Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham (1004583-05)
Ecological Appraisal
June 2020
June 2020 0 | Page Quality Management Client: Barratt Southern Counties Project: Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Report Title: Ecological Appraisal Project Number: 1004583-05 File Reference: 4583-05 EcoAp vf SB/CL Date: 16/06/2020
Copyright The copyright of this document remains with Aspect Ecology. All rights reserved. The contents of this document therefore must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of Aspect Ecology.
Confidentiality This report may contain sensitive information relating to protected species. All records of Badger setts must remain confidential. Where this report is circulated publicly or uploaded to online planning portals, reference to Badger setts must be redacted and any maps pertaining to the locations of Badger setts removed from the document.
Legal Guidance The information set out within this report in no way constitutes a legal opinion on the relevant legislation (refer to the relevant Appendix for the main provisions of the legislation). The opinion of a legal professional should be sought if further advice is required.
Liability This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Aspect Ecology no other party may use, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Aspect Ecology for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the advice in this report. The content of this report is partly based on information provided by third parties; Aspect accepts no liability for any reliance placed on such information. This report is subject to the restrictions and limitations referenced in Aspect Ecology’s standard Terms of Business
Contact Details Aspect Ecology Ltd Hardwick Business Park I Noral Way I Banbury I Oxfordshire OX16 2AF t 01295 279721 e [email protected] w www.aspect-ecology.com
Contents
Text:
Executive Summary ...... 1
1 Introduction ...... 2
2 Methodology ...... 3
3 Ecological Designations...... 8
4 Habitats and Ecological Features ...... 12
5 Faunal Use of The Site ...... 20
6 Mitigation Measures and Ecological Enhancements ...... 33
7 Conclusions ...... 40
Plans:
Plan 4583-05/ECO1 Site Location
Plan 4583-05/ECO2 Ecological Designations
Plan 4583-05/ECO3 Habitats and Ecological Features
Appendices:
Appendix 4583-05/1 Proposed Context Landscape Masterplan Aspect Landscape Planning Drawing Ref : 7041/ASP4/CLM
Appendix 4583-05/2 Desktop Study Data
Appendix 4583-05/3 Evaluation Methodology
Appendix 4583-05/4 Consideration to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment
Appendix 4583-05/5 Legislation
Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Executive Summary i) Introduction. Aspect Ecology has been commissioned by Barratt Southern Counties to undertake an ecological appraisal in respect of proposed development of land at Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham. ii) Proposals. The proposals are for the erection of 165 new dwellings and associated landscaping, parking and open space, including provision of an area of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace. iii) Survey. The site was initially surveyed by Aspect Ecology in April 2016 and August 2018, with further survey work undertaken in April 2020 in order to update the position and further inform the current proposals. Surveys were based on standard extended Phase 1 methodology. In addition, a general appraisal of faunal species was undertaken to record the potential presence of any protected, rare or notable species. The results of these surveys were also assessed in the context of the site surroundings, and supplemented, by data from the abutting Northern Distributor Road project (2018 (WSP) and 2019 (Stantec)) and the Ashridge Farm Barns application (2017). iv) Ecological Designations. The site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory ecological designations. The nearest statutory designation is Holt Copse and Joel Park Local Nature Reserve, located approximately 0.6 km south-west of the site. The nearest non-statutory designation is Cantley Park Local Wildlife Site, located <0.1km south-west of the site at its closest point. v) Habitats. The site largely comprises improved farmland pasture bounded by hedgerows, with mature and semi-mature trees. A number of buildings and associated areas of hardstanding are present within the south west of the site, and a small water course runs through the eastern part of the site. The buildings, hardstanding and improved grassland are considered to be of negligible ecological value. The hedgerows represent Priority Habitats and are of moderate ecological value. The mature trees are also of moderate ecological value. Wherever possible these features (in particular mature trees) will be retained under the proposals, whilst new planting will more than compensate for any loss of hedgerows. vi) Protected Species. The habitats within the site provide potential opportunities for a number of protected and common faunal species, including Badger, bats, birds, amphibians and reptiles, with in particular the presence of bat species noted during survey work undertaken in relation to the adjacent NDR scheme. Accordingly, proportionate and appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed in order to safeguard the local conservation status of faunal populations under the proposals. vii) Enhancements. The proposals present the opportunity to secure net gains in biodiversity, including through measures such as additional native tree planting and more diverse habitats within the northern land, along with new roosting opportunities for bats, and enhanced nesting habitats for birds through new landscape planting and provision of nest boxes. viii) Summary. In summary, the proposals have sought to minimise impacts on biodiversity and subject to the implementation of appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, it is considered unlikely that the proposals will result in significant harm.
June 2020 1 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
1 Introduction
1.1 Background & Proposals
1.1.1 Aspect Ecology has been commissioned by Barratt Southern Counties to undertake an ecological appraisal in respect of proposed development of land at Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham.
1.1.2 The proposals are for development of the site including the erection of 165 dwellings in a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings with associated landscaping, parking, open space, construction of a new access to Warren House Road and the Northern Distributor Road (when constructed), and provision of an area of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), as identified at Appendix 4583-05/1.
1.2 Site Overview
1.2.1 The site is located in east Berkshire on the northern edge of Wokingham and comprises two separate land parcels, divided by the route of the permitted Wokingham Northern Distributor Road (NDR), which together form the application boundary (see Plan 4583-05/ECO1). Construction works associated with the permitted NDR have not yet commenced, such that the habitats therein remain largely continuous, and consistent with the site itself.
1.2.2 The site is bounded to the west by Bell Foundry Lane, an existing sewage treatment works and existing SANG land associated with offsite residential development, and to the east by new residential development (Kentwood Farm), which remains under construction, along with associated SANG provision. The southern site boundary lies adjacent to a number of agricultural buildings within Ashridge Farm, along with Warren House Road, with existing residential development within Wokingham situated beyond. North of the site is the A329(M) motorway and associated embankments.
1.2.3 The two land parcels making up the site (along with the NDR land between, together forming the application boundary) are dominated by agriculturally improved grassland fields, with associated boundary hedgerows and trees. A small watercourse (the Ashridge Stream) flows from south to north through the east of the site (which is understood to be permitted for re-routing within the east of the site under the NDR scheme). Other habitats include a number of buildings, areas of hardstanding and an existing residential garden within the south west of the site.
1.3 Purpose of the Report
1.3.1 This report documents the methods and findings of the baseline ecology surveys and desktop study carried out in order to establish the existing ecological interest of the site, and subsequently provides an appraisal of the likely ecological effects of the proposals. The importance of the habitats and species present is evaluated. Where necessary, avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures are recommended so as to safeguard any significant existing ecological interest within the site and where appropriate, opportunities for ecological enhancement are proposed with reference to national conservation priorities and the local Wokingham Borough Biodiversity Action Plan 2012-2024.
June 2020 2 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
2 Methodology
2.1 Desktop Study
2.1.1 In order to compile background information on the site and its immediate surroundings, the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC) was most recently contacted in May 2020, with data requested on the basis of a search radius of 2 km.
2.1.2 Information received from TVERC is discussed in the text and reproduced on Plan 4583-05/ECO2, where appropriate.
2.1.3 Information on statutory designations was obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database, which utilises data provided by Natural England, with an extended search radius (25 km). This information is reproduced where appropriate at Appendix 4583-05/2 and on Plan 4583-05/ECO2.
2.1.4 The Woodland Trust database was searched for any records of ancient, veteran or notable trees within or adjacent to the site.
2.1.5 In addition to the information received from TVERC, data from neighbouring projects whose survey areas overlapped with the site were used in this assessment. Primary data were collected as part of applications for Ashridge Farm Barns (2017) and the Northern Distributor Road (2018 and 2019 – Planning Application ref: 191010), particularly in relation to bats.
2.2 Habitat Survey
2.2.1 The site has previously been surveyed by Aspect Ecology in April 2016 and August 2018, with further survey work undertaken across the entirety of the site in April 2020 to update findings and inform the current proposals.
2.2.2 The site was surveyed based on standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology1, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which require further survey. Any such areas identified can then be examined in more detail through Phase 2 surveys. This method was extended, in line with the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal2 to record details on the actual or potential presence of any notable or protected species or habitats.
2.2.3 Using the above method, the site was classified into areas of similar botanical community types, with a representative species list compiled for each habitat identified. The nomenclature used for plant species is based on the Botanical Society for the British Isles (BSBI) Checklist.
2.3 Faunal Surveys
2.3.1 General faunal activity, such as mammals or birds observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys was recorded. Specific attention was also paid to the
1 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010) ‘Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A technique for environmental audit.’ 2 Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (2013) ‘Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.’
June 2020 3 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
potential presence of any protected, rare or notable species, and specific consideration was given to bats, Badger, and Water Vole as described below.
