassland indicative of neutral soils (TN15, Plate 5).
Calcareous semi-improved grassland
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 20/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Semi-improved grassland containing a mixture of both neutral and calcareous species was the predominant habitat within the Laydown/Works Area. The grassland typically undulated across its entirety, with an abundance of small sparsely distributed patches of bare ground and good structural diversity including some ant mounds (Plate 1 & 2). The grassland was characterised by an abundance of false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum), frequent stands of perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), wild marjoram (Origanum vulgare), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), hogweed (Heracleum sphonydillium) and hairy violet (Viola hirta), with occasional stands of false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), cut leaved cranesbill (Gernanium dissectum), dove’s-foot cranesbill (Geranium molle), germander speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys), agrimony (Agrimonia eupatoria), common daisy (Bellis perennis), hairy St. John’s-wort (Hypericum hirsutum), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), white bryony (Bryonia alba), field forget-me-not (Myosotis arvensis), wood avens (Geum urbanum) and perforate St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum). In addition, parsley piert (Aphanes arvensis), weld (Reseda luteola), purple toadflax (Linaria purpurea), mouse-ear hawkweed (Pilosella officinarum), red clover (Trifoilum pratense), primrose (Primula vulgaris) and great mullein (Verbascum thapsus) were also recorded.
The grassland within the Laydown/Works Area contained frequent developing scrub, which is described in Section 4.2.1.10.
Within the Laydown/Works Area there were several shortly mown pathways (Plate 3). This habitat generally adhered to the floral composition for calcareous semi-improved grassland but was species- poor and comprised greater dominance of grasses such as red fescue, common bent and perennial rye grass, and common daisy.
.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 21/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Plate 1 Semi-improved calcareous grassland with scattered scrub in Laydown/Works Area
Plate 2 Open calcareous grassland with scattered scrub in Laydown/Works Area
Plate 3 Shorter areas of regularly cut grassland within Laydown/Works Area
The Existing Bund in the east of the Site, and the small areas of short sward grassland surrounding the existing Site Office supported a generally short sward. The bund was dominated by common bent (Agrostis capillaris) with abundant fescue (Festuca sp.) and lesser celandine (Ranunculus ficaria).
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 22/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), common field speedwell (Veronica persica), hairy bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) were frequently recorded. Occasional species included salad burnet (Sanguisorba minor), wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), hoary plantain (Plantago media), dovesfoot cranesbill (Geranium molle), common nettle (Urtica dioica), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), common mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum), viper’s bugloss (Echium vulgare), common catsear (Hypochaeris radicata), willowherb (Epilobium sp.), green alkanet (Pentaglottis sempervirens) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale agg.) were occasionally recorded. In addition, red clover, snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) and stinking iris (Iris foetidissima) were also recorded. While the sward is short in most areas, in some areas tall ruderals become dominant in particular on the eastern boundary close to Pond 1 (see Appendix A - Figure 3).
A mix of young broadleaved trees have been planted throughout the grassland including hazel (Corylus avellana), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), beech (Fagus sylvatica), guelder rose (Viburnum opulus) (Plate 5).
Plate 4 Semi-improved grassland on earth bund with some species indicative of calcareous grassland (TN1)
Plate 5 Young trees planting within scrub on Existing Bund in east of Site
Species poor semi-improved grassland
An area of species-poor semi-improved grassland was in the west of the Construction Area. This habitat was fragmented due to the presence of broadleaved plantation woodland (e.g. TN13) and ephemeral/short perennial colonised hardstanding surfaces (TN10). The community was dominated by mosses such as springy-turf moss (Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus). Other species included abundant false oat grass, occasional spear thistle, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), meadow buttercup
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 23/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
(Ranunculus acris), common mouse-ear, and common daisy. In addition, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), creeping bent, Yorkshire fog and salad burnet were also recorded.
Plate 6 Poor semi-improved grassland beyond the moss dominated pathway (TN15)
4.2.1.2 Improved grassland
The large open area within the Construction Area consisted of moss dominated improved grassland (TN8; Plate 7). From aerial imaging, it is evident that part of the field was previously subject to cultivation, with approximately one third comprising an annexation of the existing broadleaved plantation woodland. Species include dominant springy-turf moss (Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus), occasional creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), common daisy (Bellis perennis), and neat feather moss (Pseudoscleropodium purum).
Plate 7 Moss dominated improved grassland (TN8)
4.2.1.3 Hardstanding and buildings
A pre-fabricated office building and surrounding car park are situated within the south-east corner of the Construction Area (Plate 8). A short road connects the car park with the adjacent access road (Plate 1). Surrounding the office building and car park is amenity kept grassland. In addition, a small shipping container is located within the ephemeral/short perennial habitat described in TN4 (Plate 9).
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 24/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Plate 8 Road which follows off of the access road toward the office and car park
Plate 9 Pre-fabricated office building Two telecommunication towers and associated infrastructure were located adjacent to the northern tip of the Laydown/Works Area in association with an area of mature broadleaved trees (Plate 10).
Plate 10 Telecommunication tower situated in the northern corner of the site
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 25/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
4.2.1.4 Amenity grassland
Small areas of amenity grassland were located around the Site office and car park and on the earth bund which separates the hard-standing features and the improved grassland (TN16). The grassland was relatively species poor. Recorded species included annual meadow grass (Poa annua), fescue (Festuca sp.) and common mouse-ear.
4.2.1.5 Hedgerows
Intact species-rich hedge A species-rich hedgerow runs approximately 125 m from the Site Office car park north to the solar farm site boundary (TN2; Plate 12). A 10 m gap was present approximately half way along the hedge allowing access to the improved grassland field. The hedgerow was unmanaged and undergoing transition to dense/continuous scrub. Woody species include elder (Sambucus nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), field maple, dog rose (Rosa canina) and wild privet (Ligustrum vulgare). In addition, bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) was also recorded within the hedge. Common nettle, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides) were all frequently recorded at the base of the hedge. Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), and lords and ladies (Arum maculatum) were also recorded.
An intact species-rich hedgerow was present along the entire length of the eastern boundary of the Laydown/Works Area with the Solar Farm (Plate 11; TN35). The hedgerow did not appear to be subject to regular management based on the tall average height and colonisation of scrub along its length. Species included field maple and blackthorn with occasional stands of elder and hawthorn. In addition, ash, hazel, wild privet and dogwood were also recorded.
The western boundary of the Laydown/Works Area with The Street supports a hedgerow for much of its length with frequent blackthorn and hawthorn and occasional stands of elder, bramble, wild privet, sycamore and traveller’s-joy. In the south of the Laydown/Works Area the hedgerow was adjoined in places by developing scrub of similar species composition. There were some gaps in the hedgerow at the northern end of the western boundary, with only occasional mature Leyland cypress present within these areas.
Plate 11 Unmanaged hedgerow with adjacent scrub (TN12)
Intact species-poor hedge An unmanaged, species-poor hedgerow was recorded along the boundary between the north east corner of the Construction Area and the Solar Farm (TN5; Plate 13). Woody hedgerow species included blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), with several semi-mature and mature ash (Fraxinus excelsior), and field maple trees (Acer campestre) present within the hedgerow.
Species-poor hedgerow with trees
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 26/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
A managed hedgerow comprising only hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) was situated along part of the southern Site boundary between the Site car park and the access road (TN17).
Plate 12 Un-managed species-rich hedgerow (TN2)
Plate 13 Un-managed species-poor hedgerow (TN5)
4.2.1.6 Broadleaved plantation woodland
In total, three areas of broadleaved plantation woodland of varying ages were present within the Construction Area and adjoining Existing Bund. A large linear stretch of plantation woodland was present along the northern boundary of the Construction Area (Plate 14). This woodland comprised uniformly spaced semi-mature trees with little undergrowth. Species included sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), hawthorn and beech (Fagus sylvatica). The woodland floor predominantly comprised of leaf litter with abundant common feather moss (Kindbergia praelonga) and false oat grass, and locally abundant red fescue (Festuca rubra). In addition, broadleaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius), lords and ladies (Arum maculatum), perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne), annual meadow grass, common ragwort, common nettle, brome grass (Bromus sp.) and creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans) were all occasional.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 27/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
In addition, two small patches (one containing mature trees and another with semi-mature trees) were located along the western boundary of the Construction Area. A smaller more circular area of plantation woodland comprising semi-mature hawthorn and sycamore was located adjacent to the boundary with The Street (TN13; Plate 15). Like the aforementioned plantation woodland habitat, very little undergrowth or ground flora was noted.
Plate 14 Broadleaved woodland plantation along the northern Site boundary
Plate 15 Dense broadleaved woodland plantation copse adjacent to The Street (TN13)
4.2.1.7 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland
Directly west of the small circular plantation described in TN13 was a narrow strip of semi-natural broadleaved woodland comprised of mature beech and sycamore trees. On the whole, the trees were densely covered in ivy (Hedera helix) (Plate 16). A mature fallen sycamore was recorded within the northern perimeter of the habitat (TN14). Little undergrowth was recorded on the woodland floor. Freshly cut tree stumps suggested that recent felling had occurred to several trees. This was also true of the mature tree climbing ivy which had been cut at the base of the trees.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 28/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Plate 16 Mature, remnant area of plantation woodland adjacent to The Street1 A small triangular parcel of land just to the north of the Laydown/Works Area comprised mature sycamore and horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) surrounding two telecomm towers (Plate 17; TN’s 30-34). Dogrose, hawthorn and bramble comprised the understorey, whilst stinking iris, ivy, common nettle and traveller’s-joy comprised the ground flora.
Plate 17 Small woodland copse surrounding telecomm towers located just north of Site
4.2.1.8 Ephemeral/short perennial
Two hard standing areas within the Construction Area have been colonised by moss and typical ephemeral/short perennial plants. This includes the pathway running north from the road that serves the office car park and another which ran from the access road, parallel with the western boundary of the Site.
