20604-02 R3 Rev2

Technical Report

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Land to the south of Brandon Road, Watton,

Tesni Properties Ltd

April 2015

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Terms of Reference 1 1.2 Site Description 1 1.3 Structure of the Report 1 2 Legislation and planning policy 2 2.1 The Habitats Regulations Assessment Process 2 2.2 Local Planning Policy Context 3 2.2.1 Council Core Strategy 3 2.2.2 Implementation of CP10 in Breckland 4 2.2.3 Summary of Implications of CP10 for the Project 6 2.2.4 Further research undertaken by Footprint Ecology 6 3 Background Information 7 3.1 Description of the Project 7 3.1.1 Design Features of the Project to Minimise Effects on Stone Curlews 8 3.2 Characteristics of the Breckland SPA 8 3.2.1 Conservation Objectives of the Breckland SPA 9 3.2.2 SSSI 9 3.3 Stone Curlew Distribution near Watton 9 3.3.1 RSPB Data Search 10 3.4 Habitat Suitability 11 3.4.1 Habitats within the Proposed Development Site 11 3.4.2 Habitats between the Project and the SPA 13 4 Habitats Regulations Assessment 14 4.1 Introduction 14 4.2 Statement to inform an Appropriate Assessment of the 15 4.2.1 Impacts on the Extent and Distribution of Stone Curlew Habitats associated with the Breckland SPA 16 4.2.2 Impacts on the Structure and Function of Stone Curlew Habitats associated with the Breckland SPA 17 4.2.3 Impacts on the Supporting Processes on which Stone Curlew Habitats within the SPA Rely 20 4.2.4 Impacts on the Stone Curlew Population of the Breckland SPA 20 4.2.5 Impacts on the Distribution of Stone Curlews of the Breckland SPA 21

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2

Contents

4.3 Cumulative Impacts 21 5 Conclusions 22 6 References 23 Appendix A. Breckland SPA Description 25 Appendix B. Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes 26 Appendix C. Policy CP10 of Breckland Council Core Strategy 30

Tables Table 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Habitat Target Notes 26 Table 2: Hedgerow Target Notes 28 Table 3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Species List 29

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Document Prepared For Tesni Properties Ltd Linden House Mold Business Park Wrexham Road Mold, CH7 1XP

Document Prepared By Document Approved By Dr Jon Huckle Matthew Hopkins Technical Director Regional Director [email protected] [email protected]

Version Date Reason 20604-02 R3 Rev1 March 2015 Initial draft for client review 20604-02 R3 Rev2 April 2015 Final report for issue

Copyright © 2015 Atmos Consulting Ltd

Rosebery House, Moray House, Durham Dales Linden House Keystone 9 Haymarket 16-18 Bank Street, Centre, Mold Business Park Innovation Centre Terrace, Inverness, Castle Gardens, Wrexham Road Croxton Road Edinburgh, IV1 1QY Stanhope, Mold, Thetford EH12 5EZ County Durham, CH7 1XP Norfolk DL13 2FJ IP24 1JD

Habitats Regulations Assessment

1 Introduction 1.1 Terms of Reference Atmos Consulting Ltd was commissioned by Tesni Properties Ltd to undertake an ecological assessment of land to the south of Brandon Road in Watton, Norfolk (hereafter referred to as the “proposed Site”) to inform a proposal for a 177-unit residential housing development (hereafter referred to as the “project”). An Ecological Assessment report has been prepared (Ref Atmos 20604-02 R2 Rev2) to support an outline planning application to Breckland Council, and which describes the ecological baseline information relating to the proposed Site, including the findings of an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey (JNCC 2010) undertaken in October 2014. The Ecological Assessment also included mitigation and enhancement feature that have been embedded into the outline design of the project, and which are considered to be integral features of the scheme. To accompany the planning application it is recognised that a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required to consider the implications of the proposed development in the context of the designation of the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA), with particular reference to Stone Curlew, Burhinus oedicnemus.

1.2 Site Description The proposed Site comprises a total of three fields centred on National Grid Reference TF 9088 0045, and covers an area of approximately 8.44 ha. All three fields have been more or less unmanaged for agricultural use for a number of years, and it is understood that the fields form part of the ‘set aside’ contribution for the larger landholding to the south as part of a whole farm agri-environment package. The habitats present within and adjacent to the Site, as recorded during the Phase 1 habitat survey are presented at Appendix B. The fields are located immediately adjacent to previously developed areas of Watton. To the north of the proposed Site, a residential development is located between the proposed Site and Brandon Road, comprising housing built in approximately 2000. To the west of the Site, there is an area of open amenity green space associated with the Bridle Road housing development. To the east are a number of school fields and a small area of green space. To the southeast of the Site (and south of the eastern most field, Field 3), lies a residential development associated with Jubilee Road. The three fields are bounded by relatively intact hedgerows, many supporting mature broadleaved trees, and are relatively small compared to the larger arable fields located to the south of the proposed Site; the westernmost field (Field 1) measures approximately 2.33 ha, the central field (Field 2) measures approximately 3.8 ha and the easternmost field (Field 3) measures approximately 2.19 ha.

1.3 Structure of the Report This report provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development on the Breckland SPA in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 1

Habitats Regulations Assessment

and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, hereafter referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations’. The structure of this report follows the following outline:  Summary of the Legal Framework and Local Policy Context, including a review of the HRA methodology to be used;  Background Information relating to the project, the Breckland SPA and data regarding Stone Curlew records and habitats;  The Habitats Regulations Assessment It is considered that the proposed development site is sufficiently distant from habitat likely to support breeding nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus or woodlark Lullula arborea to discount potential adverse effects on these features of the Breckland SPA.

2 Legislation and planning policy 2.1 The Habitats Regulations Assessment Process A Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) is required under the ‘Habitats Regulations’, and the general process is outlined in guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS 2012). There are a number of stages within the HRA process, which reflect the protection conferred on European Sites by the EU Habitats Directive. These are outlined in flow charts within the Planning Inspectorate guidance as well as in ODPM Circular 06/2005 (ODPM 2006), which remains current valid guidance at the time of writing, notwithstanding that it accompanied Planning Policy Statement 9 that has now been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012). The first stage is to establish whether the Project is directly connected to nature conservation management of the SPA. This is not the case in relation to a proposed housing development, and therefore further consideration is needed. The second stage is to determine whether the Project is likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the SPA, either alone or in combination with other Plans and Projects. In the event that a potential significant effect cannot be ruled out, the third stage is to undertake an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ of the implications of the proposal for the site’s conservation objectives. An Appropriate Assessment, if required for a particular plan or project, is undertaken to fulfil regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, which states:

61. (1) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which— (a)is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and . (b)is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, . must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives. (2) A person applying for any such consent, permission or other authorisation must provide such information as the competent authority may reasonably require for the purposes of the assessment or to enable them to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 2

Habitats Regulations Assessment

(3) The competent authority must for the purposes of the assessment consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by that body within such reasonable time as the authority specify. (4) They must also, if they consider it appropriate, take the opinion of the general public, and if they do so, they must take such steps for that purpose as they consider appropriate. (5) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 62 (considerations of overriding public interest), the competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be). (6) In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, the authority must have regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which they propose that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given. This statutory background is of particular relevance as it has been a key consideration that underpins the local planning policy that relates to the Breckland SPA, which is outlined below.

2.2 Local Planning Policy Context

2.2.1 Breckland Council Core Strategy Breckland Council has established the local planning context for nature conservation within Core Policy 10 (CP10) of the Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (Breckland Council 2012). The text of CP10 is presented at Appendix C, which includes the accompanying planning policy map for the Watton area. In relation to the Breckland SPA, CP10 provides the policy framework for determining planning applications, and specifically states:

“The Council will require that an appropriate assessment is undertaken of all proposals for development that are likely to have a significant effect on the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) and will only permit development that will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. In applying this policy the Council has defined a buffer zone (indicated orange on the Proposals Map) that extends 1,500m from the edge of those parts of the SPA that support or are capable of supporting stone curlews, within which:- a. Permission may be granted for the re-use of existing buildings and for development which will be completely masked from the SPA by existing development; alternatively b. Permission may be granted for development provided it is demonstrated by an appropriate assessment the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. In other locations, indicated in blue on the Proposals Map, the Council will apply the policy set out above to afford protection to other land supporting the qualifying features of the SPA. Where it can be shown that proposals to mitigate the effects of development would avoid or overcome an adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA or qualifying features, planning permission may be granted provided the Local Planning Authority is satisfied those proposals will be implemented. The Council will consider the need for an appropriate assessment to determine the implications of development on other interest features of the SPA (i.e. Nightjar and Woodlark) on a case by case basis.” The establishment of a 1500m buffer from the Breckland SPA within CP10 has been based on evidence derived from research undertaken by Footprint Ecology, who were commissioned by Breckland Council to inform the potential impact of new housing on the distribution of stone curlew (Sharp 2008).

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 3

Habitats Regulations Assessment

2.2.2 Implementation of CP10 in Breckland The validity of the CP10 has been subject to scrutiny and challenge through a number of planning decisions and appeals, as well through examination of the Council’s Core Strategy, which called for further work to provide a better understanding of the interactions between stone curlews and human settlements. The findings of two key cases are reviewed here.