Bats3
Visual Inspection Surveys
2.3.2 Buildings. Buildings within the site were subject to external assessment of their bat roost potential. During the inspections, particular attention was given to any potential roost features or access points, such as broken or lifted roof tiles, lifted lead flashing, soffit boxes, weatherboarding, hanging tiles, etc. and for any external signs of use by bats such as accumulations of bat droppings or staining. Binoculars were used to inspect any inaccessible areas more closely where appropriate.
2.3.3 Trees. Trees were assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats based on the presence of features such as holes, cracks, splits or loose bark. Suitability for roosting bats was rated based on relevant guidance as:
• Negligible; • Low; • Moderate; or • High.
2.3.4 Any potential roost features identified were also inspected for any signs indicating possible use by bats, e.g. staining, scratch marks, bat droppings, etc.
Badger (Meles meles)4
2.3.5 Detailed Badger surveys were carried out in April 2016, August 2018 and May 2020. The survey comprised two main elements. The first element involved searching for evidence of Badger setts. For any setts that were encountered, each sett entrance was noted and mapped.
2.3.6 The second element involved searching for signs of Badger activity such as well-worn paths and push-throughs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs, so as to build up a picture of any use of the site by Badger.
Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius)5
2.3.7 The watercourse within the site was searched for signs of Water Vole in August 2018 and again during May 2020. Such signs include latrines, tunnels, lawns (small areas of vegetation grazed by Water Vole) and footprints. The banks of the watercourse were examined thoroughly from both sides (where accessible) and from the watercourse itself where scrub and water depth allowed.
3 Surveys based on: English Nature (2004) ‘Bat Mitigation Guidelines’ and Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) ‘Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn).’ Bat Conservation Trust 4 Based on: Mammal Society (1989) ‘Occasional Publication No. 9 – Surveying ’ 5 Surveys based on: Dean, M., Strachan, R., Gow, D. and Andrews, R. (2016) ‘Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series). Eds Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin. The Mammal Society, London.
June 2020 4 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
2.4 Survey Constraints/Limitations
2.4.1 All of the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent during different seasons. The Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken within the optimal seasonal period for such survey work. Accordingly, the survey is considered to allow a robust assessment to be made of the habitat types present and the intrinsic ecological interest of the study area.
2.4.2 The watercourses present within the site were unmanaged at the time of the 2018 update survey and were heavily choked with dense vegetation such as Bramble. As such, large parts of the watercourse channel were inaccessible at the time of the Water Vole survey, albeit much of the Bramble and associated vegetation was recorded to have been removed by the time of the 2020 survey as part of the regular clearance/management of the watercourse channel (including for flood drainage purposes). Nevertheless, the watercourses were subject to a thorough inspection from the bank and the channel was accessed where possible. Areas where survey of the banks was restricted by dense Bramble growth were also areas considered to be of lowest suitability for supporting Water Vole, due to dense shading from scrub growth and a lack of grassy vegetation. Therefore, it is concluded that the Water Vole survey provides a robust assessment of presence/likely absence within the survey area.
2.4.3 Attention was paid to the presence of any invasive species listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However, the detectability of such species varies due to a number of factors, e.g. time of year, site management, etc., and hence the absence of invasive species should not be assumed even if no such species were detected during the Phase 1 survey.
2.5 Ecological Evaluation Methodology
2.5.1 The evaluation of ecological features and resources is based on professional judgement whilst also drawing on the latest available industry guidance and research. The approach taken in this report is based on that described by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2018)7, which involves identifying ‘important ecological features’ within a defined geographical context (i.e. international, national, regional, county, district, local or site importance). For further details refer to Appendix 4583-05/3.
2.6 National Policy Approach to Biodiversity in the Planning System
2.6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)8 describes the Government’s national policies on ‘conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ (Chapter 15). NPPF is accompanied by Planning Practice Guidance on ‘Biodiversity, ecosystems and green infrastructure’ and ODPM Circular 06/20059.
2.6.2 NPPF takes forward the Government’s strategic objective to halt overall biodiversity loss10, as set out at Paragraph 170, which states that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
7 CIEEM (2018) ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine’, ver. 1.1, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester 8 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (2019) ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ 9 ODPM (2006) ‘Circular 06/2005: Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – A Guide to Good Practice’ 10 DEFRA (2011) ‘Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services’
June 2020 5 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
‘minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’
2.6.3 The approach to dealing with biodiversity in the context of planning applications is set out at Paragraph 175:
‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported; while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.
2.6.4 The above approach encapsulates the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ described in British Standard BS 42020:201311, which involves the following step-wise process:
• Avoidance – avoiding adverse effects through good design; • Mitigation – where it is unavoidable, mitigation measures should be employed to minimise adverse effects; • Compensation – where residual effects remain after mitigation it may be necessary to provide compensation to offset any harm; and • Enhancement – planning decisions often present the opportunity to deliver benefits for biodiversity, which can also be explored alongside the above measures to resolve potential adverse effects.
2.6.5 The measures for avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement should be proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to biodiversity and to the nature and scale of the proposed development (BS 42020:2013, section 5.5).
11 British Standards Institution (2013) ‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’, BS 42020:2013
June 2020 6 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
2.7 Local Policy
2.7.1 An updated Local Plan is currently being produced for Wokingham Borough Council. The two existing planning policy documents that contain planning policies relevant to the area are the Core Strategy for Wokingham Borough Local Development framework (Adopted January 2010), hereafter referred to as the Core Strategy (2010), and the Managing Development Delivery (MDD) Local Plan (adopted 2014). A number of Neighbourhood Plans have been produced under the Localism Act (2011); however, no neighbourhood plan currently exists for the area containing the site.
2.7.2 Core Strategy Policy 1 (CP1) of the Core Strategy (2010) relates to sustainable development and highlights the importance of demonstrating a maintenance or enhancement of the high quality of the environment in development proposals. CP7 of the Core Strategy (2010) relates to biodiversity and states that developments which impact habitats or species of principal importance or veteran trees or wildlife corridors will only be permitted if impacts are mitigated to prevent damaging impacts and appropriate compensation measures are provided to offset losses. Additionally, the site falls within an area of Wokingham contained within the ‘North Wokingham Strategic Development Location’ (CP20), but is not an allocated site. This area is designated for the sustainable and well-designed mixed use development of 1,500 dwellings by 2026 and accompanying Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) to off-set the impact of this development on nearby internationally designated sites.
2.7.3 In February 2013 the South East Plan was formally abolished except for Policy NRM6 which relates to new residential development close to the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (SPA). This policy remains in place as part of the Wokingham Borough development plan. It informs policy CP8 (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) and is referenced in Policy TB23 of the MDD.
2.7.4 Policy TB23 of the MDD states that planning permissions will only be granted where proposals comply with Core Strategy Policy CP7. Further, the policy explicates the requirement for development proposals to demonstrate a number of factors with regards to biodiversity including:
• Buffering between development and features of elevated importance for nature conservation; • Providing opportunities to incorporate new biodiversity and enhance existing biodiversity (delivering an overall gain for biodiversity); and • Ensuring new developments are ecologically permeable through the protection and provision of well-linked wildlife corridors.
June 2020 7 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
3 Ecological Designations
3.1 Statutory Designations
Description
3.1.1 The statutory designations of ecological importance that occur within the local area around the site are shown on Plan 4583-05/ECO2.
3.1.2 International Designations. The nearest international statutory designation of ecological importance is Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), the closest component of which (Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heaths Site of Special Scientific Interest) is located approximately 5.5 km south-east of the site. The SPA is a composite site comprising a series of varied open heathland habitats, mire, scrub and woodland (the SPA is made up of 13 component Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)). It is designated because it supports important breeding populations of three Annex I species of the European Council Directive 79/406/EEC on the conservation of Wild Birds: Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, Woodlark Lullula arborea, and Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata.
3.1.3 Other Statutory Designations. The nearest statutory designation to the site is Holt Copse and Joel Park Nature Reserve (LNR), which is located approximately 0.6 km south-west of the site. The LNR comprises lowland mixed deciduous woodland, ancient seminatural woodland and footpaths, and is also known to contain a large Noctule Nyctalus noctule roost. The next nearest statutory designation is Farley Copse LNR, which is an area of ancient woodland located approximately 3 km east of the site.
3.1.4 Natural England has developed Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) as an initial tool to help assess the risk of developments adversely affecting SSSIs, taking into account the type and scale of developments. The site sits within an IRZ of relevance to any new residential development of 50 units or more (apparently relating to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and associated component designations, in line with the above considerations).
Evaluation
3.1.1 Thames Basin Heaths SPA. The site is located within the 5-7km zone distance of the SPA, within which proposed residential development of 50 units or more require specific consideration and mitigation measures. The Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework (TBH Joint Strategic Partnership Board, 2009) has been developed to set out a consistent approach to mitigation in relation to the SPA, whilst specific guidance for the Wokingham Borough is set out within the Core Strategy Document, Core Policy CP8 which applies to all planning applications submitted after April 2013.