The pathway which continues north from the Site Office and car park leads up to the solar farm site boundary (TN4; Plate 18). The path was covered in a thick layer of neat feather moss (Pseudoscleropodium purum) and rough-stalked feather moss (Brachythecium rutabulum). In addition,
1 The road which adjoins the western boundary of the Site.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 29/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
several ephemeral/short perennial species such as frequent common cats-ear, occasional Yorkshire fog, red fescue and common mouse-ear were present.
The moss colonised pathway to the west of the Site (TN10; Plate 19) was also covered in a thick layer of moss, but was richer in herbaceous species. Species included neat feather moss, rough-stalked feather moss, dovesfoot cranesbill, common ragwort, common mouse-ear, great mullein (Verbascum thapsus) and false oat grass.
Plate 18 Moss colonised pavement north of the Site office (TN4)
Plate 19 Moss colonised pavement west of the Site office (TN10)
4.2.1.9 Broadleaved scattered trees
A line of immature and semi-mature (TN11; Plate 20) sycamore, ash and dogwood (Cornus sanguinea) trees, with bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba) adjoining the access road, adjoining the existing site entrance. Within the adjacent grassland, several semi-mature trees were scattered throughout (TN10). In addition, a single pear tree (Pyrus sp) was present within this area.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 30/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Plate 20 Tree line that runs along the access road (TN11)
4.2.1.10 Dense/continuous scrub
Linear belts of scrub were present for long stretches along the eastern and western boundaries of the Laydown/Works Area. The scrub belt along the western boundary of the Laydown/Works Area (Plate 21; TN27) ran the entire length of the grassland. Both habitats comprised an abundance of hawthorn and blackthorn, with occasional stands of elder, bramble, wild privet, sycamore and traveller’s-joy. Wayfaring tree and dogrose were additionally recorded.
Plate 21 Dense scrub that bordered the west site boundary
4.2.1.11 Scattered scrub
Several areas of grassland across the Site have been planted with tree saplings. This includes grassland on the existing bunds on the eastern margin of the Construction Area (TN1), grassland surrounding the office and car park (TN16) and a linear patch west of the improved grassland (TN9; Plate 22). These saplings were immature in nature and were thus defined as scattered scrub.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 31/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Plate 22 Newly planted broadleaved trees over moss-dominant poor semi-improved grassland (TN9) Scattered scrub was abundant throughout the semi-improved grassland, within the Laydown/Works Area field, in particular in the south-eastern and northern sections of this area (Plate 23). This comprised an abundance of hawthorn, with frequent stands of wild privet. Butterfly-bush, blackthorn, sycamore, ash, wayfaring tree and dogrose were also recorded.
Plate 23 Scrub in the south of the Laydown/Works Area close to boundary with Construction Area
4.2.1.12 Tall ruderals
Tall ruderal vegetation was identified as the dominant vegetation type within several small areas of the Laydown/Works Area. A large patch of abundant common nettles was present within the south-west corner of the triangular field that constitutes the Laydown/Works Area (Plate 24; TN25). Two smaller patches were present on the fringes of the grassland within the same field. Collectively, these habitats comprised an abundance of common nettle, and in addition locally frequent teasel, lesser burdock, common ragwort.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 32/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Plate 24 Tall ruderal surrounding a small refuse pile (TN25)
4.2.1.13 Bare ground
A large area of bare ground was recorded in the Construction Area within the eastern portion of the improved grassland (Plate 25). A small mound of ash and debris was noted, suggesting that the area had been recently used for burning materials.
Plate 25 Large area of bare ground upon the improved grassland described in TN8 In the centre of the Laydown/Works Area there is a patch of bare ground used as a burning pit (TN29). In addition, two bare ground tracks led from this north to the broadleaved woodland (Plate 26).
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 33/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Plate 26 Central refuse and vegetation burning area (TN29)
4.2.2 Notable Habitats
Table 6 provides a preliminary summary of notable habitats associated with the site based on the results of the Phase 1 habitat survey and with reference to guidance for the recognition of NERC Act S41 habitats (Ref. 20), the Hampshire and Test Valley Biodiversity Action Plans, and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) quality habitats.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 34/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Table 6: Notable Habitats within the Site
Habitat NERC Act? LBAP? SINC Quality? Supporting Comments
Lowland X ✓ X The grassland within the triangular field in the north of calcareous the Site to be used as the Laydown/Works Area grassland contains a range of both neutral and calcareous species, and was classified as lowland calcareous grassland within the Phase 1 habitat survey. False brome remains frequent in the sward, which is likely a remnant of the former presence of plantation woodland.
While the grassland within the Laydown/Works Area contains an unusual mixture of species it is considered unlikely to currently qualify as a Habitat of Principal
Importance. However, based on the range of species and its structural diversity it is considered to fall within the scope of both the Hampshire and Test Valley Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). A strip of calcareous semi-improved grassland is located on the eastern boundary of the Construction Area along the road that follows north from the access road. The habitat is newly created on an earth bund (and is highly managed. Due to the habitat’s size and due to it not being of unimproved quality, it is not
considered to meet the habitat of principal importance, definition.
Hedgerows ✓ ✓ X Given the broad habitat of principal importance definition for hedgerows, all hedgerows at the Site are considered to meet these criteria. The hedgerows along the eastern and western boundaries of the Laydown/Works Area contain a range of woody species and are likely to qualify as BAP habitat at both a county and local level. These hedgerows are also likely to be ‘important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997) criteria.
Broadleaved ✓ ✓ X The narrow strip of semi-natural broadleaved mixed, and woodland adjacent to The Street on the western yew boundary of the Construction Area is considered a woodland habitat of principal importance. A small collection of mature trees (outside of the Site), and just to the north of the Laydown/Works Area is also considered likely to qualify as habitat of principal importance.
Key to symbols: ✓ = yes, x = no, ? = possible, further survey required to determine this.
4.3 Protected and Notable Species Appendix E provides a summary of potentially relevant species identified through a combination of desk study and field survey. The table summarises the conservation status of each species and provides comment on the likelihood of presence.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 35/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Species present within the Site are those for which recent direct observation or field signs confirmed presence. Species which are possibly present are those for which there is potentially suitable habitat based on the results of the Phase 1 habitat survey, or this combined with desk study records (Appendix D). Species unlikely to be present are only mentioned where there are desk study records but there is no suitable habitat in the zone of influence, or there are other reasons why presence is unlikely. Brief comments are provided to support the determinations made in Section 5.
Where species are identified in Table 7 as potentially relevant to the Site they are likely to represent legal constraints or may be material to determination of a development consent application. Further surveys will or may be required to determine presence or probable absence. Requirements for further survey are identified in Section 5 of this report.
Table 7: Protected and notable species relevant or potentially relevant to the Proposed Development
Species Supporting Comments
tially tially
Legally Protected Species? Speciesof Principal Importance? OtherNotable Species? PossiblyPresent onSite? Present / Poten PresentWider in Zoneof Influence?
Great crested ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Three artificial, concrete lined pools are located newt outside of the Site but within a 250m radius. They are all located within the adjacent waste management site. These water bodies are considered sub-optimal habitat for great crested newt, however further work will be required to robustly demonstrate likely absence. The plantation woodland and thick moss dominated ephemeral/short perennial habitat is potentially suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newts. Bats ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ A total of four trees with low suitability to support roosting bats were identified within the Site. The prefabricated office building is considered to have negligible suitability to support roosting bats. The linear features created by the plantation woodland and hedgerows in conjunction with the grasslands provide suitable foraging habitat and commuting routes for bats. Hazel ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The hedgerows and plantation woodland offer some dormouse potential habitat for dormice, in particular the hedgerows and associated areas of scrub on the margins of the Laydown/Works Area. The limited connectivity to the wider landscape makes presence less likely, but cannot at this stage be ruled out. Birds ✓ ? ? ✓ ✓ Trees and continuous scrub have the potential to support nesting birds. The grassland habitats are potentially suitable for ground nesting birds such as skylark (Alauda arvensis). The Site is unlikely to support over-wintering bird species. Barn owl ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ Although no suitable nesting features were recorded on site, the surrounding habitats are suitable for foraging. The Site is likely to be used for commuting between suitable foraging grounds.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 36/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Species Supporting Comments
tially tially
Legally Protected Species? Speciesof Principal Importance? OtherNotable Species? PossiblyPresent onSite? Present / Poten PresentWider in Zoneof Influence?
Reptiles ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ The combination of grassland and scrub habitats in the Laydown/Works Area in particular provide high quality habitat suitable to support common reptiles (slow worm, common lizard, and grass snake). The areas of habitat within the Construction Area and Existing Bund contain smaller areas of suitable habitat, but large areas including the short sward improved grassland within the Construction Area have limited structural complexity and represent lower quality areas of habitat for reptiles. Badger ✓ X X X ✓ Site supports suitable habitat but no evidence indicating badger activity has been recorded. Terrestrial X X ✓ ✓ ✓ The habitats within the Site, in particular the invertebrates Laydown/Works Area are likely to support a range of terrestrial invertebrate species. The grassland within the Laydown/Works Area contains anthills (likely yellow meadow ant).
Key to symbols: ✓ = yes, see Supporting Comments for further rationale Legally protected species are those listed under Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); and, Schedules 2 and 4 of The Conservation of Habitat & Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Species of Principal Importance as those listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. In exercising its function a public authority must have a legal duty under Section 40 of the same Act to consider such species when determining development consent order applications. Other notable species include native species of conservation concern listed in the LBAP (except species that are also of Principal Importance), those that are Nationally Rare, Scarce or Red Data List, and non-native controlled weed species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
4.3.1 Great Crested Newt
The data search returned no records of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) within 2 km of the Site. A total of three waterbodies are located within 500m of the Site.