Examination of the Thetford Area Action Plan (TAAP) – Shadwell Objection To inform an objection to the TAAP, the Shadwell Estate commissioned a study of the nesting habitat requirement of stone curlew (Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd 2011), cited in (Bidwells 2012). One of the conclusion of this report was that stone curlew had a wide range of possible nesting sites available and that disturbance was likely to lead to redistribution rather than a reduction in the population. Despite the evidence presented in the report, it was not considered sufficient to justify overriding the protection afforded by the 1500m buffer, and it has been subsequently concluded that the research by Footprint Ecology was not unproven (Planning Inspectorate 2012). The LSC study compared how specific environmental variables and factors (including soil type, vegetation type, land use and field of vision) varied between sites with and without nesting records. The LSC report was recognised by Natural England (in Appendix 2 of (Bidwells 2012)) as advancing the understanding of the stone curlew issue and also recognised the potential for indirect effects of development. The comments from Natural England highlighted that the original Footprint Ecology study “…took a wide strategic view across the whole of the Breckland area and demonstrated a pattern - that stone curlew nesting density was lower closer to areas of development.” The Natural England response to the LSC response also provided a helpful and relevant synopsis of how both reports have led to the position as held in January 2012:

“5.a There remains an overall ‘case to be answered’: there is a negative spatial relationship between stone curlew nesting and development. In the absence of further evidence, strategic avoidance is the only solution. b. However, Natural England has always indicated that, notwithstanding spatial proximity, if any development can be shown that it will not have an effect upon stone curlews, that development can be safely permitted in respect of the Habitats Directive. Indeed, we have consistently expressed the view that the term ‘buffer zone’ gives an incorrect impression: we have always preferred the concept of a ‘constraint zone’, within which the presumption of effect should be assumed unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. c. The latest report starts to provide the means whereby the proponents of development in close proximity to stone curlew nesting sites/ the SPA can justify why those developments should be permitted on the basis that they will not affect the stone curlew nesting, whether that is as a result of demonstrable environmental unsuitability of adjacent area for stone curlews or as a result of mitigation measures which can be implemented, based upon the findings of the LSC report.”

Site at Land North of Cromwell Road, Weeting In February 2012, an application (Ref 3PL/2011/1102/F, dated 4 October 2011, for a residential development including 35 homes in Weeting, was refused permission by Breckland Council. An appeal against this decision was made, with a decision allowing the appeal made by a Planning Inspector in August 2012 (Planning Inspectorate 2012).

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 4

Habitats Regulations Assessment

The Inspectors report of the appeal decision (Ref APP/F2605/A/12/217205) includes a number of relevant conclusions that are of relevance to the current HRA. The report noted that policy CP10 does no more than replicate the second stage of assessing a development proposal in relation to a SPA (in effect the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessment) by requiring an appropriate assessment . While the report highlighted that there were misgivings about the Footprint Ecology research (para. 14 of (Planning Inspectorate 2012)), the risk of a significant effect could not be excluded thus consideration at the third stage of the HRA was necessary, namely the appropriate assessment of the proposal’s implication for the SPA in view of the SPA’s conservation objectives. The appropriate assessment of the Weeting development undertaken by Breckland Council was largely informed by the Footprint Ecology research (Sharp 2008) and concluded that an absence of an adverse effect could not be established and thereby that should be a presumption against consent. The Planning Inspector highlighted several difficulties with this approach which are relevant to the current proposal at Watton;  The buffer zone is not a blanket ‘no development zone, but rather one in which proposals will be carefully scrutinised for their impact on the integrity of the SPA’;  There is a difference between the tests carried out at the screening stage of a HRA and the appropriate assessment – the screening stage establishes whether there is a risk of a Likely Significant Effect on the SPA, and the appropriate assessment stages examines that risk to determine whether the development will in fact have an significant adverse effect on the integrity of the site.  The integrity of the site is defined in (ODPM 2006), and if an adverse impact that is significant, or uncertain, then the decision-maker should proceed to further stages of the HRA process.  The (appropriate) assessment should be proportionate, need not be unduly elaborate with a level of detail consistent with the likely impact. The impact of the proposal on the SPA needs to be considered in the light of the site’s conservation objectives. Following the Inspector’s decision to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in Weeting, a report to the Breckland District council’s Planning Committee was to appraise the Committee on the outcome of the appeal (Breckland Council 2012). This report noted a number of important areas for future decision making.  Firstly, the report noted that Policy CP10 remained a sound policy, but noted that it did not apply a blanket ban on development and highlighted two general exceptions for development within the 1500m constraint zone: – Where there is the re-use of existing buildings and where a development is completely masked from the SPA by existing development; and – Where it is demonstrated by evidence from an appropriate assessment that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA.  The Inspector did not disagree or diminish the strategic environmental evidence from Footprint Ecology, stating that the research had not been disproven;  Appropriate Assessments need to be informed by comments from Natural England.  The Inspector noted that his decision was site specific, and reflected the scale and location of the proposed development and the specific evidence provided, and did not render the 1500m zone and its associated policy redundant.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 5

Habitats Regulations Assessment

2.2.3 Summary of Implications of CP10 for the Project The research undertaken by Footprint Ecology (Sharp 2008) has led to the development of Policy CP10 in the Breckland Council Core Strategy, which established a 1500m zone around the Breckland SPA for the protection of stone curlew. This zone, although often referred to as a ‘buffer’ should be viewed as a constraints zone, ‘… in which proposals will be carefully scrutinised for their impact on the integrity of the SPA’ (Breckland Council 2012). It is clear that the 1500m constraints zone does not apply a blanket ban, but effectively acts as the principal criterion for determining the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessment. Policy CP10 requires all developments within that constraints zone to provide an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the SPA in view of the SPA’s conservation objectives.

2.2.4 Further research undertaken by Footprint Ecology Further research of the relationship between buildings and stone curlew was commissioned by Breckland Council and undertaken by Footprint Ecology (Clarke 2013). This report generally upheld the findings of the previous study and supported the 1500m buffer zone. The further research focused on the effects of buildings on the distribution of breeding stone curlew in the Brecks, and analysed data from 5116 breeding attempts from 1985 to 2011, a period in which the numbers of stone curlew have steadily increased due to birds nesting on arable and improved or rough grassland habitats; around half of breeding attempts were on arable land, but with higher densities on semi-natural grassland. A full analysis of the analysis provide in the report is beyond the scope of this summary, however there are several findings that are of note and relevant to the proposed development in Watton:  The latest analyses support the continuation of the 1500m constraint zone but note that the effect of development is predicted to be more pronounced in areas with no existing development:

‘Where there is existing development close to suitable stone curlew habitat or high levels of development nearby, then further development has relatively little additional impact. This suggests that ‘infill developments in larger settlements will have much less impact than equivalent sized developments in undeveloped areas.’

 There was a significantly lower density of breeding attempts in the arable land close to settlements;  Depending on the year, time period and how settlements are defined this effect is significant at distances out to 2000m;  Field size varies with distance from settlement, with bigger fields occurring further from settlements. However the report concluded that there was no evidence that breeding density was different in bigger fields and no evidence that birds particularly avoid (or show a preference) for nest sites close to field boundaries.  As the population has increased, there has been no evidence that a greater proportion of breeding attempts have been found close to e settlements. This suggests that the range of the population has expanded outwards with a

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 6

Habitats Regulations Assessment

preference for breeding in wider open areas further away form the core Breckland area, rather than breeding closer to settlements within the Brecks.  The amount of nearby woodland was weakly negatively correlated with the amount of nearby buildings. Nest density on arable land tended to be lower where there is more woodland nearby, especially amongst those otherwise favourable areas not near many buildings.  higher breeding attempt densities (on arable land) were associated with the presence of semi-natural grassland nearby, rather than the extent of semi-natural grassland; and  The effect of buildings is from residential properties as opposed to other building types and thus the 1500m zone should therefore apply to residential development. The implications of the 2013 report are that the conclusions support the continuation of the 1500m buffer. However, it highlights several characteristics of potential land which are of relevant to the Watton site and which will be described in relation to the specific site characteristics below.

3 Background Information 3.1 Description of the Project The proposed development comprises a residential development that would provide a total of 177 units located to the south of Mallard Road, in Watton. An application for outline planning permission has been submitted to Breckland Council by Tesni Properties Limited. The features of the proposed development are presented in three Figures that were included in the planning submission and which are reproduced within this report:  Figure 1 – Results of Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of Proposed Site  Figure 2 – Results of Survey Results in context of Breckland SPA  Figure 3 – Proposed Site Plan Approximately half of the land to the south of Woodpecker Drive and Mallard Road conflicts with Policy CP10 of the adopted Core Strategy as it is located within the 1,500m development constraint buffer for the Breckland SPA imposed to avoid adverse effects on the breeding population of Stone Curlew, which is one of the qualifying features of the SPA. This buffer in the context of the site is presented on Figure 2. The nearest location of the Breckland SPA is located at Grid reference TL 90153 99137 at the north east corner of a field to the west of Home farm, Merton, and at the north end of Home farm Lane. This point of the SPA is approximately 1320m from both the southwest corner of Field 1 (Grid Ref. TF 90631 00398) and the southwest corner of Field 2 (Grid Ref. TF 90775 00328). A review of the allocated sites in Watton undertaken by Breckland District Council in 2011 (Breckland Council 2011) concluded that although, in 2008, the Site had been previously considered suitable and achievable for housing development, evidence on the effects of housing and roads on the distribution of stone curlew published in 2008 by Footprint Ecology (Sharp 2008) led to the development of policy CP10 implemented by Breckland DC.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 7

Habitats Regulations Assessment

3.1.1 Design Features of the Project to Minimise Effects on Stone Curlews In order to prevent or reduce the risk of potential effects on stone curlews arising from the Project, a series of mitigation design recommendations have been identified in the Ecological Assessment report (Ref Atmos 20604-02 R2 Rev2) included in the planning submission for the project and which have been incorporated into the outline site design presented in Figure 3. These features include:  Retention and strengthening of the hedgerow and tree line that forms the southern boundary of the proposed site. The existing boundary will be widened by planting of hedgerow and tree species to create a ‘thicket stage’ vegetation buffer along the southern boundary of the site. This buffer will reduce the visibility from the site towards the farmland to the south and also in the opposite direction, reducing the visibility of the housing development from the fields. In addition, the creation of a thicket stage vegetation buffer will aim to prevent noise and light pollution from the proposed development in a southwards direction.  Restricting access from the site to the south. In addition to thickening of the vegetation along the southern boundary, public access from the residential development to the fields will be restricted through the use of fencing. Recreational access to the existing open green space areas to the west and north will be maintained and the design of paths and roads will encourage public use of areas towards the town itself, rather than towards the fields to the south.  Reduced density of units in areas within 1500m of the SPA boundary. Although residential development within 1500m of the SPA is still proposed, the density of units has been reduced in the western most field (Field1) and the southern part of the central field (Field 2). In these areas, the proposed site plan include lower density development with larger properties, with the higher density areas being focused in the areas that are located greater than 1500m from the SPA boundary.