3.1.2 In order to ensure appropriate mitigation is provided in relation to the proposed residential development, the proposals include the creation of 3.2ha bespoke SANG within the northern part of the site (see Appendix 4583-05/1). The area of 3.2ha represents a ratio of over 8ha per 1,000 new residents (based on the proposed 165 dwellings and standard reference figure of 2.4 residents per dwelling) in line with standard accepted guidance and requirements for SANG provision relating to new residential developments within the zone of influence associated with Thames Basin Heaths SPA.
June 2020 8 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
3.1.3 Initial discussions with WBC officers in relation to SANG design have highlighted the desire to ensure any new SANG be designed to link the existing adjacent Bell Farm Plantation (west of the site) and Kentwood Meadows (east of the site) to form a single, functionally connected SANG rather than a stand-alone separate SANG provision associated with the residential scheme within the site. The proposed SANG has been designed and located following Natural England’s quality standards, including during initial discussions with WBC officers, in particular offering the opportunity to connect with and extend the existing Kentwood Meadows (east of the site) and Bell Farm Plantation (west of the site) SANGs, to form a single much larger functional SANG that can be managed appropriately in the long term. Connection with the adjacent existing SANGs also allows for a variety of circular routes available to new residents including in accordance with standard guidance associated with available route length within SANGs.
3.1.4 Following the provision of mitigation through the creation of a bespoke SANG, in line with the standard, accepted approach within the Borough, it is considered that the proposals would not result in any adverse effects on the integrity of Thames Basin Heaths SPA, either alone or in combination with any other plans or projects.
3.1.5 Given the proximity of the site to the above European Designation, in considering any planning application in relation to the proposals, it will be necessary for the Local Planning Authority (as ‘competent authority’) to undertake a formal Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. On this basis, Appendix 4583-05/4 provides further specific detail/consideration to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA – including ‘Appropriate Assessment’ stage as appropriate) in relation to the proposed development.
3.1.6 Other Statutory Designations. The site itself is not subject to any statutory nature conservation designations. All statutory designations in the surrounding area (such as Holt Copse and Joel Park Nature Reserve LNR) are separated from the site by existing development.
3.1.7 Given the nature and scale of the proposals (and particularly including the provision of SANG in line with the above consideration in relation to international designations), it is therefore considered that other statutory designations will not be significantly adversely affected by the proposed development.
3.2 Non-statutory Designations
Description
3.2.1 The non-statutory designations of nature conservation interest that occur within the local area around the site are shown on Plan 4583-05/ECO2. The nearest non-statutory designation to the site is Cantley Park Local Wildlife Site (LWS). The LWS is separated from the site by Bell Foundry Lane, albeit is less than 0.1 km from the site boundary, including areas of the site proposed for residential development. The LWS is a large area of well-used public open space, which was historically an area of parkland for a family estate. The designation is predominantly composed of semi-improved grassland, with a large number of Veteran trees scattered throughout.
3.2.2 The next nearest non-statutory nature conservation designations to the site are Holt Copse LWS and Pebblestone Copse LWS. The former is contained within Holt Copse
June 2020 9 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
and Joel Park LNR, approximately 0.8 km south-west of the site. The latter is located approximately 0.8 km east of the site (and separated from it by the A329). Pebblestone Copse LWS is designated on the basis of the UK Priority Habitats Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland and Wet Woodland, and contains a number of mature coppiced Alders Alnus glutinosa, shallow peaty ponds, and locally dense Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta ground flora.
Evaluation
3.2.3 The site itself is not subject to any non-statutory nature conservation designations. With the exception of Cantley Park LWS, all non-statutory designations in the surrounding area are well separated from the site by existing development.
3.2.4 Cantley Park is separated from the development by Bell Foundry Lane and, as such, the proposals will not result in any direct land-take from within the LWS. Despite being situated in close proximity to the proposed development, the existing (high) levels of public use of the LWS, combined with the provision of SANG in line with the above consideration in relation to international designations (which will similarly likely draw new residents away from the LWS and therefore avoid additional recreational pressures on the LWS), is such that the resultant increase in the population on the development site is unlikely to significantly affect the LWS.
3.2.5 Overall, given the nature and scale of the proposals, and subject to the measures set out, it is considered that the identified non-statutory ecological designations within the vicinity of the site will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposals.
3.3 Priority Habitats, Ancient Woodland and Notable Trees
Description
3.3.1 Priority Habitats. No records of any identified Priority Habitats within or immediately adjacent to the site are identified on the MAGIC database.
3.3.2 An area of ‘Deciduous Woodland’ (Priority Habitat) is identified approximately 0.4 km west the site, albeit this is well separated from the site including by existing roads, a recreation ground and a hotel, such that it is unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed development.
3.3.3 Ancient Woodland. No identified areas of Ancient Woodland are mapped within or adjacent to the site boundary. The nearest area of ancient woodland identified to the site is Himbles Coppice Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland, which is located approximately 250m north of the site, and 650m north of the proposed residential development within the site (beyond the A329(M). All other identified Ancient Woodland is similarly separated from the site, including by existing development.
3.3.4 Notable Trees. The Ancient Tree Inventory identifies a number of veteran and notable trees within the site and adjacent areas (including the adjacent NDR scheme boundary), of which 3 veteran 8 notable trees appear to be mapped within or along the site boundaries, whilst a further 2 veteran and 13 notable trees are mapped within offsite locations adjacent to the site (including within the NDR scheme boundary). There are also numerous other veteran and notable trees mapped within the surrounding area (e.g. within Cantley Park LWS).
June 2020 10 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Evaluation
3.3.5 A number of the trees present within the site and adjacent areas are identified as notable and/or veteran within the information available in the Woodland Trust website, whilst the presence of notable and veteran trees has been confirmed during the current surveys (as set out below) and specific arboricultural survey and assessment work (ref: Simon Jones Associates) in relation to the current proposals. The proposals have been specifically designed to facilitate the retention of identified veteran and notable trees and associated root protection zones within the open space areas at the site, whilst specific measures are proposed (including the provision of suitable protective fencing, as set out below at Chapter 6. and within the arboricutural information prepared to inform the proposals by Simon Jones Associates), in order to safeguard these habitats during the construction phase of development, following which these trees will remain unaffected under the proposals (indeed the position will likely be improved in regard to veteran trees T6 and T14, for which existing hardstanding areas within the relevant root zones will be replaced with soft landscaping (under suitable methodologies).
3.4 Summary
3.4.1 In summary, the site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory ecological designations and it is considered unlikely that any such designations in the surrounding area will be significantly affected by the proposals. Further, subject to the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and safeguards (see below in regard to individual habitats and features), it is unlikely that the proposals will adversely affect any Priority Habitats, notable or veteran trees or ancient woodland within the site itself or surrounding area.
June 2020 11 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
4 Habitats and Ecological Features
4.1 Background Records
4.1.1 Information returned from TVERC does not include any specific records of protected, rare or notable plant species from within or immediately adjacent to the site. A number of records of notable species were returned from TVERC, including Ragged- robin Silene flos-cuculi, Grey-leaved Whitebeam Sorbus porrigentiformis, Rock Whitebeam Sorbus rupicola, Wild Service-tree Sorbus torminalis, Bluebell, Grape- hyacinth Muscari neglectum and Butcher’s-broom Ruscus aculeatus, dating between 1981 and 2015, none of which were recorded within or adjacent to the site. No evidence for the presence of any of these species within the site was recorded during the survey work undertaken.
4.2 Overview
4.2.1 The habitats and ecological features present within the site are described below and evaluated in terms of intrinsic ecological value, such as in relation to the presence of rare plant communities or individual plant species of elevated interest. The likely effects of the proposals on the habitats and ecological features are then assessed. The value of habitats for the fauna they may support is considered separately in section 5 below.
4.2.2 The following habitats/ecological features were identified within/adjacent to the site:
• Buildings and Hardstanding; • Improved Grassland; • Hedgerows; • Watercourse; • Trees; and • Invasive Species.
4.2.3 The locations of these habitat types and features are illustrated on Plan 4583-05/ECO3 and described in detail below.
4.3 Priority Habitats
4.3.1 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places duties on public bodies to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in the exercise of their normal functions. In particular, Section 41 of the NERC Act require the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats which are of principal importance for conservation in England. This list is largely derived from the ‘Priority Habitats’ listed under the former UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), which continue to be regarded as priority habitats under the subsequent country-level biodiversity strategies.
4.3.2 Of the habitats within the site, hedgerows are considered to qualify as UK Priority Habitats. No other habitats within the site qualify as Priority Habitats.
June 2020 12 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
4.4 Buildings and Hardstanding
Description
4.4.1 A number of buildings are present within the south western part of the site, identified on Plan 4583-05/ECO3. A brief summary description of each building is included at Table 4.1., below.
Table 4.1. Hedgerow descriptions (no. of woody species in brackets).