Two water bodies that are part of the operational IBA and MRF facilities are located directly adjacent to the eastern margin of the Site (Pond 1 and Pond 2 – See Figure 3. A third waterbody identified from aerial photography, located approximately 200m to the east of the Site is understood that the waterbody furthest away from the Site rarely stays wet and is unlikely to function as a pond.
All three waterbodies are manmade and act as attenuation ponds within the neighbouring materials recovery facility. It. It is understood from discussions with site staff that a smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris) was found within Pond 1 in recent years.
The water bodies are considered sub-optimal breeding habitat for great crested newt, however further work will be required to robustly demonstrate likely absence. However, the Site contains potentially suitable habitat foraging and refuge habitat, in the form of grassland, woodland and scrub within 500m. This includes the plantation woodland, hedgerows, and grassland habitat within the Site.
Using aerial photography and Ordnance Survey mapping, no further waterbodies have been identified within 500m.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 37/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
4.3.2 Bats
4.3.2.1 Assessment of suitability of buildings to support roosting bats
On the basis of the initial external inspection undertaken the buildings and structures within the Site have negligible suitability to support roosting bats. Further details on each building/structure are contained within Table 8.
Table 8: Initial Assessment of Buildings for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats
Building Description Photograph
Building 1 – Office Single-storey, pre-fabricated building with a flat building roof. No crevices were noted, as were no suitable features on the exterior of the building that could potentially be used as access/egress points for roosting bats. In addition, no signs of bats were noted.
The building has negligible suitability to support roosting bats. Building 2 – Shipping container located adjacent to Shipping container hedgerow. No crevices were noted, as were no suitable features on the exterior of the building that could potentially be used as access/egress points for roosting bats. In addition, no signs of bats were noted.
The container has negligible suitability to support roosting bats.
4.3.2.2 Assessment of trees for suitability to support roosting bats
On the basis of the initial external inspections undertaken a total of four trees within the Site were identified as having low suitability to support roosting bats.
A single tree with high suitability to support roosting bats (TN30) was identified outside of the Site, approximately 25m to the north of the Laydown/Works Area. A further three trees with low suitability to support roosting bats, all located outside of the Site, were identified within the same group of trees just to the north of the Laydown/Works Area.
All other trees have negligible suitability to support roosting bats. Further details on the trees with low suitability are contained within Table 9.
Table 9: Initial Assessment of Trees for Suitability to Support Roosting Bats
Building Description Photograph
Tree 1 – field maple Mature field maple (Acer campestre) located adjacent to Site directly north of the Site office (TN3). The tree is office located nearby to a hedgerow, but otherwise is largely isolated from linear habitat features. Several branches contained cavities which could potentially be used as egress/access points for bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has low suitability to support roosting bats.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 38/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Building Description Photograph
Tree 2 – mature Mature ash (Fraxinus excelsior) densely ash covered in ivy located along the northern Site boundary at the end of the species-poor hedgerow (TN6). The dense covering of ivy branches could potentially be used as egress/access points for bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has low suitability to support roosting bats.
Tree 3 – field maple Mature field maple (Acer campestre) located adjacent to along the northern Site boundary at the end of plantation the species-poor hedgerow (TN7). The trunk woodland and several branches contained cavities which could potentially be used as egress/access points for bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has low suitability to support roosting bats.
Tree 4 – mature Mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) located along beech the west Site boundary adjacent to The Street and to a mature linear patch of plantation woodland. Several small cavities were noted on the branches and trunk, cavities which could potentially be used as egress/access points for bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has low suitability to support roosting bats.
Tree 5 – Dead trunk Dead trunk of a mature tree situated within the (outside of the Site) northern broadleaved woodland (TN30). The trunk was hollowed and had several features potentially suitable as egress/access points for bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has high suitability to support roosting bats.
Tree 6 – Mature A mature sycamore situated within the northern sycamore (outside broadleaved woodland with dense ivy cover of the Site) along its trunk (TN32). The dense ivy cover on this tree could potentially be used by roosting bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has low suitability to support roosting bats.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 39/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Building Description Photograph
Tree 7 – Mature A mature oak (Quercus sp.) situated within the oak (outside of the northern broadleaved woodland with dense ivy Site) cover along its trunk (TN33). The dense ivy cover on this tree could potentially be used by roosting bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has low suitability to support roosting bats.
Tree 8 – Mature A mature sycamore situated within the northern sycamore (outside broadleaved woodland with dense ivy cover of the Site) along its trunk (TN34). The dense ivy cover on this tree could potentially be used by roosting bats. No signs of bats were noted.
The tree has low suitability to support roosting bats.
4.3.3 Hazel Dormouse
The data search returned one record of hazel dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) within 2 km of the Site.
The hedgerows and scrub on the boundaries of the Laydown/Works Area support a range of food sources (hawthorn, blackthorn, elder, bramble, dog rose), and provide areas of potentially suitable habitat to support dormouse. The species rich hedgerow running north from the Site office towards the boundary with the Solar Farm contains a similar range of species. This hedgerow is considered less suitable than those within the Laydown/Works Area.
The hedgerow that forms the north eastern boundary of the Construction Area with the Solar Farm, and the other areas of plantation and scrub are less diverse and provide a limited range of potential food sources.
Connectivity with other areas of more suitable dormouse habitat within the wider landscape is somewhat limited. Presence within the Construction Area is considered unlikely, however overall the habitats with the wider Site are considered sub-optimal for dormouse but their presence cannot be ruled out.
4.3.4 Birds
The data search returned a total of 69 bird species within 2 km of the Site, of which not all would necessarily breed in this area. Species recorded which are considered relevant and could potentially utilise habitats within the Site include skylark (Alauda arvensis) and lapwing (Vanellus vanellus).
All broadleaved plantation woodland, hedgerow, scattered scrub, and scattered trees scattered trees have the potential to support breeding birds. In addition, the grassland habitats on site have the potential to support ground nesting birds such as skylark if not extensively managed.
It is unlikely that the habitats on-site support over-wintering bird species.
4.3.5 Barn Owl
The data search returned a total of 11 records for barn owl (Tyto alba) within 2 km of the Site. Although no suitable roosting features were found within the Site the habitats within the Site provide habitat
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 40/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
potentially suitable to be utilised by barn owl during foraging, and/or commuting between other areas of suitable habitat.
It is understood that barn owls have been observed in the local area by site staff of the Material Recovery Facility which is located to the east of the Site.
4.3.6 Reptiles
The data search returned a single record of a slow worm (Anguis fragilis) within 2 km of the Site. No records of other reptiles were returned.
The combination of grassland and scrub habitats in the Laydown/Works Area in particular provide high quality habitat suitable to support common reptiles (slow worm, common lizard, and grass snake). The combination of areas of longer and shorter sward grassland, alongside scattered scrub provide good structural diversity. This is enhanced further by the presence of a range of wood piles which provide suitable refugia/hibernacula for reptiles.
The areas of habitat within the Construction Area and Existing Bund contain smaller areas of suitable habitat, but large areas including the short sward improved grassland within the Construction Area have limited structural complexity and represent lower quality areas of habitat for reptiles.
4.3.7 Badger
Habitat within the Site is potentially suitable to support badger foraging and the creation of setts. However, no evidence of the presence of setts at or adjacent to the Site were found during the extended Phase 1 habitat surveys.
4.3.8 Terrestrial Invertebrates
The data search returned over 84 records of butterfly and moth species within 2 km of the survey area including notable species such as grizzled skipper (Pyrgus malvae), small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus), and cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae).
The triangular grassland field in the north of the Site (to be utilised as a Laydown/Works Area) contains a mosaic of grassland and scrub that provide good structural diversity, and therefore is likely to support a range of common invertebrate species. A number of ant hills (thought likely to be yellow meadow ant) were present within this Area of the Site.
The habitats within the Construction Area could provide habitat for a range of national and local priority species such as the grizzled skipper (Pyrgus malvae), grayling (Hipparchia semele), and brown hairstreak (Thecla betulae) if less intensively managed. However, under the current management regime they are of negligible value for these species.
4.3.9 Invasive Non-native Plants and Animals
No invasive non-native plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) were recorded during the Phase 1 habitat surveys.
While the initial walkover of the Construction Area was conducted outside of the optimum period for survey, this area has been subject to a series of protected species walkovers during 2018 and 2019 and no signs of the presence of invasive non-native species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) have been identified.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 41/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
5. Identification of Ecological Constraints and Recommendations
5.1 Approach to the Identification of Ecological Constraints
Relevant ecological receptors that may represent constraints to the Proposed Development, or that provide opportunities to deliver ecological enhancement in accordance with planning policy, are identified in Section 4 of this report. The NPPF and local planning policy (summarised in Section 2 of this report) specify requirements for the protection of features of importance for biodiversity. Planning policy is a material consideration when determining development consent order applications. Compliance with planning policy requires that the Proposed Development considers and engages the following mitigation hierarchy where there is potential for impacts on relevant ecological receptors:
1. Avoid features where possible;
2. Minimise impact by design, method of working or other measures (mitigation) e.g. by enhancing existing features; and
3. Compensate for significant residual impacts, e.g. by providing suitable habitats elsewhere (whether in the control of WTI or otherwise legally enforceable through planning condition or Section 106 agreement).
This hierarchy requires the highest level to be applied where possible. Only where this cannot reasonably be adopted should lower levels be considered. The rationale for the proposed mitigation and/or compensation should be provided with development consent order applications, including sufficient detail to show that these measures are feasible and would be provided.
In pursuance of the objective within the NPPF of providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, consideration should be given to the scope for enhancement as part of the Proposed Development. This should represent biodiversity gain over and above that achieved through mitigation and compensation. Enhancement could be achieved on and/or off the Site.