3.2 Characteristics of the Breckland SPA The Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) is located approximately 1.32 km to the south west of the proposed Site at its closest point, and extends in a more or less south- westerly direction covering much of the Breckland area. The Breckland SPA covers a total area of 39,280 ha, of which approximately 18,058 ha comprises the SSSI and approximately 13,335 ha comprises the Breckland Farmland SSSI. The area of the SPA closest to the proposed site is contiguous with the area designated as part of the Breckland Farmland SSSI and no designated forest areas are in the vicinity of the proposed site. The Breckland Farmland SSSI is characterised by its climate and soils. Breckland's climate is semi-continental, being the driest region of the British Isles and subject to great extremes of temperature. The soils are complex, but typically are very sandy, free- draining mixes of chalk, sand, silt, clay and flints. This site is notified for its internationally important population of stone curlew. The SPA qualifies under the EU Birds Directive 2009/147/EC by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive during the breeding season:

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 8

Habitats Regulations Assessment

 Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, 415 pairs representing up to 12.2% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count at 1998);  Stone Curlew Burhinus oedicnemus, 142 pairs representing up to 74.7% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count as at 1998); and  Woodlark Lullula arborea, 430 pairs representing up to 28.7% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count as at 1997). Due to the proximity of the farmland features of the SPA to the proposed development, only stone curlew is considered further in this assessment; the distance to areas of the SPA that support nightjar or woodlark are considered to be sufficient for them to be screened out of further assessment and are not considered further.

3.2.1 Conservation Objectives of the Breckland SPA The conservation objectives of the Breckland SPA were updated in 2014 to reflect Natural England’s Strategic Standard on European Site Conservation Objectives 2014 (Natural England 2014). These conservation objectives differ from those cited in previous documents and reports relating to the effects of urban development on stone curlews in Breckland, for example the Footprint Ecology research reports published for Breckland Council in 2013 (Clarke 2013) and 2008 (Sharp 2008). The conservation objectives are: With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change; Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring; – The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features – The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features – The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely – The population of each of the qualifying features, and, – The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

3.2.2 Breckland Farmland SSSI The Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific interest (SSSI), which covers an area of 13392 hectares and is located approximately 1.32 km to the south west of the Project at its closest point; the SSSI boundary is contiguous with the area designated as part of the Breckland SPA noted above.

3.3 Stone Curlew Distribution near Watton A data collection exercise was undertaken in October 2014, in order to establish whether there were pre-existing records of designated nature conservation sites or plant and animal species/assemblages of nature conservation significance for the Site and its surroundings. The Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS) was contacted to provide the data they held within a 2 km distance of the Project boundary.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 9

Habitats Regulations Assessment

The NBIS data search provided a total of 3 records, provided at a relatively coarse resolution of 1km grid square detail due to the sensitivity of the species. The NBIS data included the following information:  Grid square TL9098: Count of 2 birds from 2002, 1 pair present all month in April  Grid square TL9098: Count of 1 bird from March 2003; and  Grid square TL9100: Count of 1 bird from March 1994.

3.3.1 RSPB Data Search The stone curlew population in Breckland has been monitored since the 1980s by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) as part of the Stone Curlew Recovery Project. The RSPB collect data on nesting attempts within a wide study area, and these data have formed the basis for the research undertaken by Footprint Ecology in 2008 (Sharp 2008) and more recently in 2013 (Clarke 2013). Due to the sensitive nature of the data, records are restricted in their availability and in their release in documents that are published in the public domain. As a result, within this report the identification of the location of stone curlew records is restricted to a minimum resolution of 10km. A data request was made to the RSPB to purchase data records of all stone curlew records within 5km of the centre of the proposed site (grid reference TF 90877 00453) for the period from 1988 to the present day. In addition, a request was made for all stone curlew nests in Breckland area as used in the Footprint Ecology Study in order to enable a comparison with data at the scale of the whole SPA to be made. The RSPB provided data for a 2km search area from the centre of the proposed site, on the advice that build development did not significantly affect stone curlews beyond this distance (T. Cowan, RSPB, pers.comm). The RSPB provided data on stone curlew derived from 4 different datasets:  1988-1993, Breckland Stone Curlew Reports Version 2 dataset – A record of 1 pair from 1990. The grid reference for this record is within 1km of the site, but is from a built-up location to the north of the B1108 that runs in a east- west direction through Watton. As it is unlikely that stone curlew would be nesting in such a location, it is reasonable to question whether this location is accurate.  1985-2014, STONE-CURLEWS (Breeding), England, Annual Summary Data. A total of 8 nesting records between 1995 and 2007, including: – 1995 – 1 nest record (confirmed breeding) located 1.9 to 2 km from development site boundary – 1997 - 1 nest record (confirmed breeding) located 1.7 to1.8 km from development site boundary – 1998 - 1 nest record (confirmed breeding) located 1.7 to1.8 km from development site boundary – 1999 - - 1 nest record (confirmed breeding) located 1.7 to1.8 km from development site boundary – 2002 – 2 nest records (confirmed breeding) located 1.2-1.3 km and 1.8-1.9 km from development site boundary respectively

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 10

Habitats Regulations Assessment

– 2003 - 1 nest record (confirmed breeding) located 1.9 to 2.0km from development site boundary – 2007 - 1 nest record (confirmed breeding) located 1.0 to1.1 km from development site boundary  2001-2013 Stone-curlew Roost Data: – 2007 – non-breeding records of stone curlews on 6 dates in July and August 2007, (3-14 individual birds) from the same location approximately 1.3 km from the development site boundary It is important to note that the absence of stone curlews from certain areas may be a result of a lack of monitoring in these areas rather than the absence of stone curlews. However, the RSPB survey area includes all the area of the SPA as well as fields immediately adjacent to the SPA boundary. The data include 2 nest records from outside the SSPA itself (from 2002 and 2007), with the remaining nest records being located within the SPA itself. These data indicate that there are no records of stone curlew within the Project or from within 1km of the Project boundary. In total, there have been a total of 8 confirmed breeding records from the complete dataset, comprising the period form 1985 to 2014. For comparison purposes the 2013 Footprint Ecology report based its analysis on 5116 stone curlew breeding attempts, located during the period 1985-2011, across the whole of the Brecks area (Clarke 2013). The 8 records from within the 2km search area represents 0.16% of the total number of recorded nest records during that period. Of the 8 confirmed breeding records, only 2 were recorded from within 1.5 km of the Project boundary, with both records in fields adjacent to, but outside the SPA. The remaining six located were all located at least 1.7 km from the Project boundary, and within the SPA. There has been a steady increase in the numbers of stone curlews in Breckland since the mid 1980s, associated with birds nesting on arable and improved or rough grassland habitats (Clarke 2013), with more breeding attempts outside the SPA. This has been interpreted as an expansion into new areas rather than an increase in density in already occupied areas. However, despite this increase across the Breckland study area, which includes the SPA and additional suitable habitats, there has been no increase in nesting records within the 2km search areas from the Project. There have been no records of stone curlew from within 2km of the Project boundary, since 2007.

3.4 Habitat Suitability

3.4.1 Habitats within the Proposed Development Site An extended Phase 1 habitat survey, based on the approach described in the Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (IEA 1995), and following the method set out in the Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey – a technique for Environmental Audit (JNCC 2010), was undertaken on the 9th October 2014. The detailed results of this survey are beyond the scope of this report and have been provided as part of the planning submission for the Project (Ecological Assessment

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 11

Habitats Regulations Assessment

report: Ref Atmos 20604-02 R2 Rev2). However, the findings of the extended Phase I habitat survey are presented in Figure 2 and indicated that the habitats present within the Survey Area were consistent with the typical character of land that has been managed for agricultural farming in this part of East Anglia, being dominated by agricultural habitats delineated by hedgerows and ditches, with areas of amenity grassland and woodland also present. Within the site itself, the habitats comprised: Neutral grassland - poor semi-improved. This grassland was present in each of the three fields totalling approximately 8.3 ha. All three fields supported vegetation characteristic of abandoned agricultural fields that have not been managed for several years. All three fields showed evidence of a high level of recreational use with footpaths indicating the use by dog walkers and also as a short cut between the adjacent built up areas. The habitats were unremarkable and typical of relatively nutrient rich abandoned fields that were managed as arable farmland in the past. Indeed, aerial photography from 1988 (available on the Norfolk County Council historic mapping website - http://historic- maps.norfolk.gov.uk), indicates arable farmland being present which predates the residential development to the north of the proposed site. It is understood that the fields form a set-aside component of the agri-environment package for a larger whole farm agreement including the arable farmland to the south of the proposed Site. Hedgerows and Mature Trees Hedgerows formed the dominant boundary features around the proposed Site, including species-poor hedgerows and native species-rich hedgerows. The hedgerows represent relatively wide habitat features that provide good ecological connectivity within the Ste and linking the adjacent areas; the hedgerow along the southern boundary of Fields 1 and 2, was considered to be a relatively important ecological feature. In addition to the hedgerows, scattered scrub and tree saplings were present within all three fields. Mature standard trees were present as standards along field boundaries around the proposed Site which supported a relatively high proportion of elm trees, which had been cut to provide way leave clearance under Electricity Transmission Lines (ETL) than ran along the hedgerow.

Suitability of Habitats within the Project for Stone Curlew As noted above, there is an absence of records of stone curlew from within 1km of the proposed development site. Within the Project boundary itself, the habitats are considered to be completely unsuitable for stone curlew. This assessment is based on the following characteristics:  The three fields are adjacent to urban developments on three sides, with residential developments to the west, north and south east.  The three fields are subject to extensive recreational disturbance – unofficial footpaths run around and across the fields, and evidence of dog walking was abundant.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 12

Habitats Regulations Assessment

 The three fields are all relatively small, and support mature hedgerows and tree lines along the boundaries, ensuring that there are no clear lines of sight beyond the field boundaries. The 2013 Footprint Ecology report analysed the effect of field size on stone curlew nesting site and found reduced density in fields smaller than 5ha (Clarke 2013).