Building Reference (see Plan 4583- Description 05/ECO3)
Wooden-framed stable-structure with pitched roof of corrugated metal. Upper facades B8 (above 1.5m) of corrugated metal to the north, south and west and blockwork lower walls. Open to the east with wooden stable doors below. B9 Dilapidated/collapsed former structure within Bramble/hedgerow vegetation. Corrugated asbestos tunnel structure with open glazing at the northern end. Disused B17 and somewhat overgrown with Bramble. B18 Small wooden structure set on raised pillars, with a hipped, tiled roof. Small wooden stable-building with single-ply wooden facades and a pitched roof of B20 corrugated bitumastic/fibre sheeting with skylight sections present. B21 Portacabin. Open metal barn of metal portal frame construction, with corrugated asbestos-cement B23 roof covering and sheet metal facades (where present), open to the west and lower northern, southern and eastern sides. Modern open barn of metal portal frame design with single-ply profiled metal sheet B24 facades and roof covering (including skylights). Open sided to the east. Small building of metal scaffold construction with pitched roof of corrugated asbestos- B27 cement sheeting and profiled metal facades to the west and north (open to the east) Small stable building of wooden construction with a pitched roof of clay tiles and single- B28 ply wooden facades to the south, west and north and open to the east. Small wooden shed/stable buildings with walls of overlapping wooden boards and flat B30 & B33 roofs of corrugated panels or roofing felt. Small, flat-roofed structure of modular construction with no evident gaps, cracks or B31 openings. Large, modern agricultural barn of metal portal frame construction with corrugated B32 asbestos-cement roof coverings and profiled metal facades and blockwork lower walls. Large metal roller door on the southern gable. Two-storey brick residential property with hipped, tiled roof. Two small conservatories present on the eastern and western aspects of the building, and a small, single-storey wooden summer house in the grounds. The building is currently occupied, and appears B34 to be in good repair. The building is set within an area of lawn and amenity garden including vegetable beds and borders. No access was available to this part of the site during any of the surveys, such that the building and associated garden were viewed from accessible areas only. The building will remain unaffected under the proposals.
4.4.2 In addition, areas of hardstanding are present within the south western part of the site, associated with the buildings. The hardstanding is predominantly devoid of vegetation, aside from occasional cracks supporting small amounts of colonising vegetation, restricted to common and widespread species including Rough Meadow- grass Poa trivialis, Groundsel Senecio vulgaris, Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne, Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., and mosses.
June 2020 13 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Evaluation
4.4.3 The buildings and hardstanding support a limited range of common and widespread floral species and are inherently of negligible ecological value at the site level and are not considered to be an important ecological feature. Potential for the buildings to support faunal species such as roosting bats and Barn Owl is discussed below in Chapter 5.
4.5 Improved Grassland
Description
4.5.1 The majority of the site is formed by improved grassland within a number of fields.
4.5.2 The grassland within the southern part of the site is heavily grazed and sward height was generally low at the time of the May 2020 survey, whilst the northern field (F8) was noted to support a taller, ungrazed sward at the time of survey. Some areas are heavily poached, particularly within the larger central field within the southern land parcel (field F2), which was grazed by Horses at the time of survey (see Photograph 3 on Plan 4583-05/ECO3). The grassland is generally species-poor, with a high proportion of Rye-grass Lolium sp., within the southern fields in particular, with other common species such as Cock’s Foot Dactylis glomerata, Poa sp., Agrostis sp. and Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis present. Forb species were recorded to be largely absent from fields F1, F2 and F8, with occasional Daisy Bellis perennis, Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens, Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense, Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, Ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris, and Broad-leaved Plantain Plantago major recorded within the grassland elsewhere within the site.
4.5.3 The grass is longer and somewhat coarser in nature around the margins, particularly adjacent to hedgerows and in some areas where temporary fencing has been erected to prevent access by livestock. Additional species recorded in the margins include Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius, Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, Ground-ivy Glechoma hederacea, Celandine Ranunculus ficaria, and Red Dead-nettle Lamium purpurium.
Evaluation
4.5.4 The improved grassland is species-poor and does not contain any plant species of conservation interest. The habitat is considered to be of ecological value at the site level and is not considered to be an important ecological feature.
4.6 Hedgerows
Description
4.6.1 A number of hedgerows are present within the site, marking the individual field boundaries (see Plan 4583-05/ECO4). The hedgerows are summarised at Table 4.2., below. The majority of the hedgerows contain mature trees.
June 2020 14 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Table 4.2. Hedgerow descriptions. Ground flora Associated Comments Likely to No. H W Woody species (including structure / & climbers features qualify# management) Closely box-cut. Common Nettle, Northern extent Dry ditch, Fence Elm, Oak, Hawthorn, Cleavers, Ivy, previously cleared in H1 1.5m 1.5m along eastern N Elder, Dog Rose Bramble, Cuckoo preparation for the side Pint permitted NDR scheme. Former hedgerow extending between buildings B24 and B32, predominantly cleared to ground H3 level by the time of the April 2020 survey, albeit short sections of Blackthorn remaining adjacent N to tree T5. Ivy, Cuckoo Pint, Bramble, Hawthorn, Common Nettle, Warren House H4 2.5m 2m Blackthorn, Ash, Field Cow Parsley, Road along N Maple, Rosa sp. Dog’s Mercury, southern side. Greater Stitchwort Garlic Mustard, Dry ditch (albeit Bluebell, Spear Low, gappy separated from H5 1m 1m Blackthorn Thistle, Hedge hedgerow set on N hedgerow base Woundwort, slope to ditch. by large bank) Willowherbs Bramble, Hawthorn, Elder, H6 2m 2m Common Nettle, Dry ditch N Blackthorn Cleavers, Bluebell Bramble, Blackthorn Hawthorn, H8 6m 3-4m Common Nettle, Dry ditch N Oak, Field Maple Cleavers, Bluebell Warren House H9 2m 2m Hawthorn, Blackthorn Ivy, Bramble N Road beyond Gappy, narrow Bramble, hedgerow H10 1m 1m Hawthorn Common Nettle, Watercourse vegetation N Hogweed alongside watercourse. Dense continuous H13 3-4m 4-5m Blackthorn Bramble Dry ditch N corridor. H14 Former hedgerow cut to ground level by the time of the April 2020 survey. Dry ditch associated. N Blackthorn, Ash, Oak, Bramble, H15 4m+ 2.5m Fence to west N Elder, Hawthorn Common Nettle Dry ditch to Bramble, Ivy, south with H16 2.5m 2-3m Hawthorn, Dog Rose Hogweed, Cow N Warren House Parsley Road beyond * estimated average number of woody species (as listed under Schedule 3 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997) in any one 30m stretch# likely to qualify – as ‘important’ under the wildlife and landscape criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997
Evaluation
4.6.2 All of the hedgerows within the site are likely to qualify as Priority Habitat based on the standard definition12, which includes all hedgerows more than 20m long and less than 5m wide consisting predominantly (≥80%) of at least one native woody species.
12 i.e. five or more native woody species within a 30m length (or four or more in Northern England) – FEP Manual
June 2020 15 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
It has been estimated that approximately 84% of countryside hedgerows in GB qualify as a Priority Habitat under this definition13.
4.6.3 On this basis, the hedgerows within the site constitute important ecological features, although given the relatively limited network present, are only of importance at the local level.
4.6.4 The proposals incorporate the retention of the existing hedgerows within the new open space areas within the site where possible, albeit a number of sections will be lost in order to facilitate the proposed development. Retained hedgerows will be protected during the construction phase of the proposals as per the recommendations included at Chapter 6 below. Furthermore, the proposals incorporate new planting which will provide compensation for any losses and aim to maximise the value of these features for biodiversity in the long term.
4.7 Watercourse
Description
4.7.1 A single small existing watercourse flows from north to south through the eastern land parcel. The channel is typically 1 – 1.5m wide and up to approximately 20cm in depth throughout, with a loose, stony substrate. South of the site, the watercourse is contained within a culvert, leading beneath the adjacent Warren House Road and the offsite residential development beyond, such that the watercourse clearly does not provide any wider connectivity with offsite habitats to the south. Vegetation along the channel includes Sedge Carex sp., Hemlock Water Dropwort Oenanthe crocata, Garlic Mustard Alliaria petiolata, and Celandine. Some areas of dense scrub and Bramble were noted along the watercourse banks during the 2016 and 2018 survey work, albeit by the time of the 2020 survey work much of the vegetation was recorded to have been cut back as part of regular management works. The watercourse (including the entirety of this habitat within the southern part of the current site, south of the NDR) is proposed for realignment as part of the permitted NDR scheme and accordingly, it is likely that the re-aligned scheme would represent the baseline position in regard to the consideration of the current proposals. The permitted watercourse realignment has been designed in discussion with Barrett Southern Counties and accordingly, once constructed would be retained and incorporated into the proposed open space within the current development proposals (see Appendix 4583-05/1). .
4.7.2 A further, short section of watercourse is present within the northern section of the site, with a short section of channel, culverted at either end and is considered to be of ecological value at the site level only. The channel was recorded to be largely choked with marginalvegetation at the time of the April 2020 surveys.
Evaluation
13 Based on: Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (2011) ‘UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat Descriptions’, ed. Ant Maddock
June 2020 16 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
4.7.3 While not of any elevated ecological interest per se, in view of the general value of watercourses as wildlife corridors, watercourse WC1 is considered to be of ecological value at the local level and is considered to be an important ecological feature.