The likelihood of the relevant ecological receptors constraining the Proposed Development has been assessed with reference to the scale described in Table 10. The higher the importance of the ecological receptor for the conservation of biodiversity at national and local scales, the more likely it is to be a material consideration during determination of the development consent order application for the Proposed Development.
Opportunities for ecological enhancement are not scaled in Table 10, but are identified in Section 5.5 of this report. There may be scope for ecological enhancement where existing habitat features could be improved or enhanced within the proposed development as designed, or with only minor amendment to the design of the Proposed Development. Ecological enhancement may not always be possible within the Site, where there may be little scope to accommodate enhancement within the Proposed Development, e.g. due to a lack of utilisable space, or where land is required for essential mitigation. In such cases consideration could be given to enhancing biodiversity in the vicinity of the Site.
Table 10: Scale of Constraint to Development
Likelihood Definition
High An actual or potential constraint that is subject to relevant legal protection and is likely to be a material consideration in determining the development consent order application (e.g. statutory nature conservation designations and European/nationally protected species). Further survey likely to be required (as detailed in this report) to support a development consent order application. Medium An actual or potential constraint that is covered by national or local planning policy and, depending on the level of the potential impact as a result of the proposed development, may be a material consideration in determining the development consent order application. Further survey may be required (as detailed in this report) to support a development consent order application.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 42/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Likelihood Definition
Low Unlikely to be a constraint to development or require further survey prior to submission of a development consent order application. Mitigation is likely to be covered under Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) or precautionary working method statement (e.g. generic requirements for the management of nesting bird risks).
5.2 Constraints and Requirements for Further Survey: Designations
There are three statutory and eight non-statutory sites designated for their nature conservation value that are potential constraints to the proposed development. The potential relevance of these designations is assessed further below.
5.2.1 Statutory Sites
No internationally designated sites are located within 10 km of the Site.
There are three nationally designated sites within 2 km of the Site, River Test SSSI, East Aston Common SSSI, and Bransbury Common SSSI. Given the distance of the designation from the survey area and assuming that standard good practice construction methods are implemented as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), no adverse impacts to these designated sites are anticipated during the construction phase of the Proposed Development.
Given the nature of the Proposed Development (a waste-to-energy facility), further work will be required to consider the potential for adverse impacts on these sites due to exhaust stack emissions (e.g. NOx, ammonia and sulphur dioxide) and additional vehicle movements during the operation of the Proposed Development. Therefore, an air quality impact assessment that assesses the impacts on any designated sites and analyses the need for mitigation will be required as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application.
On a precautionary basis this is considered to represent a high scale potential constraint.
Air quality impact assessments specifically identify all nearby designated sites and determine the need for mitigation, if necessary. As no internationally important sites for nature conservation are located within 10km of the facility, the need to consider emissions and deposition of chemicals on internationally designated sites, in line with Environment Agency guidelines, is not required.
5.2.2 Non-Statutory Sites
There are eight Sites of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC) within 2km of the Site. The closest of which are Long Parish Cornfields SINC located approximately 130m to the north east of the Laydown/Works Area and Drayton Down SINC located approximately 190m to the south east of the Site.
It is recommended that a CEMP is implemented during construction of the Proposed Development to ensure no adverse impacts of the works to these designated sites during the construction phase. The CEMP will include good industry practice measures to control noise, dust and pollution as a consequence of site clearance and development works, including but not limited to:
• Measures to reduce vehicle and mechanical plant noise (where required based on existing ambient noise levels) • Plant and machinery will be turned off when not in use; • Enclosure and sheeting of material stockpiles; • Sheltered location for material storage; • The use of wheel washes to reduce the trafficking of soil onto adjacent highways with prompt clearance as a remedial action; • The use of a bowser on-Site during extended periods of dry weather to damp down dust; • Sheeting of vehicles carrying spoil;
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 43/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
• Dust suppression measures for any on-Site crushers; and • Bunding of fuel stores and material stockpiles to prevent pollution. Impacts on non-statutory designated during the operation of the Proposed Development are considered unlikely. The closest non-statutory site, Long Parish Cornfields SINC is designated on the basis of arable weed communities, and therefore is unlikely to be affected by any indirect effects of the Proposed Development. The second closest site, Drayton Down SINC is designated on the basis of unimproved grassland habitats, and is already subject to disturbance as a result of being located in close proximity to both the MRF facility and the A303 to the south.
Further consideration should be given within the air quality impacts assessment to the potential for impacts on non-statutory sites and other notable habitats within 2km due to increased nitrogen or acid deposition.
On a precautionary basis potential for impacts on non-statutory designated sites due to air quality impacts is considered a moderate scale potential constraint.
5.3 Constraints and Requirements for Further Survey: Habitats
The habitats within the Construction Area and the Existing Bund are in general of limited ecological value. The improved grassland which dominates the Construction Area is species poor and based on aerial photography and historic mapping it evident that the area has in the past supported plantation woodland. In addition, the areas in the south adjacent to the access road have recently been subject to cultivation and are now managed as short sward grassland. The accompanying block of plantation woodland is yet to develop full canopy cover and the associated ground flora is species poor.
The Existing Bund in the east of the Site adjoining the MRF and IBA facilities predominately supports short sward semi-improved grassland which includes a mix of calcareous and neutral species. The area is not considered to qualify as a habitat of principal importance, but enhances the value of the overall mosaic of habitat at the Site.
The habitats within the Construction Area and Existing Bund are considered a low scale potential constraint.
The triangular field in the north of the Site that has been identified for use as a Construction Laydown/Works Area. This area contains the most valuable habitats within the Site, supporting a mosaic of semi-improved grassland and scattered scrub. The sward within this area contains an unusual mixture of species that does not lend itself to classification under the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) system. This is likely a direct result of historic land use. The whole of the proposed Laydown/Works Area is shown as supporting plantation woodland on Ordnance Survey base mapping, and aerial photography from 2000 and 2005 shows the presence of young plantation within the northern half of the proposed Laydown/Works Area.
It is considered likely that the full Laydown/Works Area once supported mature plantation, as the sward within this area of the Site contains frequent false brome, a species which is known to be predominately associated with woodlands and other shady habitats. Following the removal of woodland the range of species suggests that the area has been allowed to largely revegetate naturally, leading to this area supporting an unusual range of species that reflect its transition from woodland to a grassland/scrub mosaic. This area of habitat has complex and unusual structure and is considered worthy of retention wherever this is possible within the final design. Where it is not possible to retain this habitat, then compensatory habitat creation should aim to create a replacement grassland/scrub mosaic that seeks to recreate the structural diversity of the current habitats.
The hedgerows, mature trees and strip of broad-leaved woodland on the western margin of the Construction Area should wherever possible be retained within the final design. In particular the hedgerows on the boundaries of the Site contain a variety of woody species and also provide habitat that are potentially of value to a range of protected and/or notable species including bats, birds, hazel dormouse, common reptiles and terrestrial invertebrates.
Habitats within the Laydown/Works Area are considered to represent a potential medium scale constraint.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 44/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
No further survey work is recommended with regards to the habitats present within or directly adjacent to the Site as the Phase 1 habitat survey undertaken to inform this PEA (which has included detailed recording of species present) is considered sufficient to assess the ecological value of these habitats.
5.4 Constraints and Requirements for Further Survey: Species
5.4.1 Great Crested Newt
Great crested newt and its habitat are afforded full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations (2017 as amended). Together, under this legislation it is an offence to kill, injure or disturb an individual. In addition, it is an offence to damage or destroy their habitat, including terrestrial habitats that may be well separated from the breeding pond. The great crested newt is also listed as a Species of Principal Importance within Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006). Good practice guidance recommends that consideration is given to the potential for impacts on great crested newt within a 500 m radius of potential breeding ponds.
Although no waterbodies will be lost through the Proposed Development, the presence of three waterbodies within 500 m of the Site, which provide sub-optimal breeding habitat, means that at this stage the use of terrestrial habitats at the Site by great crested newt cannot be ruled out, but is considered unlikely. It is recommended that all waterbodies within 500m of the Site boundary are assessed under the Habitat suitability Index (HSI) methodology (Ref. 21). At this stage, it is also recommended that water samples are taken from the pond nearest to the Site as the previous discovery of smooth newts within the pond indicate that this ponds is the most likely to prove suitable for great crested newt. These samples will then be undertaken for laboratory analysis using eDNA techniques (this technique allows for presence of great crested newts to be confirmed). If it is concluded through the HSI assessment that the other waterbodies are suitable for great crested newts, eDNA samples and/or a full set of surveys will be required. If great crested newts are found to be present, there may also be the need for additional mitigation such as creation of new terrestrial habitat to mitigate for the loss of habitat to development. Following HSI and eDNA analysis, survey work may be required to confirm presence / absence of great crested newt following standard survey guidelines. This would include four survey visits to each water body, using three survey techniques. Surveys should be undertaken between mid-March and mid-June with at least two of the surveys between mid-April and mid-May. If presence is confirmed during the initial four survey visits, a further two survey visits would be required before mid-June within one of these in the mid-April and mid-May period. Prior to confirmation of great crested newt presence/absence they are considered a potential medium scale constraint, given that potential breeding ponds are located outside of the Site.
5.4.2 Bats
All species of bat and their roosts (whether bats are present or not) are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017 as amended) and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Taken together, this legislation makes it an offence to deliberately damage, destroy or obstruct access to a bat roost or to deliberately kill, damage, take or disturb bats.
A total of four trees within the Site were assessed to have low suitability to support roosting bats. No further surveys are required to assess the use of bat roosts, for trees with ‘low’ suitability under Bat Conservation Trust guidance (Ref. 19), and the British Standards Institute (BSI) publication – Surveying for bats in trees and woodland – Guide. BS8596:2015 (Ref. 22). However, it is recommended, that all works and access route avoid these trees, where possible. No further surveys are required of these trees. However, if they are required to be removed then felling should be undertaken in accordance with a precautionary method statement.