3.4.2 Habitats between the Project and the SPA The habitats present between the Project and the SPA have been identified through a combination of the extended Phase 1 Habitat survey results, which included the area to the south and south west of the Project, and from examination of web-based aerial photography such as Google Earth. The majority of the habitats comprise arable farmland. Adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project, two large arable fields were recorded to the south and south west. The fields had been recently ploughed and harrowed at the time of survey in October 2014 and were relatively large and open compared to the fields present within the Project boundary itself. The field to the southwest of the Project was bounded to the west and south by a belt of broad-leaved plantation (see below) that has been designated as a County Wildlife Site (CWS 975 – Land east of Watton Fen). This woodland forms an L-shaped belt of mature woodland, dominated by mature ash, oak and Scot’s pine. To the southeast of the Project boundary, the arable fields are bounded by a residential development on either side of Jubilee Road. Further to the south and southwest of the woodland the agricultural landscape extends towards the SPA boundary across an area known as Merton Common. This area comprises predominantly large arable fields interspersed with lines of mature trees and hedgerows and occasional agricultural buildings. Of particular significance is a line of mature trees that extends southwards from Watton adjacent to a bridle way and then in a south-eastern direction across Merton Common towards Merton Road.

Suitability of Habitats between the SPA and the Project for Stone Curlew The arable fields between the Project and the SPA are likely to offer some potential habitat for stone curlew, based on the size of the fields. However, the absence of records within 1km of the Project (and with no records at all since 2007) suggests that the habitats are not well used by stone curlew and unlikely to be directly supporting the SPA population or strongly functionally linked to the SPA. The reasons for this are likely to include:  Proximity to Watton – the proximity of these fields to the existing residential developments at Watton is likely to be the main factor affecting the suitability of the fields. Watton is a relatively large settlement and thus likely to lead to a reduction in stone curlew nest density. The SPA boundary is located approximately 1.28 km from the nearest development at the Jubilee Road estate, and approximately 1.33 km from Bridle Road development.  Proximity to Merton – although Merton is a relatively small settlement, the fields between the SPA and the Project are generally located within 1km of the village of Merton.  Proximity to Woodland – stone curlew nest density is negatively correlated (weakly) with proximity to woodland (Clarke 2013). The presence of the woodland belt (Land

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 13

Habitats Regulations Assessment

east of Watton Fen) and the linear line of trees that extends between Brandon Road in Watton southeast towards Merton Road is likely to adversely affect the habitat suitability for stone curlews.  Soil suitability – no analysis of the soil types within the fields has been undertaken for this study. However, the importance of soil type for stone curlew breeding has been demonstrated previously with a preference for sandy soil types that support short grassland and avoiding areas with tall sward heights (Green 2000). This finding was used in the Footprint Ecology research to define the study area in which to investigate stone curlew nesting density, and which restricted the analysis to areas with five suitable soil types (Sharp 2008). The more recent research presented in (Clarke 2013) used a grid of 500m cells that included suitable soil layers. This 500m grid included the majority of the SPA. However, the area between the SPA and Watton was not included within the Footprint Ecology study area (shown on Map 1 in (Clarke 2013)), presumably because the soil types are not suitable for stone curlew in these 500m grid squares. The appropriate section of the study area is ‘clipped’ in the illustration below to demonstrate the section of land to the southwest of Watton that was excluded from the study area.

Map 1 Excerpt from Map 1 in (Clarke 2013), showing the Study Area used in the Footprint Ecology research. The black squares indicate the 500m grid used and the red line indicates the Breckland SPA boundary.

Source: (Clarke 2013)

4 Habitats Regulations Assessment 4.1 Introduction The local planning policy, and specifically policy CP10 in the Breckland Council Core Plan, as described in section 2.2 above effectively replicates the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessment by requiring an Appropriate Assessment where development is proposed within 1500m of the Breckland SPA boundary. Within the 1500m constraint zone, CP10 states that: a. Permission may be granted for the re-use of existing buildings and for development which will be completely masked from the SPA by existing development; alternatively

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 14

Habitats Regulations Assessment

b. Permission may be granted for development provided it is demonstrated by an appropriate assessment the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. In the decision notice for the Weeting Appeal (APP/F2605/A/12/2172205), the Planning Inspector noted that the approach to be used in considering a development proposal that might affect an SPA was set out in Circular 06/2005 (ODPM 2006). This approach involved two stages prior to undertaking an appropriate assessment that comprise the screening stage of a HRA. Based on a review of the baseline presented in the Ecological Assessment Report (Ref Atmos 20604-02 R2 Rev2) and data available through desk study and consultation; the following section of this HRA now assesses the Project in relation to the stepwise procedure set out in Circular 06/2005 (ODPM 2006) and an advice note on the HRA process published by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS 2012)and detailed in section 2.1 above. The second stage of the HRA process determines whether the project is ‘likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the SPA either alone or in combination with other plans or projects’ (PINS 2012). This is the stage that is replicated by the Policy CP10 of the Breckland Core Strategy by establishing that residential development within 1500m of the SPA has a risk of affecting the interest features of the SPA. The third stage (Appropriate Assessment) examines the risk of an adverse effect of the individual project and assesses whether it will have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA in view of its conservation objectives. It is important to note that this report does not constitute an actual Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations and that an Appropriate Assessment can only be undertaken by a Competent Authority (in this case Breckland Council) The information provided below, represents the evidence that a Competent Authority would require to undertake such an appropriate assessment of the project to ascertain whether it will have a significant effect on the integrity of the site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

4.2 Statement to inform an Appropriate Assessment of the In 2008, a Habitats Regulations Assessment was undertaken for the Breckland Council Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document (Liley 2008). This HRA identified seven potential effects from housing development of which four are relevant to the relevant to the proposed development at Watton:  Potential reduction in the density of Habitats Directive Annex I bird species for which a negative relationship has been shown to exist with housing density (stone curlews, nightjars, woodlarks), i.e. decreased densities in close proximity to housing.  Potential reduction in the density of stone curlews from their avoidance of roads  Increased levels of recreational activity resulting in increased disturbance to Annex I ground nesting bird species sensitive to disturbance (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark), in Thetford Forest and in other parts of the Breckland SPA  Increased levels of people on and around the heaths, resulting in an increase in urban effects such as increased fire risk, fly-tipping, trampling etc. (see Liley et al., 2006b and, Underhill-Day, 2005 for reviews).

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 15

Habitats Regulations Assessment

As noted previously, effects on nightjar and woodlark have been scoped out of the assessment and only potential effects on stone curlew are considered further. In relation to stone curlew, the potential effects noted above need to be considered in relation to the conservation objectives of the Breckland SPA, and specifically by maintaining or restoring; – The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features – The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features – The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely – The population of each of the qualifying features, and, – The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

4.2.1 Impacts on the Extent and Distribution of Stone Curlew Habitats associated with the Breckland SPA The proposed development site in Watton is all located within 250m of existing residential development associated with the town. The three fields that constitute the area of the Project are considered completely unsuitable to support either nesting or feeding habitat for stone curlew for the reasons detailed in section 3.4.1 above. The data provided by the RSPB (post 1985) has confirmed that of 8 confirmed breeding records with 2km of the Project, only 2 were recorded from within 1.5 km (and more than 1km) of the Project boundary, with both records in fields adjacent to, but outside the SPA. The remaining six located were all located at least 1.7 km from the Project boundary, and within the SPA. The Project would not result in a reduction in the distance between existing residential development and the SPA boundary: the nearest point of the Project is located approximately 1.32km from the SPA boundary, which is located approximately 1.28 km from the nearest housing at the Jubilee Road estate, and approximately 1.33 km from Bridle Road development. Both these developments have been established for at least 30 years. Therefore, the Project south of Brandon Road would not result in an expansion of urban development towards the SPA; rather, because it is already bounded by substantial development to the west, north, east and south-east, the project represents an ‘infill’ development by closing the gap between existing developments. The nearest historic record for nesting stone curlew is located over 1km from the Project, in arable farmland adjacent to the SPA in 2007, with only one further record existing from outside the SPA in 2002. These areas are effectively screened from the Project by three linear habitat features (the hedgerow/ treeline along the site’s boundary, a woodland buffer strip and a third treeline and hedgerow) which obstruct the sightlines from the SPA towards the proposed site and vice versa. As there have been no records from within the 2km data search area since 2007, and only one other nest record prior to 2007, the arable farmland between the SPA and the Project is not considered to provide optimal habitat for stone curlew. The potential reasons for the unsuitable nature of the area between the SPA and Watton have been discussed in section 3.4.2 above and include the following:  Proximity to Existing Settlements – including Watton and Merton

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 16

Habitats Regulations Assessment

 Proximity to Woodland – the presence of a woodland belt and other lines of trees reduce the habitat suitability for stone curlews.  Soil suitability – the agricultural areas nearer to Watton support sub-optimal soil types which are not preferred by stone curlew. Therefore, it is considered that the potential habitats that could support nesting stone curlew are restricted to the arable fields within a relatively short distance of the SPA itself, with fields more than a few hundred metres from the SPA being unsuitable. The proposed development will not result in residential development being closer to any potential habitats that could support stone curlew. The absence of records since 2007 from within the data search area (including SPA and non-SPA habitats) further corroborates that the habitats are unsuitable for stone curlew, particularly when considered in the context of the expansion of the local population from 142 breeding pairs to over 200 breeding pairs within the SPA in the 2007-2011 period. It is also relevant to note that the ‘Weeting Appeal’ decision distinguished between arable land that was ‘potentially suitable for stone curlew’ but was not ‘actually the habitat of the qualifying feature’ (Planning Inspectorate 2012); this has been highlighted as an interpretation that the significance of effect is on present birds rather than future potential area to accommodate birds’ (Breckland Council 2012). Summary Taking these factors into consideration it is concluded that the Project will not result in any significant adverse effect on the extent or distribution of stone curlew habitats. Consequently, it is considered certain that the ability to meet the conservation objective of maintaining or restoring stone curlew nesting habitat within the SPA (or in suitable habitat adjacent to the SPA) will not be adversely affected by the Project.