4.7.4 However, the extent of the watercourse within the proposed residential development area (south of the NDR) is understood to be permitted for re-alignment as part of the NDR scheme, details of which have been designed in discussion with Barratt Southern Counties in order to ensure consistency and maximise the long term biodiversity value of the feature. Accordingly, whilst differing from the currently recorded position at the site, the watercourse corridor identified within the current proposals (Appendix 4583-05/1) reflects the permitted details under the NDR scheme and the permitted watercourse realignment will remain unaffected under the proposals.
4.7.5 In any event, the realignment works represent the opportunity to provide a number of enhancements and benefits relating to the presence of the watercourse itself at the site, including the following measures which will result in significant ecological benefit associated with this feature:
• Increased total open channel length due to diverted route; • Opportunity to provide enhanced channel vegetation, including native aquatic and marginal vegetation and associated bankside habitats.
4.7.6 The permitted watercourse realignment will require the loss of small areas of vegetation, including a small number of trees. The above opportunities and enhancements will represent substantial overall ecological benefit in the long term (subject to suitable management as part of the open space provision under the current proposals), whilst new planting of native habitats including trees, hedgerows and other woody vegetation across the site as part of the proposals will provide compensation for any losses and considerable net gains.
4.7.7 Watercourse WC2 is located within the northern part of the site, within the proposed SANG. Accordingly, the watercourse will remain unaffected, albeit the opportunity exists to provide enhancement measures including appropriate long-term management of this feature as part of the works.
4.8 Trees
Description
4.8.1 The site contains a number of mature and semi-mature trees within the improved grassland fields and associated hedgerows and boundary vegetation. The majority of mature trees are Oak Quercus robur, with some Willow Salix sp., particularly adjacent to watercourse WC1. A number of further trees are present within the adjacent NDR boundary, which is continuous with the current site at the current time. These include mature Oaks, along with a small number of Poplar Populus sp., Field Maple Acer campestre and a group of fruit trees including Pear Pyrus sp., and Apple Malus sp., within field F5, the majority of which will be removed under the permitted NDR scheme.
4.8.2 A small number of the trees present within the site are of substantial size and four (T6, T14, T28 and T39, all of which are Oak) are considered to be of veteran status.
Evaluation
June 2020 17 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
4.8.3 Standard trees recorded within the boundary hedgerows and grassland include a number of trees of a substantial size and age. As detailed at Chapter 3., above, a number of trees within the site have previously been identified as notable and veteran trees within information available on the Woodland Trust website, whilst the survey work undertaken (including specific arboricultural survey work undertaken by Simon Jones Associates) has further identified the presence of veteran trees within the site.
4.8.4 The trees present represent common and widespread species, however based on their number and age (including a number of veteran trees), the mature trees within the site are considered to be of ecological value at the local level and are important ecological features of the site.
4.8.5 The proposals incorporate the retention of the vast majority of the existing trees present at the site within the proposed open space areas. In particular, the proposed development layout has been specifically designed to incorporate the retension of all of the veteran trees, including within open space containing the appropriate identified veteran tree buffer zones (see associated arboricultural information prepared by Simon Jones Associates). Indeed this position is likely to represent an enhancement over the existing situation in relation to trees T6 and T14 in particular with existing hardstanding and structures inside the associated veteran tree buffers being replaced with new vegetated habitats (subject to suitable safeguards and methodology, in particular during the construction phase – including as detailed at Chapter 6., below).
4.8.6 Whilst predominantly outside of the current site boundary, a small number of fruit trees are present within field F5, which extends into the site and could potentially represent the remnants of a former orchard. The majority of these trees will be lost as part of the permitted NDR works and accordingly, are not considered to be affected by the current proposals. Nonetheless, in order to reflect the presence of these trees and provide additional ecological and landscape diversity and opportunities within the site, the proposed landscape designs include the provision of a small orchard area.
4.8.7 Further, considerable new tree planting will be provided elsewhere within the site (in particular, but not limited to the proposed SANG) as part of the proposals, representing a considerable net gain in native trees present across the site in the long term.
4.9 Invasive species (Schedule 9, WCA 1981)
Description
4.9.1 Two small stands of Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica were recorded to be present during the original survey work, located along watercourse WC1 (as shown on Plan 4583-05/ECO3). During survey work undertaken in August 2019 and again in April 2020, it was evident that some element of ground disturbance and/or excavation had taken place, understood to be in order to eradicate Japanese Knotweed. No further evidence of Japanese Knotweed regrowth was noted at the northern location during the subsequent survey work undertaken, albeit a number of extant stems of Japanese Knotweed were recorded to remain present in the location at the southern site boundary.
June 2020 18 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Evaluation
4.9.2 Japanese Knotweed is listed under Schedule 9 Part II of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which makes it an offence to cause to grow in the wild any plant listed on the schedule. Further discussion of this issue along with a number of recommendations for removing these species are included at Chapter 6.
4.10 Habitat Evaluation Summary
4.10.1 On the basis of the above, the following habitats within and adjacent to the site are considered to form important ecological features:
Table 4.2. Evaluation summary of habitats forming important ecological features. Habitat Level of Importance
Hedgerows Local
Watercourse Local
Mature Trees Local
4.10.2 Other habitats present within the site include buildings and hardstanding, scrub and improved grassland. However, these habitats do not form important ecological features and are not considered to be of importance beyond the context of the site.
June 2020 19 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
5 Faunal Use of The Site
5.1 Overview
5.1.1 During the survey work, general observations were made of any faunal use of the site with specific attention paid to the potential presence of protected or notable species. Specific survey work was undertaken in respect of bats, and Water Vole, with the results described below.
5.2 Priority Species
5.2.1 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 places duties on public bodies to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in the exercise of their normal functions. In particular, Section 41 of the NERC Act require the Secretary of State to publish a list of species which are of principal importance for conservation in England respectively. This list is largely derived from the ‘Priority Species’ listed under the former UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), which continue to be regarded as priority species under the subsequent country-level biodiversity strategies.
5.2.2 The background data search identified the presence of the Priority (and Local Biodiversity Action Plan) species Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus from a grid reference within or close to the southern site boundary. In addition, records of Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus close to the south of the site were returned from the data search, whilst the habitats on site appear suitable for this species. There are also records close to the site of Priority Species that are also protected species (e.g. some bat species). In these cases, the species are discussed in the relevant sections below.
5.3 Bats
5.3.1 Legislation. All British bats are classed as European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and are also listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). As such, both bats and their roosts (breeding sites and resting places) receive full protection under the legislation (see Appendix 5874/5 for detailed provisions). Given all bats are protected species, they are considered to represent important ecological features. A number of bat species are also considered S41 Priority Species.
5.3.2 Background Records. No specific records of bats from within or adjacent to the site were returned from the desktop study. Information received from TVERC and Berkshire and South Buckinghamshire Bat Group includes records of Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Serotine Eptesicus serotinus, Brown Long-eared Bat Plecotus auritus, unidentified Myotis Myotis sp., Natterer’s Bat Myotis nattereri, Noctule Nyctalus noctula, and Leisler’s Bat Nyctalus leisleri within 2 km of the site. The closest records are for Long-eared bat species located at a grid reference situated approximately 130 m south of the site and Pipistrelle species located approximately 260 m south-east of the site. The closest specific records are of Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle and Brown Long-eared bat recorded in 2015 from a single location (now part of the Bell Farm development), located approximately 230 m west of the site.
June 2020 20 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
5.3.3 Previous survey work undertaken by Aspect Ecology Ltd of Ashridge Farm Barns, located immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the current site include specific bat surveys undertaken in 2016 and 2017, during which identified small day roosts in two separate locations used by a single, or small numbers of Common Pipistrelle bats.
5.3.4 Specific bat survey work undertaken in order to inform the permitted Northern Distributor Road (NDR) scheme was undertaken in 2018 by WSP and 2019 by Stantec, as reported within the information submitted as part of the permitted NDR application and associated information. The survey work undertaken in relation to the NDR includes surveys of trees within the NDR boundary, along with surrounding areas including within the current site boundary, which identified a number of trees offering potential to support roosting bats. Subsequently, Stantec have identified a total of 18 trees as containing confirmed roosts, based on further (detailed) surveys in 2019, including emergence surveys (as identified at Plan 4583-05/ECO3). The majority of the roosts were classed a ‘day roosts’ and all were occupied by single or low numbers of Common or Soprano Pipistrelles. A single Brown Long-eared bat day roost was identified, within an off-site tree (T93) situated beyond Bell Foundry Lane.