A single tree with high suitability to support roosting bats, and a further three trees with low suitability are located approximately 20m to the north of the Laydown/Works Area. Further survey of these trees
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 45/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
to confirm the presence/absence of roosts will only be required if there is considered to be a significant risk of the disturbance of these trees following implementation of the CEMP.
Following the completion of the Phase 1 habitat survey of the Construction Area during March 2018 this section of the Site was assessed as likely of being of ‘low’ suitability for foraging and commuting bats largely due to the short sward habitats that dominate that area of the Site and, a lack of strong connectivity with suitable habitats in the wider landscape. As a consequence, a series of three bat activities following the survey protocol set out BCT guidelines (Ref. 19), were specified consisting of one transect survey and static detector deployment per season (one survey in spring, summer and autumn). Following the completion of the 2018 bat activity surveys, and the addition of the Existing Bund and Laydown/Works Area to the Site, further activity surveys were recommended for 2019. Based on the levels of activity recorded during the 2018 surveys, a similar survey scope was undertaken covering the full extent of the Site. Based on the larger extent of the Site, two activity transects were recommended with both activity transect routes including the Construction Area. Based on the absence of bat roosts, prior to undertaking bat activity surveys, habitats at the site are considered to represent up to a medium scale potential constraint in relation to foraging/commuting bats.
5.4.3 Hazel Dormouse
Hazel dormouse and its habitat are afforded full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Species Regulations (2017, as amended). Together, under this legislation it is an offence to kill, injure or disturb an individual. In addition, it is an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place, regardless of deliberate intention.
The habitats within the Construction Area and Existing Bund provide limited diversity of food sources and horizontal connectivity. As such they are considered to be of limited potential value for dormouse, and the use of this area of the Site by dormouse is considered unlikely.
The hedgerows and adjoining scrub habitats on the eastern and western boundaries of the Laydown/Works Area are of greater potential value for dormouse, providing a more varied range of food sources and greater structural complexity.
It is recommended that surveys are undertaken to assess whether dormice are present within any sites taken forward for development. This would involve surveying all dormouse suitable habitat affected by the Proposed Development, in accordance with the Dormouse Conservation Handbook (Ref. 23). To investigate whether hazel dormice are present nest tubes (wooden/plastic nest tubes) should be placed in suitable areas of habitat within the Site. Tubes should be placed approximately 20m apart within suitable habitat.
Given that the majority of suitable habitat is located on the boundaries of the Site, and is likely to be retained the potential presence of dormouse is considered to represent up to a medium scale constraint to the Proposed Development.
5.4.4 Breeding Birds
Trees, scrub and hedgerows within the Site and within the immediate vicinity have potential to support common nesting bird species. In addition, the grasslands have potential to support ground nesting species such as skylark, which were recorded in adjacent habitat during the survey. Therefore, there is potential for the Proposed Development works to lead to the destruction or disturbance of active nests. All species of wild bird in the UK are protected under Part 1 Section 1(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) against intentional killing, injuring or taking, as well as taking, damaging or destroying nests in use or being built, and taking or destroying eggs.
It is recommended that breeding bird surveys utilising territory mapping is undertaken across the all the Site’s habitats. A minimum of six surveys would be undertaken at dawn by an experienced ornithologist to record all bird species present and associated activities between March and July. The surveys would utilise a combination of the methodologies of Marchant et al. 1983 (Ref. 24) and Gilbert et al. 1998 (Ref. 25).
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 46/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Furthermore, during the development, depending on the timing of works, checks for the presence of nesting birds may be required prior to the commencement of vegetation clearance in order to prevent an offence occurring.
Breeding birds are considered to represent a potential medium scale constraint to the Proposed Development.
5.4.5 Barn Owl
Barn owl are afforded special protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Due to the presence of suitable foraging habitat and local knowledge that barn owls are present within the area a total of five barn owl surveys are required to establish the use of the Site and wider area by barn owls. This would include four visits at dusk to gain an understanding of any barn owl activity on the site (sightings, flight lines, roosting, feeding areas, etc.) and to locate any positive records of nesting sites, and a single day-time survey to check wider countryside for nests and roosting sites.
Barn owl is considered to represent a potential medium scale constraint to the Proposed Development.
5.4.6 Reptiles
The four common reptile species grass snake, slow worm (Anguis fragilis), common lizard (Lacerta vivipara) and adder (Vipera berus) are all protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation it is an offence to intentionally kill or injure these species. All four common reptile species are listed as Species of Principal Importance within Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006). The Site is considered potential suitable to support common lizard, slow worm and grass snake. Based on the range of habitats present, it is considered unlikely that adder will be present. The Laydown/Works Area and the Existing Bund on the eastern boundary contain significant areas of habitat that are potentially suitable to support common reptiles. Suitable habitat is more limited in extent within the Construction Area. Given that areas of habitat suitable to support reptiles will be lost as a consequence of the Proposed Development, it is recommended that surveys are undertaken to determine the presence or absence of common reptile species, and the potential scale of constraint. The surveys should aim to identify reptile species present and provide an indication of their relative abundance, following best practice guidance set out in the Herpetological Workers Manual (Ref. 26) and Froglife Advice Sheet 10 (Ref. 27). This involves placing artificial refugia in areas of suitable habitat to encourage reptiles to shelter under the refugia. The refugia should be placed in areas of suitable habitat and allowed to bed in for at least two weeks prior to the initial survey. A minimum of seven survey visits should be undertaken in May and/ or September in order to determine the presence of likely absence of reptile species. Refugia should be checked when temperatures are between 9 - 18°C and under suitable weather conditions (Ref. 27). The species, sex, and life stage of any reptiles present would be recorded. The results will determine the value of habitats within the Site for common reptile species and determine whether or not further mitigation will be required. In the absence of further survey reptiles are considered a potential medium scale constraint to the Proposed Development.
5.4.7 Badger
No signs of badger activity were recorded. However, the Site contains habitat that is potentially suitable to support badger. No further surveys are required prior to DCO submission, however a pre-construction check for the presence of setts should be undertaken as part of the CEMP to confirm their continued absence prior to the commencement of construction. Badger are considered unlikely to be present, and therefore are considered a low scale constraint to the Proposed Development.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 47/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
5.4.8 Terrestrial invertebrates
The habitats within the Construction Area and Existing Bund support a range of common habitats with limited structural diversity. As such they are considered unlikely to support significant terrestrial invertebrate populations. The triangular field to be utilised as the Construction Laydown/Works Area supports an unusual semi- improve grassland habitat that appears to have developed since the removal of plantation woodland. This habitat has increased structural diversity and this area of the Site has potential to support a wide range of common invertebrates, and the area includes a number of anthills thought likely to be yellow meadow ant. Several butterfly species identified as priority species within the Hampshire and Test Valley Biodiversity Action Plans, potentially relevant to the Site, are also Species of Principal Importance within Section 41 of the NERC Act (2006). This includes the grizzled skipper, brown hairstreak and grayling. The respective larval food plants of these species, creeping cinquefoil, blackthorn and fescue grass (Festuca sp.) were all recorded during the survey. Although no further surveys are required, consideration should be given to butterflies and more generally invertebrates within habitat creation and enhancement, as the local base-rich soils are potentially able to support floral appendages associated with chalk habitats, which in turn could support a range of nationally and locally priory species, such as the chalkhill blue (Polyommatus coridon) and Duke of Burgundy (Hamearis lucina). Where it is necessary to utilise land within the Construction Laydown/Works Area that currently supports anthills, then the mitigation strategy should include provision for translocating some of these features to replacement habitat creation. Terrestrial invertebrates are considered to represent a low scale potential constraint to the Proposed Development.
5.4.9 Summary
All recommended further surveys will determine the requirement for mitigation measures. Summaries of ecological constraints and requirements for further survey are given in Table 11.
Table 11: Summary Appraisal of Features of Ecological Constraints and Recommended Further Action
When is Action Likely to
be Required
DCO DCO
construction
Scale of Further Requirements, Including Potential -
Design Before Application Pre Onwards Receptor Constraint Mitigation Requirements Driver Inform To
Nationally High An air quality impact assessment will be ✓ ✓ ✓ designated required as part of the development consent sites within order application. This will assess the air quality 2km (SSSIs) impact on nationally designated sites for nature conservation as a result of the installation of a stack which is likely to release of exhaust stack emissions (e.g. NOx, ammonia and sulphur dioxide).
Great Medium Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) required for all Legislation X ✓ ✓ crested newt three waterbodies within the neighboring waste treatment facility. Initial eDNA sampling required of the small waterbody nearest to the Site. HSI will indicate requirement for further eDNA sampling; positive presence of great crested
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 48/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
newt eDNA will determine need for bottle trapping survey.
Bats Medium Four trees were assessed as having low Legislation X X ✓ potential to support roosting bats. If these trees are to be removed the works should be undertaken in accordance with a precautionary working methodology. No further survey is required. A total of three bat activity surveys will be required; one per season. In addition, a static detector will be deployed to record activity for five nights.
Hazel Medium Potential habitat is present in some areas of the Legislation ✓ ✓ ✓ dormice Site, but largely confined to boundaries of the Site which are likely to be retained.
Breeding Medium Due to suitability of habitat a total of six breeding Legislation X ✓ ✓ birds bird surveys utilising territory mapping are required. Timing of site clearance and/or pruning of trees and scrub outside of nesting bird season, or undertake a nesting bird check to confirm absence prior to clearance commencing.
Four visits undertaken at dusk, so as to gain an Barn owl Medium Legislation ✓ ✓ ✓ understanding of any barn owl activity on the site (sightings, flight lines, roosting, feeding areas, etc.) and to locate any positive records of nesting sites. Additional, single day-time survey to check wider countryside for nests and roosting sites (access would require use of Public Right of Ways only).