4.2.2 Impacts on the Structure and Function of Stone Curlew Habitats associated with the Breckland SPA As detailed above the Project is considered to be unsuitable as nesting or feeding habitat for stone curlews. Consequently the direct loss of the grassland within the fields with the area of the Project will not constitute an effect on the structure and function of stone curlew habitats. Indirect habitats on the stone curlew habitats associated with the Breckland SPA may arise however if the proposed development were considered to result in a significant deterioration in the quality of the habitats associated with the SPA, and thus adversely affect the structure and function of those habitats. The HRA undertaken of the Breckland Core Strategy suggested that potentially adverse effect of housing developments may arise as a result of increases in recreational disturbance or an increase in urban effects such as fly-tipping, fire risk and trampling (Liley 2008). Other potential explanations why stone curlew densities are inversely related to proximity to housing developments have been proposed (Clarke 2013). These suggest that while birds may select open habitats, they may also avoid areas for a range of potential reasons including: increased levels of disturbance from an increased population in the local landscape, obstruction of sight lines, increased predator abundance, the presence of pets (particularly cats) and increased noise and light pollution.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 17

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Recreational Disturbance Recreational disturbance of stone curlew habitats within the SPA, as well as associated habitat outside the SPA may occur as an indirect operational impact of the Project. This potential risk is considered in more detail in relation to the qualifying features of the SPA. Theoretically, the increased population arising as a result of the Project, could lead to an increase in recreational disturbance. Stone curlews have been shown to be relatively sensitive to disturbance with higher rates of disturbance being elicited by people on foot and the presence of a dog with a walker (Taylor 2007). However, the level of increase in recreational disturbance to the SPA resulting from the Project is likely to be influenced by three key factors:  Access to the SPA from the proposed Site. The Project is located at least 1.3km from the nearest point of the SPA and is not currently linked to the SPA by any existing roads, tracks of public rights of way. Existing recreational use of the proposed Site appears to be high, with pedestrian routes linking the Jubilee Road and the Bridle Road development.  Existing levels of recreational disturbance of the SPA habitats. The Peddars Way and Norfolk Coast Path, a long distance footpath runs along the SPA boundary at its nearest point to the site and adjoins arable land (in and outside the SPA) that has historically supported nesting stone curlew. In addition a bridle way, known as Long Bridle Road extends in a north-south direction from Brandon Road to the west of the site and connects to the SPA at its nearest location to the Project. A further public right of way, comprising a footpath, extends from Merton Road and connects to Long Bridle Road to the south of the Project. While there is no data at present on the level of use of these public rights of way, it is likely that they represent a significant level of recreational disturbance, particularly from the Peddars Way path where it forms the boundary of the SPA itself.  Existing levels of recreational disturbance from Watton. Watton is one of the larger settlements in the Breckland area, and the most recent research reports indicated that there were no records from within 1000m of Watton (Clarke 2013, p.51-52). It is therefore possible that recreational disturbance arising from the existing population of Watton is a contributory factor leading to the absence of records from close to the town. However, there is a lack of data to establish a close relationship and the research to data has focused on the strategic relationship between development and stone curlew nesting density at the scale of the whole Breckland region rather than attempting to examine causal relationships at the individual site level. Taking these factors into consideration it is considered that the additional recreational disturbance resulting from the Project would have no significant effect on the ability of habitats within the SPA or adjacent to it to support nesting stone curlew. Existing records of nesting birds are very low (only 2 records within 1500m of the proposed Site) with the most recent dating from 2007. However, to minimise the risk of additional disturbance to the SPA habitats present within 1500m of the proposed site, design features, detailed in section 3.1.1 above, have been incorporated into the Project. By restricting public access from the Project into the fields to the south, recreational disturbance arising directly from the proposed residential units will be restricted. Furthermore, the Project design itself includes the

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 18

Habitats Regulations Assessment

provision of open green space areas that are designed to provide sufficient areas for immediate recreational use to meet the requirements of the resident population. Obstruction of sight lines The Project will not result in an adverse effect on the sight lines of stone curlew using the SPA or the adjacent arable habitats. Existing sight lines are currently obscured by woodland and tree-lines that are considered to contribute to the area between the SPA and the proposed site being unsuitable as stone curlew nesting or feeding habitats, as discussed in section 3.4.2 above. Increased predation The Project is unlikely to result in an increase in natural predators of stone curlews, such as foxes, badgers or crows; therefore, this potential effect is not considered further. Increased presence of pets (cats) An increase in the number of pets has been suggested as one of the potential explanations of the relationship between housing and stone curlew nest density (Clarke 2013). As has been noted in section 3.1.1 above, the density of housing has been reduced in areas of the proposed site within 1500m, but an increase in domestic pets cannot be discounted. However, it is considered that this increase in pets would not result in a significant effect on the functionality of stone curlew habitats within the SPA or in fields between the SPA and the Project; due to the absence of stone curlew records from within 1km of the Project, and with most records between 1.5 and 2 km from the Project, it is considered that this distance is too great to result in a significant increase in predation by cats. In the Weeting Appeal Decision, the Inspector noted that the risk of predation of chicks by domestic cats could be discounted for the reason of distance (Planning Inspectorate 2012, para. 37); while it is appreciated that each case will vary, this is also likely to be applicable to the proposed development at Watton. Increased Noise and Light Pollution The distance of the proposed site from the SPA habitats is considered to be too great for any effect of noise and/or light pollution to result in a significant deterioration of the function of the SPA habitats or of suitable arable fields between the SPA and the proposed site. Effect of Roads The proposed development will incorporate a network of minor access roads designed to service the development itself and will not result in an increase in the major road network. Research has shown a reduction in nest density within 0.5 km of trunk roads and within 0.4 km of all A-roads but with no consistent pattern at greater distances (Clarke 2013). However, the proposed site, and the nearest part of the SPA, are at far greater distances from the nearest A-road than these and thus this research finding is not considered relevant for this proposed development. Summary Taking into account the characteristics of Project, it is considered that the Project will not result in a significant adverse impact on the functionality of the habitats within the SPA (or on any habitat between the SPA and the proposed Site) to support stone curlew habitats.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 19

Habitats Regulations Assessment

This conclusion is supported by the findings of the most recent research undertaken by Footprint Ecology, which concluded that while there was strong support for a continuation of the 1500m constrain zone, that “…the effect of development is predicted to be more pronounced in areas with no existing development. Where there is existing development close to suitable stone curlew habitat, or high levels of development already, then further development has relatively little additional impact. This would suggest that ‘infill’ developments in larger settlements will have much less impact than equivalent sized development in undeveloped areas” (Clarke 2013, p.6). Therefore, given the location of the proposed development and taking into account the considerations described above, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no significant increase in recreational disturbance or the other potential effects described, on the functionality of the habitats associated with the SPA. Consequently, it is considered certain that the ability to meet the conservation objective of maintaining or restoring the structure and function of the habitats of the stone curlew nesting habitat within the SPA (or in suitable habitat adjacent to the SPA) would not be adversely affected by the proposed development.

4.2.3 Impacts on the Supporting Processes on which Stone Curlew Habitats within the SPA Rely As has been previously noted, the proposed development site at Watton is located adjacent to existing residential areas of Watton, and supports habitats that are totally unsuitable for feeding or nesting stone curlews. The construction and operation of the proposed scheme will therefore have no effect on the agricultural management of habitats that support stone curlew within the SPA, or adjacent farmland that support the SPA population. Summary It is considered reasonable to conclude that the proposed development is certain to have no significant effect on the supporting process on which the supporting processes on which stone curlew habitats within the SPA rely, such as sensitive arable land management practices or the conservation action implemented by the RSPN and Natural England.

4.2.4 Impacts on the Stone Curlew Population of the Breckland SPA As has been previously noted, the proposed development site at Watton is located adjacent to existing residential areas of Watton, and supports habitats that are unsuitable as feeding or nesting habitat for stone curlews. The records of nesting stone curlew provided by the RSPB indicate that there have been only 2 records from within 1500m of the proposed site, and only 8 in total within 2000m of the proposed Site, with no records since 2007. The scarcity of records within 2km of the proposed development, when considered in the context of the expansion (both in terms of numbers of records and spatially) of the Breckland SPA population, indicates that the proposed Site and the arable habitats between it and the SPA, have no or very weak functional linkages to the SPA population. Furthermore the location of the scheme, comprising an infill development adjacent to existing residential development within the town of Watton, means that there will not be

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 20

Habitats Regulations Assessment

a significant adverse impact as a result of the effect of an increased population, as described in section 4.2.2 above. Summary In light of the low number of records and the unsuitability of the habitats present between the proposed site and the SPA, it is considered reasonable to conclude that it that the Project will not have an adverse effect on the breeding success or size of the stone curlew population of the Breckland SPA.

4.2.5 Impacts on the Distribution of Stone Curlews of the Breckland SPA As highlighted above the Project is not predicted to result in significant adverse effects as a result of an increase in recreational use of footpaths above current levels. Similarly there are unlikely to be any other potential effects that are likely to result in an adverse effect on the distribution of stone curlew within the SPA or in adjacent arable habitats. Summary It is reasonable to conclude that the ability to meet the conservation objective of maintaining or restoring the distribution of stone curlew within the Breckland SPA will not be adversely affected by the proposed development.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts The Breckland Council planning website has been used as the source for information on housing development proposal within Watton. The Breckland Council Core Strategy allocated 300 new homes to be built within Watton (Breckland Council 2014), with sites formally allocated through the Site Specific Policies and Proposals DPD (Breckland Council 2012). Within the Core Strategy, Watton is identified as a mid-sized Market Town. Of the four sites allocated for housing in Watton, two have had applications submitted with two sites, with a total allocation of 89 houses, having no applications submitted as of November 2014 (Breckland Council 2014). If all allocated housing sites identified in Watton were consented, the total number of dwellings would result in a shortfall of approximately 70 dwellings compared to the allocation specified in the Core Strategy. Breckland Council is currently experiencing difficulties in maintaining a 5-year supply of housing in accordance with the NPPF and it is acknowledged that non-allocated residential developments will be considered if developments can be demonstrated to be deliverable, available and suitable. The Project has been previously considered suitable and achievable for housing development (Breckland Council 2011), but had been excluded due to the strategic evidence on the effects of housing and roads on the distribution of stone curlew published in 2008 by Footprint Ecology (Sharp 2008). This context is relevant in that the assessment included for this development, which includes findings from the most recent research (Clarke 2013), as well as the interpretation of policy CP10 from cases at Weeting (Planning Inspectorate 2012) and Thetford (Bidwells 2012), concludes that the housing development at this location is deliverable.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 21

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Consequently, the Project can be considered as equivalent to other allocated sites in Watton and potentially makes a significant contribution to meeting the supply of housing for the town and for Breckland Council at a wider level.