5.3.5 Automated detector surveys were undertaken at eight north-south linear boundary features crossed by the NDR (covering all hedgerows within the current site boundary south of the NDR, with the exception of H4). These surveys recorded bat activity levels at each hedgerow to determine which hedgerows were used by foraging/commuting bats, which species used them and their level of importance to the bat population on and around the site. The surveys identified the highest level of bat activity (39% of the passes) along hedgerow H8, with the lowest levels of activity recorded along watercourse WC1 and hedgerows H5 and H15 toward the east of the site. Using Ecobat to analyse the results, the EcIA for the NDR concluded that the survey area was of ‘Local’ importance to foraging/commuting Common and Soprano Pipistrelles, ‘Site’ importance for Myotis species, Noctule, Leisler and Long-eared bats and ‘Negligible’ importance for Serotine, Nathusius and Barbastelle.
5.3.6 Survey Results
Visual Inspection Surveys
Buildings
5.3.7 As set out above, fifteen buildings/structures are present within the south west of the site, all of which were assessed on their potential to support roosting bats. The results of this assessment are summarised in Table 5.1., below.
Table 5.1. Building Assessment for Bat Roost Potential. Building Summary Description Potential
B8 Wooden-framed stable-structure. Negligible
B9 Dilapidated/collapsed former structure. Negligible
B17 Wooden stable-style building Negligible
B18 Small wooden building with hipped, tiled roof Low Small wooden stable-building with single-ply wooden facades and B20 Negligible skylight sections. B21 Portacabin. Negligible
June 2020 21 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
B23 Modern metal agricultural building with open sides. Negligible
B24 Modern metal agricultural building. Negligible
B27 Metal scaffold frame, asbestos pitched roof, open to the east. Negligible Wooden frame, single ply wooden sides on south, west and north, B28 Negligible open to the east. Small collection of wooden sheds and associated structures with B30, B31 & B33 Negligible pitched, metal roofs B32 Modern, metal-framed agricultural building Negligible Brick, two-storey residential property. Hipped, tiled roof. B34 Moderate NB This building will remain unaffected under the proposals.
Trees
5.3.8 The site contains a number of trees, including large mature trees and several which support features identified to provide potential to support roosting bats. Trees within the southern part of the site were subject to specific bat surveys (including emergence/re-entry survey work) by others during 2018 and 2019 as part of the NDR scheme, whilst individual trees throughout the site were subject to further inspection survey/appraisal (taking note of the previous survey results) during April 2020 in order to establish the current position (including to determine any evident changes from the previous position where trees were previously surveyed by others). The results of these surveys and consideration are summarised at Table 5.2. in relation to individual trees identified to support features with potential for use by bats.
Table 5.2. Summary of trees with potential to support roosting bats (refer to Plan 4583-05/ECO3 for references). Removed Suitability under Tree Species Potential Roost Features Identified (Including NDR permitted Comments / Evaluation Survey Results) NDR Scheme? Single downward-facing rot hole at Confirmed T5 (Offsite) Oak Y N/A 6m, very light Ivy. Roost* Frequent lifted bark, particularly at Confirmed T7 Oak Y N/A lower levels, moderate Ivy. Roost* Large tree with minor deadwood – T12 Confirmed Oak limited potential features visible Y N/A (Offsite) Roost* from ground. Minor horizontal limb at 8m with T13 Oak lifted bark, occasional other Moderate Y N/A deadwood. Retained within open T14 Several cracks and splits noted in Oak High N space including veteran (Veteran) dead wood. tree buffer. T23 Small tree with several cracks and Moderate - Oak Y N/A (Offsite) splits. High T25 Oak Moderate Y N/A (Offsite) T26 Confirmed Oak Y N/A (Offsite) Roost* Retained within open Large tree with failed main limb. Confirmed T28 Oak N space including veteran Considerable large splits. Roost* tree buffer. Large tree, occasional minor limb Confirmed Retained within open T29 Oak damage but limited evident cavities N Roost* space. or splits. Dense Ivy obscures flight access. Unaffected by the T31 (Dead) Oak Low N Minor lifted bark visible. proposals.
June 2020 22 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Occasional minor damage to upper Confirmed Retained within open T32 Oak limbs. Failed limb at 6m south west N Roost* space. with minor potential cracks. Minor Ivy, exposed wood, damage to Confirmed Retained within open T33 Oak main southern limb at 6m including N Roost* space. crack and main limb. 3x major tear-out wounds on east Confirmed T35 Oak Y N/A side with likely cavities Roost* T36 Small tree with major cavities and Confirmed Oak N Unaffected (Offsite) dead wood. Roost* Major tear-out at 7m on south west Retained within open T37 Oak Moderate N limb with lifted wood. space. Large tree with numerous cracks and Retained within open T39 Oak High N splits space. Thick Ivy obscures further views, Retained within open T40 Oak Low N could conceal features. space. Woodpecker Hole at 7m facing Retained within open T41 Oak Moderate N south, knot hole at 10m facing south. space. Thick Ivy, downward facing Confirmed Retained within open T46 Oak woodpecker hole at 10m facing N Roost* space. south west. Major tear-out wound at 7m on west Moderate to Retained within open T47 Oak and downward facing opening, N High space. minor cavities elsewhere. Minor dieback, deadwood within Confirmed Retained within open T56 Oak N minor limbs, Roost* space. T59 Confirmed Retained within open Oak N (Offsite) Roost* space. T60 Confirmed Retained within open Oak N (Offsite) Roost* space. Knot hole/woodpecker hole at 3m Confirmed Retained within open T64 Oak N facing south Roost* space. Damage to east facing limb, exposed Confirmed Retained within open T65 Oak N wood to upper limb Roost* space. Large former tear out of major limb T67 Confirmed Retained within open Oak at 3m on west side with cavity and N (offsite) Roost* space (NDR). dead wiid. T93 Old limb at 5m with clear rot hole, Confirmed Oak Y N/A (Offsite) broken limbs at 7m with cracks. Roost* Retained within open T127 Oak 3-4 minor holes on west side. Low N space. Lifted bark, minor cracks and Retained within open T137 Oak (Dead) Moderate N cavities. space. Retained within open T138 Oak (Dead) Minor lifted bark. Low N space. Retained within open T139 Oak Dieback and lifted bark Low N space. * Confirmed Roost – based on survey work undertaken by others in 2019 to inform the NDR scheme.
5.3.9 Evaluation and Assessment of Likely Effects
Roosting
5.3.1 With the exception of the existing residential property (B34), which will remain unaffected under the proposals, the buildings present within the site are of construction types that are unlikely to provide particular opportunities for roosting bats. On this basis, the demolition of the existing building at the site is unlikely to affect any roosting bats.
June 2020 23 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
5.3.2 Of the 18 tree roosts identified by the NDR scheme, six (T5, T7, T12, T26, T35 and T93) are permitted for removal to facilitate construction of the NDR. Recent comments received from WBC indicate that T7 should be retained however the tree is permitted for removal as part of the NDR scheme, whilst arboricultural information (Simon Jones Associates) indicates that the extent of incursion into the root protection area (RPA) of this tree by the NDR would be such that the retention of the tree is unlikely to be viable regardless of the current proposals. The 2019 survey work identified had a peak count of two Soprano Pipistrelles and two Common Pipistrelles from T7, and was classified as a day roost. Roosts of this size, with these species, are considered important at the Local level. As such, should T7 remain at the time of construction works associated with the current proposals, on the basis of the current survey information it is likely that licensing and associated mitigation measures and compensation will be required in order to facilitate the removal of the tree.
5.3.3 The remaining 12 trees identified to contain confirmed roosts will be retained and protected by the NDR scheme and will similarly remain unaffected under the current proposals.
5.3.4 Tree T31 represents a dead tree, which was identified to provide some potential for roosting bats, albeit further surveys undertaken as part of the NDR scheme did not identify any use of the tree by roosting bats. This tree appears to be removed within the arboricultural information prepared by Simon Jones Associates in respect of the proposed development. Accordingly, as a minimum it is recommended that precautionary mitigation measures are put in place during any works affecting tree T31 (or any other trees identified to offer potential to support roosting bats). .
5.3.5 All other trees identified to offer potential to support roosting bats will be retained and protected within the proposed development (see Chapter 6).
5.3.6 Natural England guidance in respect of European Protected Species15 such as bats advises that, even where proposals are reasonably unlikely to result in any offence, such that licensing is not required, reasonable precautions should be taken to minimise the risk to protected species in the unlikely event that they should be found during the course of the activity. Accordingly, recommended precautionary mitigation measures are set out at Chapter 6 below and subject to their implementation it is considered that bats will be fully safeguarded under the proposals.
Foraging / Commuting16
5.3.7 Previous survey work conducted in the area by Aspect Ecology Ltd showed that the hedgerows around the site are used by commuting / foraging bats, specifically Pipistrelle species, whilst activity survey work undertaken to inform the NDR scheme during 2018 and 2019 has further confirmed the use of the hedgerows and tree lines by bat species (with confirmed roosts within the site limited to Common Pipistrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle and approximately 97.5% bat passes recorded during the surveys limited to these species). In particular, hedgerows within the south western part of the site, along with the eastern boundary noted to provide commuting routes used by bat species, with hedgerow H8, along with H3 and H15 and the vegetated line including T13 and T14 representing key corridors (including containing a number of
15 Natural England (2013) ‘European Protected Species: Mitigation Licensing - How to get a licence (WML-G12)’ 16 The valuation of foraging and commuting habitat is based broadly on the approach described in: Wray S, Wells D, Long E & Mitchell-Jones T (2010) ‘Valuing bats in ecological impact assessment’, In Practice, No. 70, Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
June 2020 24 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
trees identified to provide confirmed roosts) providing north-south connectivity across the site.