Reptiles Medium Artificial refugia checks over seven visits to Legislation ✓ ✓ ✓ check for reptile presence/absence.
Terrestrial Low No further surveys required. Locally present Mitigation ✓ X X invertebrate priority species should be considered within the s design and ecological enhancements.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 49/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
Table 12: Requirements for Further Survey
When required
DCO DCO
construction
-
Inform Design Inform
Before Application Pre Onwards Survey Season Method Why required To
Great HSI =all year; Oldham (2000); To identify suitability of ✓ ✓ ✓ crested newt eDNA = April Spygen (2017) waterbodies and potential HSI and – June presence of great crested newts to eDNA inform additional surveys, sampling translocation and mitigation.
Bat activity April to Collins (2016) To identify use of habitats on site ✓ ✓ ✓ October (one to inform design and mitigation survey per requirements. season)
Breeding March – Marchant (1983) To identify breeding territories of ✓ ✓ ✓ birds August birds on site to inform design and mitigation requirements. Nesting bird checks should be undertaken if vegetation clearance is to occur between March - August
Barn owl April – June Marchant (1983) To identify the use of the Site by ✓ ✓ ✓ barn owls to inform design and mitigation requirements.
Reptiles April – May, Froglife (1999) To identify species and ✓ ✓ ✓ September approximate population of reptiles to inform need for translocation and mitigation. The constraints outlined here will need to be reassessed if there is a significant change to the type or scale of development proposed, or if there are any significant changes in the use or management of the land that would affect the habitats and species. If a development consent order or planning application is made two years or more after a PEA it is advisable to review and update the survey data.
5.5 Opportunities for Ecological Enhancement
In accordance with the NPPF and the Test Valley Local Plan, through this development the provision of ecological enhancements are required to achieve no net loss in biodiversity. Developing policy and good practice guidelines recommend that development targets a net gain for biodiversity
A concerted effort should be made to compensate for the loss of habitats given that the majority of the habitats, with the exception of the mature woodland plantation and hedgerows on the boundary of the Site are likely to be lost through the Proposed Development. In addition, the provision of ecological enhancements within the current design of the Proposed Development is considered largely inappropriate given the nature of waste-to-energy infrastructure, unless the building design allows for on-site opportunities. If the Proposed Development does allow for on-site enhancements, the requirement for habitat creation off site is likely to be reduced. If ecological enhancements cannot be considered on-site, it may be more appropriate to consider creating compensatory habitat offsite to offset the expected loss of biodiversity.
The design of all habitat mitigation measures and ecological enhancements should consider providing suitable habitat for species recorded through the recommended surveys. In addition it should give consideration to providing structural diversity required to support a range of terrestrial invertebrates,
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 50/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
including butterfly species listed as Priority Species within a local and national context, by providing the necessary habitat through the provision of plant species important during each life stage of the target butterfly species.
Therefore, in accordance with local planning policies and to achieve overall biodiversity enhancement through the Proposed Development, the following measures are recommended:
• Avoid, where possible, removing linear habitat features such as hedgerows and tree lines which could be of importance to bats, birds, invertebrates and other species. This includes the broadleaved woodland considered as a priority habitat; • Avoid, where possible, removing trees identified as having suitability to support roosting bats; • Minimise the loss of grassland habitat from the Laydown/Works Area in the north of the Site; • Provision of biodiverse green roofs, if the architectural design allows; • Provision of bat boxes within retained trees to replace the loss of suitable bat roosting features; • Creation of species-rich mosaic of grassland and scrub within the Laydown/Works Area following completion of construction; • Creation of additional grassland species rich grassland within an external site to offset the temporary and permanent losses of habitat as a consequence of the Proposed Development; and • Creation of species-rich hedgerow, either on-site or within a local, external site to offset the loss of habitats. The scale of ecological enhancement required for the development to achieve biodiversity net gain will be dependent on the final design and the associated scale of habitat loss, and can be estimated when a draft design is available.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 51/66
Wheelabrator Harewood Waste-to-Energy Facility October 2019
6. Conclusions
The Site supports a range of habitats including areas of semi-improved grassland, young broadleaved plantation, improved grassland, species rich hedgerows and scrub. The hedgerows and mature trees around the boundaries of the Site provide habitat for a range of faunal species and should be retained wherever possible. The remainder of the Construction Area and Existing Bund predominately contain habitats of limited vale for biodiversity.
The Laydown/Works Area in the north of the Site contains an area of semi-improved grassland containing a range of calcareous and neutral grassland species. In addition this area contains some species that are a remnant of the previous land-use, plantation woodland. The unusual combination of species produces a mosaic of grassland and scrub that is of greater value due to its structural diversity. Losses of this area should be minimised wherever possible.
Given the Site’s context within the wider landscape, potential habitat exists for breeding birds, barn owl, reptiles, great crested newts and bats. Further survey for each of these species/species groups is recommended to inform a subsequent Ecological Impact Assessment.
Given the nature of the Proposed Development (a waste-to-energy plant), further work will be required to consider the potential for adverse impacts on designated sites and other notable habitats in the wider surrounding due to exhaust stack emissions (NOx, ammonia and sulphur dioxide) and changes in vehicle movements derived from the waste-to-energy plant. Therefore, an air quality impact assessment that assesses the impacts on any designated sites and analyses the need for mitigation will be required as part of the development consent order application.
It is anticipated that most of the habitats on-site, with the exception of the mature trees within the broadleaved plantation woodland adjacent to The Street (road to the west of the Site), and the hedgerows on the boundary of the Site will be lost as a consequence of the Proposed Development.
As a result recommendations have been made within the PEA relating to potential opportunities for offsetting these impact and ecological enhancement, with the aim of ensuring that the Proposed Development achieves no let loss of biodiversity, and where possible a net gain. Given the nature of waste-to-energy plants and the lack of space for habitat creation within the designs for the Proposed Development, it may not be possible to provide such features within the Proposed Development. Where this is the case off-site provision of enhancements should be considered.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 52/66
7. References
Ref. 1 CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal – Second Edition. Available at: https://www.cieem.net/data/files/Publications/Guidelines_for_Preliminary_Ecological_Appraisal_Jan20 18_1.pdf [accessed October 2018] Ref. 2 The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). HMSO. Ref. 3 The Countryside Rights of Way Act (2000), HMSO. Ref. 4 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), HMSO. Ref. 5 The Hedgerow Regulations (1997), HMSO. Ref. 6 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. HMSO. Ref. 7 Eur-Lex (2016) Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. Accessed at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1417443504720&uri=CELEX:32014R1143 Ref. 8 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019). National Planning Policy Framework. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy- framework--2 Accessed 21/09/2019. Ref. 9 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2018). Planning practice guidance. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-practice-guidance Accessed 21/09/2019. Ref. 10 Hampshire County Council (2013) Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan – October 2013 (Adopted). Available http://documents.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/HampshireMineralsWastePlanADOPTED.pdf Accessed 21/09/2019. Ref. 11 Test Valley Borough Council (2016) Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD – Adopted Local Plan 2011-2029. Test Valley Borough Council. Ref. 12 Test Valley Borough Council (2008) The Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Test Valley. May 2008. Test Valley Borough Council. Ref. 13 Hampshire Biodiversity Partnership (1998) Biodiversity Action Plan for Hampshire: Volume 1. Available http://www.hampshirebiodiversity.org.uk/pdf/vol1/Biodiversitypages01-09.pdf Accessed 21/09/2019
Ref. 14 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside website search facility. Available https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspxat Accessed 21/09/19
Ref. 15 CEC Ltd. (2011) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Ecological Survey Report. Ref. 16 CEC Ltd. (2012) Owls Lodge Farm Solar Park Ecological Survey Report Ref. 17 Ward Associates (2013) Ecological Assessment: A303 Recycling Centre, Barton Stacey, Hampshire – A report to Raymond Brown Minerals and Recycling.
Ref. 18 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A Technique for Environmental Audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 53/66
Ref. 19 Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn.). London: Bat Conservation Trust. Ref. 20 Maddock, A. (2010) UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions. JNCC, Peterborough Ref. 21 Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155. Ref. 22 British Standards (2015) BS 8596 Surveying for bats in trees and woodlands Ref. 23 Bright P., Morris P and Mitchell-Jones T (2006) The Dormouse Conservation Handbook – Second Edition. English Nature, Peterborough. Ref. 24 Marchant, J.H., 1983. BTO Common Birds Census Instructions. Tring: British Trust for Ornithology. Ref. 25 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. & Evans, J., 1998. Bird Monitoring Methods. Bedfordshire: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Ref. 26 Gent T, Gibson S (Ed) (2003) Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Ref. 27 Froglife, 1999. Reptile survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Halesworth: Froglife.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 54/66
Appendix A Figures
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 55/66
Appendix B Legislation and Planning Policy
The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 The Habitats Regulations consolidate all the various amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of England and Wales. The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. The Regulations came into force on 30th October 1994. In Scotland the Habitats Directive is transposed through a combination of the Habitats Regulations 2010 (in relation to reserved matters) and the 1994 Regulations. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended) transpose the Habitats Directive in relation to Northern Ireland.
The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites.
Under the Regulations, competent authorities i.e. any Minister, Government department, public body, or person holding public office, have a general duty, in the exercise of any of their functions, to have regard to the EC Habitats Directive.
The Regulations place a duty on the Secretary of State to propose a list of sites which are important for either habitats or species (listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive respectively) to the European Commission. Once the Commission and EU Member States have agreed that the sites submitted are worthy of designation, they are identified as Sites of Community Importance (SCIs). The EU Member States must then designate these sites as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) within six years. The Regulations also require the compilation and maintenance of a register of European sites, to include SACs and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive). These sites form a network termed Natura 2000.