Consideration of In-Combination Effects The other known housing developments located in Watton are all outside the 1500m constraint zone and have been considered acceptable in relation to their potential effects on stone curlew. Two sites have been submitted for planning:  Site W1 – located on land to the west of the A1075 and adjacent to Wayland high School. At this site an application for 110 dwellings has been approved.  Site W3 – located to the north of Norwich Road approximately 2km to the east of the Project. At this site planning permission has been granted for 33 dwellings. At two other allocated sites, which relate to a total of 89 dwellings no planning application had been submitted as of November 2014 (Breckland Council 2014). As both of the consented schemes are outside the 1500m stone curlew constraint zone, a project level assessment has not been provided. However, it is considered that the effects of the Project in combination with these schemes (including both consented and potential allocated sites) would not result in an adverse effect on the Breckland SPA. As the allocated sites have been subject to the HRA process, the level of development proposed for Watton in the Core Strategy has been considered acceptable; the project level assessment undertaken in this report concludes that the proposed site would be acceptable in relation to the potential effects on stone curlew. As there have been no significant adverse effects on stone curlew associated with the other housing schemes in the vicinity of Watton, it is concluded that there will no significant adverse cumulative effects of the proposed development in combination with these other schemes.

5 Conclusions A HRA has been undertaken to establish the potential for likely significant effects on the Breckland SPA in relation to the development of land to the south of Brandon Road, in Watton; termed “the Project”. As the Project partially overlaps the 1500m constraint zone specified in policy CP10 of the Breckland Council Core Strategy, an Appropriate Assessment of the proposed development is required to be undertaken. This report includes a Statement to inform an Appropriate Assessment to assist the Competent Authority in the decision-making process. The appropriate assessment includes an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development alone and in combination with other housing developments that could potentially affect the integrity of the SPA. The assessment has been undertaken with reference to previous housing applications and developments that have considered effects on stone curlews in the context of policy CP10. Furthermore, the assessment has been focused on the specific characteristics of the Project, taking into account its location in relation to the SPA and other potential stone curlew habitats, the habitats present within the Project and the suitability of the Project development area to support stone curlew nesting and feeding habitats.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 22

Habitats Regulations Assessment

The HRA has been informed by stone curlew nest record data provided by the RSPB for a distance of 2km from the proposed development site, as well as ecological surveys of the site and its surrounding area undertaken in October 2014. The assessment concludes that the Project area itself is unsuitable for stone curlews due to the small size of the fields, the management and vegetation types present in the fields, the unsuitable soil types present in the fields, and the proximity to existing residential developments in Watton. Similarly, the arable farmland located between the Project and the SPA is considered to provide unsuitable habitat for stone curlews associated with the SPA, with few records of nesting stone curlew within the SPA itself and only 2 records for arable fields outside but adjacent to the SPA boundary, and none of these within 1km of the Project. The Project constitutes an infill development between existing housing estates on the edge of a large settlement (Watton) subject to high levels of development already. These characteristics are consistent with the most recent research which suggests that such infill developments in larger settlement will have much less impact than developments in undeveloped areas. The assessment concludes that the Project will not affect the relevant qualifying feature of the SPA, and will not affect the ability of the conservation objectives of the SPA from being achieved. Therefore the Project will not adversely affect the integrity of the Breckland SPA either alone or in combination with other proposed developments and therefore the Project would comply with policy CP10 of the Breckland Council Core Strategy.

6 References Bidwells. 2012. Examination Hearing Statement:Thetford Area Action Plan. Bidwells. Breckland Council. 2012. Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document. Breckland Council. Breckland Council. 2014. Breckland Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation Document November 2014 . November. Breckland Council. 2011. Independent Examination into the Soundness of Breckland Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document and Proposal Maps, Examination in Public, July 2011. Matter 5 - Watton. Breckland Council. Breckland Council. 2012. Report of the Assistant Director of Commissioning. Subject: Appeal Decision fro Land North of Cromwell road, Weeting. Breckland Council. Clarke, R., & Liley, D. 2013. Further assessments of the relationship between buildings and stone curlew distribution. . Unpublished report by Footprint Ecology for Breckland Council. DCLG. 2012. National Planning Policy Framework. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. English Nature. 2001. Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 23

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Green, R.E., Tyler, G.A. & Bowden, C.G.R. 2000. “Habitat selection, ranging behaviour and diet of the stone-curlew (Burhinus oedicnemus) in southern England. .” Journal of Zoology, London. 250, 161–183. Gunnell, K., Murphy, B. & Williams, C. 2013. Designing for Biodiversity: A technical guide for new and existing buildings. 2nd Ed. London, UK: RIBA Publishing. IEA. 1995. Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, ISBN-10: 0419205101. Institute of Environmental Assessment. JNCC & DEFRA. 2012. “The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.” July. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189. JNCC. 2010. JNCC, (2010), Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. 3rd Edition. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd. 2011. Investigation of Nesting Site Selection and Distribution of the Population of Stone Curlew around Thetford. Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd. Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Underhill-Day, J. & Tyldesley, D. 2008. Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document. Report for Breckland, Wareham, Dorset: Footprint Ecology. Natural England. 2014. “European Site Conservation Objectives for Breckland SPA (UK9009201).” 12th August. Accessed 2015. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4572292419944448. ODPM. 2006. Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within The Planning System. London: Office of the Deputy Primeminister. PINS. 2012. PINS (2012) Advice note ten: Habitat Regulations Assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects. Version3. Bristol, UK.: Planning Inspectorate. Planning Inspectorate. 2012. Appeal Decision - Land north of Cromwell Road, Weeting, Norfolk, IP27 0QS: Appeal Ref APP/F2605/A/12/2172205. Bristol. UK: Planning Inspectorate. Sharp, J., Clarke, R.T., Liley, D. & Green, R.E. 2008. The effect of housing development and roads on the distribution of stone curlews in the Brecks. Wareham, Dorset: Footprint Ecology. Taylor, E.C., Green, R.E. & Perrins, J. 2007. “Stone-curlews Burhinus oedicnemus and recreational disturbance: developing a management tool for access.” Ibis 149, 37–44. UK Government. 2014. Planning Practice Guidance. http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 24

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Appendix A. Breckland SPA Description

A.1. Breckland SPA Description (Source: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2016-theme=default )

Country England Unitary Suffolk, Norfolk Authority SPA status not yet available Latitude 52 30 54 N Longitude 00 35 39 E SPA EU code UK9009201 Area (ha) To be confirmed upon site classification Component SSSI/ASSIs Barnhamcross Common Berner's Heath, Icklingham Bridgham and Brettenham Heaths Cavenham-Icklingham Heaths Cranberry Rough, Hockham Deadman's Grave, Icklingham Eriswell Low Warren Field Barn Heaths, Hilborough , Eriswell Grimes Graves How Hill Track Little Heath, Barnham Old Bodney Camp Rex Graham Reserve Stanford Training Area Thetford Golf Course and Marsh Thetford Heaths Weather and Horn Heaths, Eriswell Breckland Forest Breckland Farmland

The Breckland of Norfolk and Suffolk lies in the heart of East Anglia on largely sandy soils of glacial origin. In the 19th century the area was termed a sandy waste, with small patches of arable cultivation that were soon abandoned. The continental climate, with low rainfall and free-draining soils, has led to the development of dry heath and grassland communities. Much of Breckland was planted with conifers through the 20th century, and elsewhere arable farming is the predominant land use. The remnants of dry heath and grassland that have survived these changes support heathland-breeding birds, where grazing by sheep and rabbits is sufficiently intensive to create short turf and open ground. These species have also adapted to live in forestry and arable habitats. Woodlark Lullula arborea and Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus breed in recently felled areas and open heath areas within the conifer

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 25

Habitats Regulations Assessment

plantations, while Stone Curlew Burhinus oedicnemus establishes nests on open ground provided by arable cultivation in the spring.

Qualifying species This site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following species listed on Annex I of the Directive: During the breeding season;  Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, 415 pairs representing up to 12.2% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count as at 1998)  Stone Curlew Burhinus oedicnemus, 142 pairs representing up to 74.7% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count as at 1998)  Woodlark Lullula arborea, 430 pairs representing up to 28.7% of the breeding population in Great Britain (Count as at 1997)

Appendix B. Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes Table 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Habitat Target Notes Target Location Description Note

1 TF 90616 00487 Area of amenity grassland, out with the site to the west, forming small area of recreational green space or park between the site and Bridle Road.

Mown, managed grassland, with a sward dominated by common species including annual meadow grass Poa annua, with abundant daisy Bellis perennis, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata and dandelion Taraxacum officinalis agg. also present. To the north of the play area was a small copse of semi-mature broadleaved woodland dominated by pedunculate oak Quercus robur. To the east the grassland was bordered by a species-rich hedgerow with mature trees (H1) that extended approx. 50m northwards.

2 TF 90720 00508 Field 1. Area of species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland (approx. 2.33 ha).

The field was unmanaged at the time of survey supporting a grassland sward dominated by grass species including false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius, cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus. Other species present included locally frequent red fescue Festuca rubra, and common bent Agrostis capillaris. Herbaceous species included abundant cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, locally abundant rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium, frequent creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and ragwort Senecio jacobaea and occasional perennial sow thistle Sonchus arvensis hogweed Heracleum sphondylium and common nettle Urtica dioica..

In the centre of the field there were two circular stands of reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea, one approximately 10m in diameter and the second approx.. 5m in diameter. In both stands the ground underneath was dry underfoot and did not indicate the presence of a pond in the past.

In most areas, and particularly toward the edged of the fields, naturally regenerating woody species were present including bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. dog rose Rosa canina, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, oak Quercus sp. and dog wood Cornus sanguinea.