5.3.8 The nature of the NDR is such that all of the north-south routes will be severed by the NDR (regardless of the current proposals) and there will likely be some disruption, even with supplementary planting to guide bats to crossing points and adoption of a sensitive lighting strategy as proposed within the NDR scheme. This is acknowledged in the ecological impact assessment for the NDR, although habitat creation along the length of the NDR (both north and south, albeit with features such as new ponds and associated habitats focussed on the north site of the carriageway) will be provided as part of the NDR scheme which will provide compensation and ensure continuous linear east-west corridors remain for bats through the site.
5.3.9 Under the current proposals, all of the remaining trees within the key corridors will be retained, within extended open space areas linked to the vegetated corridors along the NDR route, such that (subject to suitable consideration in regard to lighting, as set out below at Chapter 6.) they will continue to provide an available resource to bats. The re-aligned watercourse WC1 will combine with the existing eastern boundary vegetation to provide a substantial north-south corridor through the site for use by bats extending along the entirety of the proposed residential development, providing continued connectivity across the site for bats in this location.
5.3.10 The vegetated corridor and enhancements along the northern side of the NDR will remain unaffected by the current proposals, indeed the provision of new habitats within the proposed open space and SANG areas north of the site will provide further enhanced foraging and commuting opportunities compared to the existing baseline of improved grassland, connecting with this corridor and extending north within the SANG. As such, overall foraging and commuting opportunities for bats at the site will not be adversely affected.
Overall Likely Effects
5.3.1 Overall, taking into account the permitted NDR works (the majority of which are located outside of the current site boundary), the current proposals will not affect any confirmed bat roosts or other trees identified to offer potential suitability for use by bats, whilst given the location and distribution of known roosts, the areas of highest bat activity and retention of key features within the proposed open space south of the NDR scheme , the proposals are unlikely to result in any significant effects on the local bat population.
5.3.2 A sensitive lighting scheme will be implemented. In any event, the southern and western hedgerows are already subject to street lighting, with bat species noted to use these hedgerows (as elsewhere within the site) dominated by Pipistrelle species, which are relatively light-tolerant.
5.3.3 Furthermore, the provision of extensive (unlit) additional habitat enhancements within the SANG and associated open space north of the NDR will also provide enhanced foraging and commuting opportunities for the local bat population, linking with the offsite enhancement measures and corridors provided as part of the permitted NDR scheme.
June 2020 25 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
5.5 Water Vole
5.5.1 Legislation. Water Vole is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Water Vole is also a S41 Priority Species. As such, this species is considered to represent an important ecological feature. The legislation affords protection to individuals of the species and their breeding sites and places of shelter (see Appendix 4583-05/5 for detailed provisions).
5.5.2 Background Records. No records of Water Vole within or adjacent to the development site or proposed SANG were returned from the desktop study.
5.5.3 Survey Results and Evaluation. The Ashridge Stream was surveyed for Water Voles in 2018 and again in April 2020. The 2018 survey concluded that the heavily shaded nature of the watercourse, the shallow water depth and the presence of open, heavily grazed grassland adjacent to the watercourse was sub-optimal for Water Vole. By the time of the 2020 surveys, some vegetation clearance was noted to have been undertaken such that parts of the watercourse were noted to be less overgrown and shaded by bankside vegetation. No burrows or other signs of occupation by Water Vole were observed during any of the survey work undertaken and as such, this species is unlikely to be affected under the current proposals. Further, it is noted that the watercourse within the site is permitted for realignment as part of the NDR scheme, following which it will remain unaffected under the proposals and will therefore continue to provide potential opportunities for this species in the long term.
17 English Nature (2002) and Development’ 18 Natural England (2011) s and Development: A Guide to Best Practice and Licensing’, Interim Guidance Document
June 2020 26 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
5.5.4 Nevertheless, a precautionary approach to works within the watercourse is recommended as part of any realignment works. This is discussed further in Chapter 6 below.
5.6 Other Mammals
5.6.1 Legislation. A number of other UK mammal species do not receive direct legislative protection relevant to development activities but may receive protection against acts of cruelty (e.g. under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996). In addition, a number of these mammal species are S41 Priority Species.
5.6.2 Background Records. No specific records of other mammals from within or adjacent to the site were returned from the desktop study. A number of records of Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus (Priority Species) were returned from within the search area around the site, the closest of which is located approximately 60m south of the site.
5.6.3 Survey Results and Evaluation. No evidence of any other protected, rare or notable mammal species was recorded within the site.
5.6.4 Other mammal species likely to utilise the site, such as Fox Vulpes vulpes, remain common in both a local and national context, and as mentioned above do not receive specific legislative protection in a development context. As such, these species are not a material planning consideration and the loss of potential opportunities for these species to the proposals is of negligible significance.
5.6.5 The desktop study returned background records of Hedgehog within the surrounding area. Hedgehog is a Priority Species, albeit this species remains common and widespread in England. The site offers potential opportunities for this species, particularly in the form of the hedgerows other boundary vegetation. The southern parts of the site will include new residential gardens under the proposals. Hedgehog are known to readily utilise gardens, and appropriately sized cut-outs in fencing panels would provide access opportunities for Hedgehog into and between residential gardens. In any event, abundant similar opportunities are present within the local area, whilst considerable open space areas are proposed (particularly in the form of the SANG forming the northern part of the site), which will continue to provide suitable and enhanced opportunities for other mammal species including Hedgehog. On this basis, there is no evidence to suggest the proposals will significantly affect local populations of this species. However, it is recommended that precautionary safeguards are put in place to minimise the risk of harm to Hedgehog in the event this species is present, as detailed in Chapter 6 below.
5.6.6 In conclusion, it is considered that other mammal species do not form an important ecological feature of the site.
5.7 Reptiles
5.7.1 Legislation. All six species of British reptile are listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), which protects individuals against intentional killing or injury. Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis and Smooth Snake Coronella austriaca receive additional protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); refer to Appendix 4583-05/5 for detailed provisions. All six reptile species are also S41 Priority Species.
June 2020 27 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
5.7.2 Background Records. Information returned from TVERC includes records of Grass Snake Natrix natrix, Slow-worm Anguis fragilis, and Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara from within the search area around the site. The closest recent specific record returned is for Slow-worm, approximately 1.2 km south-west of the site and dating from 2004. In addition, Aspect Ecology is aware that Slow-worm and Common Lizard have previously been introduced to the Kentwood Farm SANG, located 0.1 km north- east of the site.
5.7.3 Northern Distributor Road. Specific reptile survey work was undertaken by others in September 2018 in order to inform the NDR scheme, including land within the southern part of the current site. Surveys comprised seven separate visits to artificial refugia (placed in August 2018 and allowed to bed-in for 12 days). Surveys recorded a peak count of one adult Slow-worm (on two separate occasions) at the location shown at Plan 4583-05/ECO3, within the NDR boundary. The NDR assessment concluded that the survey area supported a ‘Low’ population of this species.
5.7.4 Survey Results and Evaluation. Much of the site is occupied by improved grassland, buildings and hardstanding, which are unlikely to provide suitable opportunities for reptile species, with the grassland areas in particular within the southern parts of the site (proposed for residential development) generally recorded to support short swards which are heavily grazed and poached. Nonetheless, habitats suitable for reptiles are present including in particular the field boundary hedgerows and associated vegetation, which therefore offer potential to support no more than very low numbers of reptiles. Further, the presence of small numbers of Slow Worm (limited to a single individual recorded on 2 occasions) within habitats continuous with those within the site was recorded during the NDR surveys, indicating the presence of a ‘Low’ population of this species at the site.
5.7.5 In the long term, the proposed habitat enhancements and management of the SANG areas will provide significantly increased opportunities and suitability for reptile species at the site. Nonetheless, in the short term the potential exists for any individual reptiles present to be harmed during vegetation works and site clearance.
5.7.6 Proposed mitigation as part of the permitted NDR scheme in relation to reptile species includes the implementation of precautionary measures including a phased approach to vegetation clearance in order to safeguard any individual reptiles that may be present. Accordingly, it is proposed to undertake a similar precautionary approach to any clearance of suitable vegetation (see Chapter 6.) centred around the phased removal of suitable habitats under appropriate supervision, with any reptiles encountered relocated to undisturbed areas. Further details in regard to methodology, timing and approach could be secured under an appropriately worded planning condition if required. Subject to the implementation of these measures, the proposals are unlikely to result in significant harm to reptile species, on the contrary the provision of new habitats and enhanced management as part of the proposals represents the opportunity to provide significant enhancements in the long term for this group at the site.