The Regulations enable the country agencies to enter into management agreements on land within or adjacent to a European site, in order to secure its conservation. If the agency is unable to conclude such an agreement, or if an agreement is breached, it may acquire the interest in the land compulsorily. The agency may also use its powers to make byelaws to protect European sites. The Regulations also provide for the control of potentially damaging operations, whereby consent from the country agency may only be granted once it has been shown through Appropriate Assessment that the proposed operation will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. When considering potentially damaging operations, the country agencies apply the precautionary principle' i.e. consent cannot be given unless it is ascertained that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site.
In instances where damage could occur, the appropriate Minister may, if necessary, make special nature conservation orders, prohibiting any person from carrying out the operation. However, an operation may proceed where it is or forms part of a plan or project with no alternative solutions, which must be carried out for reasons of overriding public interest. In such instances the Secretary of State must secure compensation to ensure the overall integrity of the Natura 2000 system. The country agencies are required to review consents previously granted under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for land within a European site, and may modify or withdraw those that are incompatible with the conservation objectives of the site.
The Regulations make it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill, disturb, or trade in the animals listed in Schedule 2, or pick, collect, cut, uproot, destroy, or trade in the plants listed in Schedule 4. However, these actions can be made lawful through the granting of licenses by the appropriate authorities. Licenses may be granted for a number of purposes (such as science and education, conservation, preserving public health and safety), but only after the appropriate authority is satisfied that there are no satisfactory alternatives and that such actions will have no detrimental effect on wild population of the species concerned.
The Regulations make special provisions for the protection of European marine sites, requiring the country agencies to advise other authorities of the conservation objectives for a site, and also of the operations which may affect its integrity. The Regulations also enable the establishment of management schemes and byelaws by the relevant authorities and country agencies respectively, for the management and protection of European marine sites.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 56/66
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is the major domestic legal instrument for wildlife protection in the UK, and is the primary means by which the following are implemented:
• The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (‘the Bern Convention’); and
• The Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild birds (the ‘Bird Directive’)
The main relevant provisions of the Act are: allowance for the protection of the most important habitats and species by designating SSSI’s, a level of protection to all nesting wild birds and specific bird species under Schedule 1.
Wild Birds
The Act makes it an offence (with exception to species listed in Schedule 2) to intentionally:
• kill, injure, or take any wild bird,
• take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built (also [take, damage or destroy the nest of a wild bird included in Schedule ZA1] under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006), or
• take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.
Special penalties are available for offences related to birds listed on Schedule 1, for which there are additional offences of disturbing these birds at their nests, or their dependent young. The Secretary of State may also designate Areas of Special Protection (subject to exceptions) to provide further protection to birds. The Act also prohibits certain methods of killing, injuring, or taking birds, restricts the sale and possession of captive bred birds, and sets standards for keeping birds in captivity.
Other Animals
The Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal listed on Schedule 5, and prohibits interference with places used for shelter or protection, or intentionally disturbing animals occupying such places. The Act also prohibits certain methods of killing, injuring, or taking wild animals.
Flora, Fungi and Lichens
The Act makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to intentionally) pick, uproot or destroy:
• any wild plant listed in Schedule 8, or
• unless an authorised person, to intentionally uproot any wild plant not included in Schedule 8,
• to sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess (for the purposes of trade), any live or dead wild plant included in Schedule 8, or any part of, or anything derived from, such a plant.
Non-native Species
The Act contains measures for preventing the establishment of non-native species which may be detrimental to native wildlife, prohibiting the release of animals and planting of plants listed in Schedule 9 in England and Wales. It also provides a mechanism making any of the above offences legal through the granting of licences by the appropriate authorities.
Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 applies to England and Wales only. Part III of the Act deals specifically with wildlife protection and nature conservation.
The Act places a duty on Government Departments and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintain lists of species and habitats for which conservation steps should be taken or promoted, in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 57/66
Schedule 9 of the Act amends the SSSI provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, including increased powers for their protection and management of SSSIs. The provisions extend powers for entering into management agreements; place a duty on public bodies to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs; increase penalties on conviction where the provisions are breached; and include an offence whereby third parties can be convicted for damaging SSSIs.
Schedule 12 of the Act amends the species provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, strengthening the legal protection for threatened species. The provisions make certain offences 'arrestable', include an offence of reckless disturbance, confer greater powers to police and wildlife inspectors for entering premises and obtaining wildlife tissue samples for DNA analysis, and enable heavier penalties on conviction of wildlife offences.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force on 1st October 2006. Section 41 (S41) of the Act required the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The list was drawn up in consultation with Natural England, as required by the Act.
The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions.
Fifty-six habitats of principal importance are included on the S41 list. These are all the habitats in England that were identified as requiring action in the (now withdrawn) UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) and continue to be regarded as conservation priorities in the subsequent UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. They include terrestrial habitats such as upland hay meadows to lowland mixed deciduous woodland, and freshwater and marine habitats such as ponds and subtidal sands and gravels.
There are 943 species of principal importance included on the S41 list. These are the species found in England which were identified as requiring action under the (now withdrawn) UK BAP and which continue to be regarded as conservation priorities under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. In addition, the hen harrier has also been included on the list because without continued conservation action it is unlikely that the hen harrier population will increase from its current very low levels in England.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 58/66
Appendix C Grading of features with suitability to support roosting bats
Grading of features with suitability to support roosting bats
Suitability to Support Roosting Description Bats Confirmed A feature within which bats are seen to be present (either live bats, or bat carcasses) or heard ‘chattering’ inside will be classified as a confirmed roost. In addition, any feature/structure found to contain droppings during inspections will in the first instance be considered as a confirmed roost. N.B. In some cases it may be appropriate to revise this assessment following further survey (e.g. for buildings containing low numbers or old droppings and showing no evidence of use during emergence surveys). High A feature which, due to its size, depth, shape, orientation or other physical properties (such as ability to maintain a constant temperature, accessibility for bats) is considered to be ideal for use by bats. Potential feeding remains, urine staining or scratch marks (in the absence of droppings) within or around the feature are likely to indicate presence of a bat occupation and therefore suggest high potential that a roost is present. In the absence of such signs, assigning a feature high potential will also be informed by the surveyor’s knowledge of bat ecology and preferred roost types (relative to the feature being assessed). The quality of the surrounding habitat for bats will also be considered. For example, a building within an area of woodland is more likely to be occupied by bats than one adjacent to large areas of hard standing (as the bats would use the woodland for feeding, and potentially roosting). Potential examples of high potential features are: • A south facing opening on a trunk that appears to form a significant wound within the tree, with uncluttered drop zone and good connectivity to other areas of suitable habitat; or • Gap below a ridge tile that provides potential point of access to a pitched roof, with marked cleaner tile below indicating potential use by bats. Moderate A feature which would be considered ideal for use by bats were it not for one or more key factors which limit its potential. For example, an ideal feature in sub-optimal surrounding habitat (e.g. within an area of predominately hard standing) may be considered to have moderate potential. Low A tree / structure containing features where use by bats cannot be ruled out but is considered unlikely based on size, depth, construction aspect, habitat location etc. For example, often metal warehouse structures with suitable access/egress points will be classed as having low potential to support roosting bats. Negligible A tree / structure with no features suitable to support roosting bat species.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 59/66
Appendix D Target Notes
TN1
Tall earth bund with a gradual incline that separates the main operating facilities from the road that runs north toward the solar farm site. A short grassland sward is present across the bund. Several species characteristic of calcareous soils were noted, the presence of which can be explained by the base rich soils in the local area. Species include dominant common bent (Agrostis capillaris) with abundant fescue (Festuca sp.) and lesser celandine (Ranunculus ficaria). Common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), common field speedwell (Veronica persica) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) were frequently recorded, whilst salad burnet (Sanguisorba minor), hoary plantain (Plantago media), dovesfoot cranesbill (Geranium molle), common nettle (Urtica dioica), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), common mouse ear (Cerastium fontanum), viper’s bugloss (Echium vulgare), common catsear (Hypochaeris radicata), willowherb (Epilobium sp.), green alkanet (Pentaglottis sempervirens) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale agg.) were occasionally recorded. In addition, red clover (Trifolium pratense), snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) and stinking iris (Iris foetidissima) were also recorded.
Immature trees had been scattered throughout comprising oak (Quercus sp.), field maple (Acer campestre), hazel (Corylus avellana), cherry (Prunus sp.), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) and silver birch (Betula pendula).
TN2
Species-rich hedgerow approximately 125 m in length with a 10 m gap at the midpoint that runs along the road from the office and carpark to the boundary with the solar farm. The hedgerow is unmanaged and is under transition to dense/continuous scrub. Woody species include elder (Sambucus nigra), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), field maple, dog rose (Rosa canina) and wild privet (Ligustrum vulgare). In addition, bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) was also recorded within the hedge. Common nettle, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides) were all frequently recorded at the base of the hedge. Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum), and lords and ladies (Arum maculatum) were also recorded.
TN3
Semi-mature maple, directly north of the car park, with several broken limbs potentially suitable for roosting bats. The tree was assessed to have low bat roost potential.
TN4
North of the short tarmacked road that services the office and car park is an old disused track associated with former arable land. The track is lined with gravel which has now been almost completely colonised by bryophytes such as neat feather moss (Pseudoscleropodium purum) and rough-stalked feather moss (Brachythecium rutabulum), and several ephemeral/short perennial species such as frequent common cats ear, occasional Yorkshire fog, fescue and common mouse ear.
TN5
Unmanaged hedgerow that divides the Site and the solar farm. The hedgerow is similar to TN2 but species-poor and with more gaps. Species recorded include blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). Several semi-mature and mature ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and field maple trees are present within the hedgerow.
TN6
A mature ash tree within the hedgerow adjacent to the solar farm (TN5). The tree has dense ivy (Hedera helix) cover which is potentially suitable for roosting bats. The tree was assessed to have low bat roost potential.