3 TF 90884 00496 Field 2. Central field comprising species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland (approx.. 3.8 ha).

In northern section of the field, the grassland was developing a tussock nature due to lack of regular management. The sward is dominated by cocksfoot, with abundant Yorkshire fog, false oat-grass common bent. Herbaceous species were generally similar to those recorded in Field 1 (TN2 above) including abundant

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 26

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Target Location Description Note cow parsley, creeping thistle and ragwort, frequent red clover Trifolium pratense and broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius; with locally dominant patches of rosebay willowherb. Scattered scrub and trees saplings were scattered throughout the sward with all less than 2m height and the majority 0-1m tall; including oak, hawthorn and dog rose with occasional goat willow Salix caprea individuals.

Towards the southern end of Field 2, the grassland included the same grass species with locally dominant rosebay willowherb forming more extensive stands of tall ruderal vegetation, again with scattered scrub and trees as above, but also including blackthorn Prunus spinosa.

4 TF 91024 00489 Field 3 - Eastern field comprising species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland (approx.. 2.2 ha). Unmanaged grassland with naturally regenerating woody species particularly towards south and eastern boundaries.

At the southern end of Field 3, the grassland is dominated by cocksfoot, false oat-grass, Yorkshire fog and perennial rye grass Lolium perenne, with canary reed grass forming a locally dominant stand in the south west corner. Tall ruderal species were abundant with creeping thistle, hogweed and a stand of naturally regenerating ash saplings varying between 1 and 3m in height suggesting an absence of management for at least 2-3 years.

In the northern part of Field 3, scrub and tree species were abundant scattered through the tussocky grass sward, with goat willow, bramble, dog rose hawthorn and oak all abundant. Tall ruderal species were abundant including hogweed, cow parsley, red clover, ribwort plantain and prickly sow thistle Sonchus asper.

5 TF 90985 00582 Amenity grassland to north of field 3, and outside the site. Mown recreational area dominated by annual meadow grass, daisy and dandelion. Occasional planted young trees were present.

6 TF 91065 00596 Small pond (P1) located to east of TN5 and surrounded by dense scrub thicket.

On western side of pond a metal rail was present over an inlet channel to the pond which was dry at the time of survey (October 2014) but had held water in June. The pond was almost entirely obscured by scrub and hard to survey directly but was approximately L-shaped and 25m x 10m in dimensions. The central area supported bulrush Typha latifolia with occasional branched bur- reed Sparganium erectum present in a few locations. On a previous site visit in June 2014, shallow water was present in the pond suggesting a seasonal variation in water level indicative of a drainage settling pond. The pond was relatively isolated but supports suitable surrounding terrestrial habitat for amphibians; while it is considered unlikely that it would support great crested newt, the potential for them being present cannot be eliminated entirely.

Surrounding the pond on all sides, dense scrub created an impenetrable barrier and comprised bramble, blackthorn and dogwood, with planted broadleaved trees to the south of the pond, including young cherry Prunus domesticus, ash Fraxinus excelsior, and dog rose.

To the north and east of the pond, amenity grassland was present with scattered broad-leaved trees of varying age and including mature field maple Acer campestre, oak and ash. Along the northern boundary of this small area of greenspace, a small slow-flowing stream flowed in an easterly direction within a 2m deep channel. The stream bed was approximately. 0.5 m wide and water was 5cm deep, with earth banks vegetated with scrub and broad-leaved trees included a mature ash that has several rot holes with potential bat roosting habitat.

To south of pond, a strip of broad-leaved woodland plantation was present with mature ash, field maple and oak trees over a ground layer comprising bramble, cherry and common nettle, forming small stand of woodland adjacent to chain link fence separating the area from school playing fields to south and east.

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 27

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Target Location Description Note

7 TF 91127 00466 Strip of broad-leaved woodland plantation adjacent to Hedge H7 on eastern site boundary. Canopy included sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, cherry, field maple with hawthorn and blackthorn forming a 3-4 m high dense thicket layer along the hedge boundary with rambling bramble and dog rose. Several dead elm were located within the woodland strip, presumably due to Dutch elm disease, with young regrowth present in the ground layer.

Table 2: Hedgerow Target Notes Target Dominant Description Note Species H1 Blackthorn Mature line of hedgerow and trees located between Field 1 and amenity with oak, grassland to west of site forming a wide habitat feature along the western site willow, boundary. At north west corner of Field 1, H1 included 4 mature oak trees as bramble and individuals with dead limbs and flaking bark considered to provide low- dog rose moderate potential for bat roosting habitat. To the north of the oak trees, H1 formed a boundary with residential properties and resembled a strip of woodland with oak and she trees over a shrub layer of overgrown hawthorn, elder Sambucus nigra and blackthorn. To the south of the oak trees, H1 continued along the western site boundary, with abundant mature trees including crack willow Salix fragilis, goat willow and oak above a layer of dense bramble, dog rose overgrown over the basal hedge line of blackthorn. At the southern end of the hedgerow, two mature oak trees had moderate bat potential with dead limbs and rot holes, with other trees of low potential. H2 Blackthorn, Mature line of hedgerow and trees along southern boundary of amenity bramble and grassland (TN1) and Field 1. dog rose, with Trees scattered along hedgerow, approx. 10m tall and including crack willow, oak, willow, cherry, sycamore apple Malus domesticus, oak. At the western end, the cherry, hedgerow is more or less defunct with frequent gaps and bramble and dog rose sycamore abundant over a sparse layer of blackthorn. and apple. At eastern end, trees not present, and hedgerow is entire. H3 Blackthorn, Line of mature hedgerow and trees between Field 1 and Field 2; species-poor bramble and 3 mature trees at northern end including mature oak, 10-12m tall and 80cm dog rose, diameter at breast height, with good bat potential – rot holes, broken limbs and hawthorn and ivy cover. Hedge at northern defunct over a 2m deep dry ditch with dominant hazel; oak bramble scrub and abundant blackthorn, common nettle, dogwood, dog rose and ash. and a mature goat willow. Basal vegetation ca. 5m wide on each side of ditch merging into grassland in each field. At southern end, blackthorn is dominant in hedgerow, with occasional field maple, hazel and dogwood. Near to boundary with H2, willow is locally dominant on either side of the ditch, with abundant hazel and hawthorn forming a tall leggy hedge ca. 5-8m high, managed on eastern side within last 6 months. H4 Dog rose, Mature line of hedgerow and trees with entire hedge and more or less hawthorn, continuous line of trees, managed under electricity transmission lines running blackthorn along hedge line – cut to height of ca. 5-6 m. and bramble Species-rich and approx. 5-6m high hedgerow + trees including oak, field maple, with oak, field hazel, willow and wych elm Ulmus glabra, over an understorey layer comprising maple, hazel, dog rose, hawthorn, blackthorn and bramble. willow, ash Dry ditch present along southern edge of hedge – ca. 2m deep and 4m wide. and elm At eastern end of H4 – in SE corner of Field 2, a small group of 3 semi-mature ash were present, approx. 10m high comprising numerous trunks and of no bat roost potential. H5 Hawthorn with Mature species-poor hedge along field boundary between Field 2 and Field 3, dog rose and dominated by tall hawthorn, ca. 4-5 m tall, managed (cut) on western side to bramble create truncated hedge line on that side. Dog rose and bramble locally

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 28

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Target Dominant Description Note Species abundant with bramble forming a dense ground layer in places. Trees absent. H6 Blackthorn, Mature line of dense hedgerow and trees along southern boundary of Field 3, elm, bramble forming boundary between field and housing development to the south. and dog rose; Mature ash and field maple in canopy layer over a hedge with mature ash and field blackthorn, elm, bramble and dog rose as dominant species and occasional maple. hazel and hawthorn. H7 Blackthorn, Mature hedgerow along eastern boundary of Field 3 and forming boundary hawthorn, between field and school ground to the east. field maple, Hedge comprised ca. 5m high dense blackthorn and hawthorn forming a thicket oak and layer of scrub along hedge line with occasional mature and semi-mature trees to sycamore. rear of hedge including field maple, oak and sycamore forming strip of plantation woodland described as TN7 above. Mature oak tree present about half way along H7 was ca. 1m in diameter, with dead ivy present around trunk. H8 Bramble, dog Short length of scrub vegetation comprising bramble and dog rose rambling rose, ash and over the line of a chain link fence, with occasional young trees – ash and field field maple. maple.

Table 3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Species List

Common name Scientific name Flora Annual meadow grass Poa annua Apple Malus domesticus Ash Fraxinus excelsior Blackthorn Prunus spinosa Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. Branched bur-reed Sparganium erectum Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius Bulrush Typha latifolia Cherry Prunus domesticus Cock’s foot Dactylis glomerata Common bent Agrostis capillaris Common dogwood Cornus sanguinea Common hogweed Heracleum sphondylium Common nettle Urtica dioica Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris Crack willow Salix fragilis Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense Daisy Bellis perennis Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Dog rose Rosa canina Elder Sambucus nigra English elm Ulmus procera False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius Field maple Acer campestre Goat willow Salix caprea

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 29

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Common name Scientific name Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna Hazel Corylus avellana Ivy Hedera helix Pedunculate oak Quercus robur Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne Prickly sowthistle Sonchus asper Ragwort Senecio jacobaea Red clover Trifolium pratense Red fescue Festuca rubra Reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata Rosebay willowherb Chamerion angustifolium Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus Wych elm Ulmus glabra Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus

Appendix C. Policy CP10 of Breckland Council Core Strategy

April 2015 │ Tesni Properties Ltd │ 20604-02 R3 Rev2 30

Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

3.3.1 Natural Environment

Policy CP 10

Natural Environment

Enhancement of Biodiversity and Geodiversity

Through the promotion of positive action and the development control process, the enhancement of biodiversity and geodiversity in the district will be sought. There is an expectation that development will incorporate biodiversity or geological features where opportunities exist. Development that fails to exploit opportunities to incorporate available biodiversity or geological features will not be considered appropriate.

Ecological Network

Open spaces and areas of biodiversity interest will be protected from harm. The restoration, enhancement, expansion and linking of these areas to create ecological networks will be encouraged by:

Minimising the fragmentation of habitats, creation of new habitats and connection of existing areas to create an ecological network as identified in the Norfolk and Breckland District Ecological Network Mapping Report. Appropriate management of valuable areas, such as County Wildlife Sites (CWSs); The designation of Local Nature Reserves and CWSs; Creating green networks to link urban areas to the countryside; and Maximising opportunities for creation of new green infrastructure and networks in sites allocated for development.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Development that may affect an SSSI that is not also subject to an international designation will be subject to the follow requirements:

Development that may have an adverse impact upon an SSSI, either directly or indirectly, will need to be accompanied by a suitable environmental assessment which identifies the impact of the development on the SSSI and potential mitigation measures that may be incorporated to assuage any impact. Only in exceptional circumstances will development be permitted if it is shown to have a detrimental effect on a SSSI. For the purposes of this requirement exceptional circumstances will be only where the benefits are of national or regional importance and clearly outweigh the need for the protection of the site.

Regional and Local Sites

A full environmental appraisal will be required for development that may have a direct or indirect impact upon any site of regional or local biodiversity, or geological interest identified on the Proposals Map. These will include: County Wildlife Sites (CWS), Ancient Woodland, Local Nature Reserves, Habitats identified in the UK and Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan and local sites of geodiversity. Only in exceptional circumstances will development be permitted that would have an adverse effect upon a site of regional or local biodiversity or geological interest. When considering exceptional circumstances regard will be had to:

The regional and local importance of the site in terms of its contribution to biodiversity, scientific and educational interest, geodiversity, visual amenity and recreational value. The benefit that will be provided by the development in relation to the public interest.

56 Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

Protection of Species

The Council will require that an appropriate assessment is undertaken of all proposals for development that are likely to have a significant effect on the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) and will only permit development that will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA. In applying this policy the Council has defined a buffer zone (indicated orange on the Proposals Map) that extends 1,500m from the edge of those parts of the SPA that support or are capable of supporting stone curlews, within which:-

a. Permission may be granted for the re-use of existing buildings and for development which will be completely masked from the SPA by existing development; alternatively b. Permission may be granted for development provided it is demonstrated by an appropriate assessment the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA.

In other locations, indicated in blue on the Proposals Map, the Council will apply the policy set out above to afford protection to other land supporting the qualifying features of the SPA.

Where it can be shown that proposals to mitigate the effects of development would avoid or overcome an adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA or qualifying features, planning permission may be granted provided the Local Planning Authority is satisfied those proposals will be implemented.

The Council will consider the need for an appropriate assessment to determine the implications of development on other interest features of the SPA (i.e. Nightjar and Woodlark) on a case by case basis.

Where development is likely to have an impact upon a species that is not protected by other legislation, and in particular where that species is identified in the Norfolk and UK Biodiversity Action Plan, there will be an expectation that the development proposal will be accompanied by an impact study commensurate with the scale of the impact and the importance of the species.

Wherever a proposed development may have a detrimental impact upon a designated site or protected species, conditions and/or planning obligations will be used to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are utilised, where appropriate.

Reasoned Justification

3.69 From the Brecks to the Norfolk Valley Fens, Breckland has a diverse landscape, significant areas of which have particular conservation or environmental interest. The range and quality of these sites is crucial not only for wildlife, the environment, as an educational resource and more widely the biodiversity of the District as a whole, but are also beneficial to the overall quality of life in Breckland and the development of the area as an attractive place to live and work. As such, these areas are key components of the aspiration of achieving successful and sustainable development in Breckland.

3.70 There are a number of habitats within Breckland that cannot be recreated easily, if at all, and which are high priorities for action in terms of restoration of existing sites or buffering from external impacts or linking habitats.

3.71 The key ecological characteristics of the District can be summarised as;

The Brecks, comprising an extensive area of largely conifer plantation and arable farmland but with extensive areas of heathland within the forest and arable landscape. Other habitats within the Brecks include fen, grazing marsh and naturally fluctuating water bodies (meres and pingos). A significant proportion of the Brecks, including arable farmland, is designated as European protected sites, forming

57 Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

the largest terrestrial protected area in Norfolk. These are designated for their suitability to support internationally important bird species, particularly Stone Curlews, Woodlark and Nightjar.

A number of river valleys, including the Wensum, Waveney, Yare/Blackwater, Nar, Whitewater, Tud, Wissey, Little Ouse and Thet. These have extensive areas of wetland habitats, comprised mainly of grazing marsh with areas of fen and reedbed; many of the rivers are recognised as chalk streams. Some of these habitats are European protected sites.

Relatively extensive areas of woodland and shelterbelts, often associated with large estates. There are also a number of ancient woodlands and individual Veteran Trees scattered through the District.

Arable landscape features, comprising Scots pine shelterbelts, hedgerows, mature trees, copses, ponds and field margins. These features are key components of the ecological network at a local scale; collectively, they amount to a significant biodiversity resource.

The urban area of Thetford and other market towns, such as Attleborough and Swaffham.

It is important to recognise that the Brecks and other habitats cross the County boundaries and that the ecological network should be consistent across this.

3.72 Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites are protected by International conventions or European Directives and these areas are identified on the Proposals Map. In order to ensure that there are no significant effects on European habitats and species new development will only be permitted within 1,500m of SPAs that are suitable for stone curlew if it can be demonstrated, through an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations, that there will be no adverse impact on the qualifying features. Beyond the SPA boundary, on other land suitable for stone curlew or where they are present, a 1,500m development restriction buffer will also operate. These are areas where there have been five nesting attempts or more since 1995 or where other conditions are suitable, such as soil type. These areas are identified in blue on the Proposals Map. In these areas development may also be acceptable providing alternative land outside the SPA can be secured to mitigate any potential effects.

58 Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

Map 3.1 1500m Buffers around Special Protection Areas with Stone Curlews

3.73 In respect of Woodlark and Nightjar in the Breckland Forest SSSI component of the Breckland SPA the authority will take a precautionary approach to development within and in close proximity to their suitable habitat. Development proposals within 400 metres of Breckland Forest SSSI will be required to submit a scoping opinion to the Local Planning Authority as to whether the proposal will be subject to Appropriate Assessment.

3.74 Other habitats and species do not enjoy the benefit of legislative protection. In reflection of this lack of external protection and in recognition of their contribution to Breckland, the nationally, regionally or locally important areas of conservation or environmental interest which are not otherwise protected will be

59 Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

comprehensively protected through the planning process. To achieve this, allocations for development in subsequent DPDs will avoid the designated areas identified in the above policy. Designated sites in the above policy will also be protected through the development control process.

3.75 Much of Norfolk has suffered a dramatic reduction in biodiversity. A significant cause of this has been the rise of intensive agriculture over the past 60 years alongside the development of housing and infrastructure. Once extensive areas of habitats now comprise small remnants isolated from each other. With so much of the region’s wildlife fragmented in small and isolated habitats, there are significant consequences for its long-term survival. One approach to safeguarding wildlife in the long term is that of the Ecological Network – comprising of:

Core areas – clusters of high value wildlife sites Buffer areas – surrounding the core areas to reduce the adverse impacts from adjacent land-uses Enhancement areas – focus on habitat creation Corridors and stepping stones – promote connectivity between sites and through wider landscape

3.76 The planning process, through allocations in subsequent DPDs and development control offers the opportunity to integrate the concept of an Ecological Network into local planning and seek to conserve, restore and re-establish habitats and create linking corridors. The following map at figure 3.3 shows the Ecological Network in Breckland and the surrounding Districts.

60 Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

Figure 3.3 Breckland District Ecological Network Summary Map

61 Adopted Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document

3.77 New development also provides the opportunity to improve and enhance the biodiversity of the area, either by incorporating areas of biodiversity value into new development or by creating new areas as part of the design process. Failure to enhance these opportunities will significantly diminish the potential for the district to be enhanced as it develops.

3.78 The Breckland Environment Strategy commits Breckland to promote good ecological and sensitive management practice on Council owned and private land to ensure that the integrity of the valuable areas that make up the Ecological Network is maintained.

3.79 In addition to Breckland's ecological assets, Breckland contains some unique geodiversity. There are a number of SSSIs designated for geological interest and one Regionally Important Geological Site at Newton - by Castle Acre Chalk Pit. Geodiversity can be lost through landfill, new development and aggregates extraction. However development can also provide the opportunity to improve and enhance the geodiversity of the area by retaining small sections as part of the design process and/or by rescue sediment logging.

62 Watton

m 0 A 4

A A Figure 1 50m Phase 1 Survey Results 6 5 A A A Key

A H8 Site boundary H3

H1 Survey ￿￿ Target Note D Scrub - scattered ! Broadleaved Parkland/scattered trees 2 3 Intact hedge - species-poor

1 4 H7 7 A VI VI VI VI Hedge with trees - native species-rich SI | | | | | H5 SI Hedge with trees - species-poor | | | | | Fence SI Broadleaved woodland - semi-natural Broadleaved woodland - plantation H2 Scrub - dense/continuous H6 Other tall herb and fern - ruderal I Improved grassland SI Poor semi-improved grassland Standing water A Cultivated/disturbed land - arable H4 Cultivated/disturbed land - amenity A grassland Buildings I A Track

A

0 40 80 160

Metres

Scale @ A3: ± 1:2,500

© Crown copyright 2014. All rights reserved. Ordnance survey licence number 100048146.

19/12/2014 20604/HB/001a Drawn by: AA Checked by: JM Approved by: JH 590000

Watton

A A A

A A A

A Figure 2 Phase 1 Survey Results A SI SI and Breckland SPA SI Key

Site boundary Survey

A Broadleaved woodland - semi-natural Broadleaved woodland - plantation A Scrub - dense/continuous Other tall herb and fern - ruderal I Improved grassland 40m I SI Poor semi-improved grassland Standing water A Cultivated/disturbed land - arable

40m Cultivated/disturbed land - amenity A grassland

300000 Buildings Track Breckland SPA 1500m buffer

50m

50m

050 100 200

Metres

Scale @ A3: ± 1:6,000

© Crown copyright 2014. All rights reserved. Ordnance survey licence number 100048146.

19/12/2014 20604/HB/002a Drawn by: AA Checked by: JM Approved by: JH