TN7
A mature field maple within the hedgerow adjacent to the solar farm (TN5). The tree has several crevices potentially suitable for roosting bats. The tree was assessed to have low bat roost potential.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 60/66
TN8
Former arable field which has transitioned to a moss dominated improved grassland habitat. Species include dominant springy-turf moss (Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus), occasional creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), common daisy (Bellis perennis) and neat feather moss.
TN9
A linear band of planted immature trees approximately 15m wide. Planted species include field maple, hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), blackthorn and elder. Species-poor semi-improved grassland persists around the trees comprising of dominant false oat grass (Arrhenathium elatius), frequent creeping bent, occasional teasel, creeping buttercup and bristly oxtongue. Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) was also recorded.
TN10
A paved area adjacent to the Street and the access road which has now been completely colonised by a thick cover moss and ephemeral/short perennial species. Species include abundant thickpoint Grimmia (Schistidium crassipilum), occasional false oat grass, great mullein (Verbascum thapsus), doves-foot cranesbill and common ragwort.
TN11
Treeline that runs along the T-junction that connects the access road with The Street. The present trees are largely immature and are comprised of sycamore, dogwood (Cornus sanguinea) and ash, with frequent bramble and old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba).
TN12
A mature beech (Fagus sylvatica) adjacent to The Street with several small holes potentially suitable for roosting bats. The tree was assessed as having low potential for roosting bats.
TN13
Broadleaved plantation copse comprised of semi-mature sycamore and hawthorn. The trees are relatively densely spaced which allows for little undergrowth.
TN14
A mature sycamore which has fallen within the Site. The tree has high potential to support saproxylic invertebrates and fungi.
TN15
Moss-dominated species-poor grassland adjacent to the moss colonised paving described in TN10. The community comprises dominant springy-turf moss, abundant false oat grass, occasional spear thistle, garlic mustard, meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris), common mouse-ear and daisy. In addition, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), creeping bent, Yorkshire fog and salad burnet were also recorded.
A mature pear tree (Pyrus sp) was present within this area.
TN16
Surrounding the office and car park is a highly managed short-sward grassland comprising abundant annual meadow grass (Poa annua) and fescue (Festuca sp.), and frequent common mouse-ear. Grassland covered earth bunds approximately 2-3 m in height border the grassland and former arable land. On this bund, several tree saplings have been planted, which includes species such as dogwood, hawthorn, beech and hazel.
TN17
Managed, intact species-poor hedgerow comprising hawthorn.
TN18
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 61/66
Semi-improved grassland with some calcareous species. Sward is generally short (approx. 5cm) but overgrown by taller ruderal vegetation in places, particularly in vicinity of planted young broadleaved trees. Sward contains abundant red fescue, ground ivy and creeping cinquefoil, with frequent ribwort plantain, teasel (Dipascus fullonum), perforate St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) and common bent. Occasional species include wild parsnip (Pastinca sativa), ragwort, musk mallow, viper’s bugloss (Echium vulgare), false brome, bramble, broad-leaved dock, great mullein, creeping thistle and salad burnet.
Grassland area is interspersed with young mixed native tree planting (e.g hazel, spindle, beech, hawthorn and guelder rose).
TN19
Wood pile providing herptile refuge
TN20
Pair of semi-mature field maples
TN21
Semi-improved grassland similar to that described in TN18, but overgrown by ruderal vegetation including common nettle and bramble.
TN22
Pond (‘Pond 1’). Lined and forms part of the operational plant.
TN23
Planted immature native broadleaved trees.
TN24 – Female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) observed running east into the adjacent solar farm.
TN25 – Small earth bunds created from aggregate materials with a rabbit warren present beneath. A dense coverage of tall ruderal and scrub vegetation suggests the bunds had been colonised several years ago. Species included bramble, common nettle, butterfly-bush (Buddleja davidii), spurge laurel (Daphne laureola), teasel, lesser burdock, white dead nettle, lords and ladies, ground ivy, white bryony, traveller’s-joy, field forget-me-not and common ragwort.
TN26 – Several large piles of deadwood and hardstanding debris. A dead tree trunk and several large patches of bare ground were also recorded.
TN27 – Linear belt of dense scrub that lines the western site perimeter with the neighbouring road, the St. Characteristic species included blackthorn, elder, hawthorn, dogrose, wild privet and sycamore.
TN28 – Covered entrance – partly overgrown. Small gaps around margins suggest possible chamber beneath.
TN29 – Large area of bare ground with stacks of wood and vegetation used for burning waste material. An abundance of common nettle was found within this habitat. In addition, cotton thistle (Onopordum acanthium) was also recorded.
TN30 – A dead tree trunk with several deep holes and crevices. The tree was assessed as having high potential to support roosting bats.
TN31 – Fenced off compound containing a mobile phone mast and associated infrastructure.
TN32 – Mature sycamore with dense ivy coverage on the trunk and limbs. The tree was assessed as having low potential to support roosting bats.
TN33 - Mature oak (Quercus sp.) with dense ivy coverage on the trunk and limbs. The tree was assessed as having low potential to support roosting bats.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 62/66
TN34 - Mature sycamore with dense ivy coverage on the trunk and limbs. The tree was assessed as having low potential to support roosting bats.
TN35 – Intact species-rich hedgerow which runs along the site’s eastern boundary. Woody species included field maple, blackthorn, elder, hawthorn, ash, hazel, wild privet and dogwood.
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 63/66
Appendix E Desk Study Data
eal Protected Species? Legally Importance? Principal of Species Notable Species? Other on Site? Present Site? on Present Possibly Wider of Influence? Zone in Present Potentially / Present Most recent record
(Distance, Bearing and Date)
Species
Mammals – Terrestrial (Bats)
Common pipistrelle ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.7km north-west in 2017 (Pipistrellus pipistrellus)
Natterer’s bat (Myotis ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.7km north-west in 2017 nattereri)
Noctule (Nyctalus ✓ ✓ X X ✓ ✓ 1.7km north-west in 2017 noctula)
Serotine (Eptescius ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.7km north-west in 2014 serotinus)
Long-eared bat ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 2.0km south in 2014 (Plecotus sp.)
Brown long-eared bat ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 2.0km south-east in 2011 (Plecotus auritus)
Mammals – Terrestrial (non-bats)
Hazel dormouse ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.3km west in 2010 (Muscardinus avellanarius)
West European X ✓ X X ✓ ✓ 1.7km north-west in 2014 hedgerow (Erinaceus europaeus)
Brown hare (Lepus X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2016 europaeus)
European badger ✓ X X X ✓ ✓ 2.0km west in 2014 (Meles meles)
Birds
Yellowhammer X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.3km north-west in 2016 (Emberiza citrinella)
Spotted flycatcher X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.3km north-west in 2016 (Musciiapa striata)
Lapwing (Vanellus X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.3km north-west in 2015 vanellus)
Skylark (Alauda X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.3km north-west in 2015 arvensis)
Redwing (Turdus ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2016 iliacus)
Red kite (Milvus milvus) ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2016
Barn owl (Tyto alba) ✓ X X X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2015
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 64/66
eal Protected Species? Legally Importance? Principal of Species Notable Species? Other on Site? Present Site? on Present Possibly Wider of Influence? Zone in Present Potentially / Present Most recent record
(Distance, Bearing and Date)
Species
Fieldfare (Turdus ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2015 pilaris)
Firecrest (Regulus ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2015 ignicapilla)
Cuckoo (Cuculus X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2015 canorus)
Brambling (Fringilla ✓ X X X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2012 montifringilla)
Common crossbill ✓ X X X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2012 (Loxia cuvirostra)
Lesser redpoll X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.4km north-west in 2012 (Acanthis cabaret)
Hawfinch ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.9km south in 2015 (Coccothraustes coccothraustes)
Grey partridge (Perdix X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2016 perdix)
Peregrine (Falco ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2016 peregrinus)
Hobby (Falco ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2016 subbuteo)
Grasshopper warbler X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2016 (Locustella naevia)
Goshawk (Accipiter ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2015 gentilis)
Merlin (Falco ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2015 columbarius)
Amphibians and Reptiles
Slow worm (Anguis ✓ ✓ X X ✓ ✓ 0.7km east in 2012 fragilis)
Invertebrates (butterflies and moths)
Grizzled skipper X ✓ X X ✓ ✓ 1.9km west in 2011 (Pyrgus malvae)
Small heath X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2015 (Coenonympha pamphilus)
Cinnabar (Tyria X ✓ X X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2015 jacobaeae)
White admiral ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 2.0km west in 2009 (Limenitis camilla)
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 65/66
eal Protected Species? Legally Importance? Principal of Species Notable Species? Other on Site? Present Site? on Present Possibly Wider of Influence? Zone in Present Potentially / Present Most recent record
(Distance, Bearing and Date)
Species
Plants
Basil thyme X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 0.6km east in 2014 (Clinopodium acinos)
Shepherd’s needle X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 0.6km north in 2011 (Scandix pectin- veneris)
Common hedge X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ 0.7km north in 2011 parsley (Torilis arvensis)
Pheasant’s eye (Adonis X ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ Within 2.0km in 2011 annua)
Non-native invasive species
Yellow archangel X X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.4km south-west in 2017 (Lamium galeobdolon)
Japanese knotweed X X ✓ X ✓ ✓ 1.8km west in 2017 (Fallopia japonica)
Key to symbols: ✓ = yes, see Supporting Comments for further rationale Legally protected species are those listed under Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); and, Schedules 2 and 4 of The Conservation of Habitat & Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Species of Principal Importance as those listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. In exercising its function a public authority has a legal duty under Section 40 of the same Act to consider such species when determining development consent order applications. Other notable species include native species of conservation concern listed in the BAP Priority London (except species that are also of Principal Importance), those that are Nationally Rare, Scarce or Red Data List, and non- native controlled weed species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Prepared for: WTI/WfE Holdings Ltd. AECOM 66/66