5.8 Amphibians
5.8.1 Legislation. All British amphibian species receive a degree of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Great Crested Newt is protected under the Act and is also classed as a European Protected Species under the
June 2020 28 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). As such, both Great Crested Newt and habitats utilised by this species are afforded protection (see Appendix 4583-05/5 for detailed provisions). Great Crested Newt is also a S41 Priority Species, as are Common Toad Bufo bufo, Natterjack Toad Epidalea calamita, and Pool Frog Pelophylax lessonae.
5.8.2 Background Records. No specific records of Great Crested Newt from within the site have been returned from the desktop study. However, ponds within the adjacent Kentwood Farm SANG are known to support this species (including representing the receptor location for Great Crested Newt mitigation associated with the adjacent Kentwood Farm development, with presence confirmed most recently during 2018). A number of other records of Great Crested Newt and Common Toad were returned from the search area surrounding the site, with the closest record of Great Crested Newt outside of the Kentwood Farm SANG located approximately 300m east of the site.
5.8.3 Survey Results and Evaluation. No permanent standing water bodies, and hence no suitable potential breeding opportunities for the fully protected amphibian species Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus are located within or immediately adjacent to the site itself.
5.8.4 The habitats present within the site include substantial field boundary vegetation and species-poor grassland that likely provide suitable terrestrial opportunities for amphibians such as Great Crested Newt should this species be present.
5.8.5 The closest offsite ponds are located within the adjacent Kentwood Meadows SANG, created in 2013, with the nearest located approximately 25m from the site boundary, albeit 200m from the proposed residential development, from which is is separated by the NDR route. The Kentwood Meadows ponds were created in 2013, in part to provide receptor habitats for Great Crested Newt, whilst monitoring survey work by Aspect Ecology in 2018 confirmed the continued presence of this species.
5.8.6 A further recently created pond is located within the Bell Farm Plantation SANG, approximately 30m west of the site boundary from the southern part of the site (over 250m from the proposed residential development, beyond the permitted NDR boundary and existing sewage works).
5.8.7 The terrestrial habitat within the site include hedgerows and scrub on the could provide opportunities for commuting/sheltering/foraging Great Crested Newt. The proposed SANG, located in close proximity to the offsite ponds will provide additional new habitats suitable for Great Crested Newt in the long term, including new diverse grassland, scrub and trees. The proposed residential development areas are further removed from the ponds, including being separated by the NDR site. Further, mitigation measures associated with the NDR includes a trapping and translocation programme (understood to be due to be completed during autumn 2020 under licence from Natural England) including the NDR construction area along with the remaining habitats south of the NDR, but within 250m of the offsite ponds. Accordingly, subject to the completion of the NDR mitigation scheme, no further mitigation measures would appear to be required in relation to the proposed residential scheme and associated timescales.
5.8.8 The proposed SANG will include the creation of new pathways and habitat creation (e..g through overseeding and slot planting of trees and shrubs) which will likely
June 2020 29 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
minimise any ground disturbance whilst benefittng Great Crested Newt in the long term. Accordingly, it is clear that the proposals will not result in any long-term adverse effects on this species. Nonetheless, initial works associated with the creation of individual features and new habitats within localised areas in the SANG area (in particular proposed footpaths) may have some potential in the absence of mitigation to result in harm to individual Great Crested Newts should they be encountered at the time of works. Accordingly, it is recommended that precautionary measures and safeguards are put in place during SANG creation works (as set out at Chapter 6., below) including under a detailed method statement reflecting the precise working methodology and timing of any works in order to ensure this species is appropriately safeguarded throughout the construction phase.
5.8.9 Subject to the incorporation of such measures it is considered that the proposals are unlikely to significantly adversely impact the conservation status of local amphibians including Great Crested Newt in the short term, whilst in the long term the proposals represent the opportunity to provide significant enhancements for this species.
5.9 Birds
5.9.1 Legislation. All wild birds and their nests receive protection under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in respect of killing and injury, and their nests, whilst being built or in use, cannot be taken, damaged or destroyed. Species included on Schedule 1 of the Act receive greater protection and are subject to special penalties (see Appendix 4583-05/5 for detailed provisions).
5.9.2 Conservation Status. The conservation importance of British bird species is categorised based on a number of criteria including the level of threat to a species’ population status19. Species are listed as Green, Amber or Red. Red Listed species are considered to be of the highest conservation concern being either globally threatened and or experiencing a high/rapid level of population decline (>50% over the past 25 years). A number of birds are also S41 Priority Species. Red and Amber listed species and priority species should be assessed as important ecological features.
5.9.3 Background Records. Information returned from TVERC inc;udes records of several bird species in the vicinity of the site, including the Red Listed species Cuckoo Cuculus canorus, Song Thrush Turdus philomelos and Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella, which are also all Priority Species. None of the records originate from within the site itself. However, several records for Red List species (e.g. Fieldfare Turdus pilaris) and a Schedule 1 species, Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros were returned from the sewage works just outside the northern development site boundary.
5.9.4 Surveys undertaken in order to inform the NDR scheme recorded only common and widespread bird species, valuing the site at the Local level for birds. A single pellet from a Little Owl Athene noctua (not a species of conservation concern) was identified in tree T7.
5.9.5 Survey Results. A number of species of bird were observed within the site during the survey work undertaken in 2018 including: Starling Sturnus vulgaris, Song Thrush Turdus philomelos, and House Sparrow Passer domesticus, all of which are Red-listed
19 Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015) ‘Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man’ British Birds 108, pp.708-746
June 2020 30 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
species20. Other species observed included Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus, Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Blackbird Turdus merula, Magpie Pica pica, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita, Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus, and Great Tit Parus major.
5.9.6 Similarly, in 2020 a number of bird species were recorded including Starling Sturnus vulgaris (a Red List species) and Red Kite Milvus milvus (Schedule 1 – recorded flying over the site, not using it). Other common species observed included: Blackbird, Wood Pigeon, Magpie, Dunnock Prunella modularis, Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto, Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba and Jackdaw Corvus monedula.
5.9.7 Evaluation. Three conservation priority species have previously been recorded within the site, namely Starling, Song Thrush, and House Sparrow, all of which represent Red Listed species; despite their conservation status, all three species remain abundant in lowland England21. The trees, hedgerows, scrub, and to a lesser extent the buildings, were recorded to provide suitable opporutnities for for nesting birds.
5.9.8 The provision of new habitats and planting, in particular (but not limited to) the proposed SANG represents the opportunity to provide additional opportunities for a range of bird species, including foraging and nesting opportunities. In addition, it is recommended that further enhancements be provided in the form of artificial nesting sites (see Chapter 6), which will benefit bird species.
5.9.9 Nonetheless, the proposals will result in the loss of vegetation in the short term to facilitate the construction works, including a number of sections of hedgerow to facilitate site access and this could potentially affect any nesting birds that may be present at the time of works. Accordingly, a number of safeguards in respect of nesting birds are proposed, as detailed in Chapter 6 below. In the long-term, substantial new nesting opportunities will be available for birds as described in Chapter 6 below.
5.10 Invertebrates
5.10.1 Legislation. A number of invertebrate species are listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In addition, Large Blue Butterfly Maculinea arion, Fisher’s Estuarine Moth Gortyna borelii lunata and Lesser Whirlpool Ram’s-horn Snail Anisus vorticulus receive protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); refer to Appendix 4583-05/5 for detailed provisions. A number of invertebrates are also Priority Species.
5.10.2 Background Records. No specific records of invertebrates were returned from within the site. A number of records Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus were returned from the search area, with one record potentially from the site (the accuracy of the record is such that it could have come from the site or slightly further south).
5.10.3 Survey Results and Evaluation. No evidence for the presence of any protected, rare or notable invertebrate species was recorded within the site during any of the survey work undertaken. A number of mature trees, standing and fallen deadwood are present, predominantly associated with the hedgerows and boundary corridors which appear to provide potentially suitable habitats for invertebrate species including Stag
20 As defined in the Report “Birds of Conservation Concern 4” 21 Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Musgrove et al., British Birds, 2013
June 2020 31 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Beetle. However, the remainder of the site is dominated by improved grassland, buildings and hardstanding, which are likely to support only a limited diversity of invertebrates, including coprophagous species associated with the livestock dung.
5.10.4 Invertebrate species recorded within the site the survey work undertaken include Holly Blue Celastrina argiolus, Large White Pieris brassicae, Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta, Peacock Aglais io, Orange-tip Anthocharis cardamines and Seven-spotted Ladybird Coccinella septempunctata, all of which are common and widespread species.
5.10.5 Overall, with the exception of Stag Beetle (for which appropriate mitigation measures are recommended at Chapter 6., below), given the habitat composition of the site and lack of adjacent sites designated for significant invertebrate interest, it is considered unlikely that the site supports significant populations of any protected, rare or notable invertebrates, whilst those habitats offering greatest potential for invertebrate species (namely mature trees and deadwood habitats) will be largely retained under the proposals, whilst the opportunity exists under the proposals (particularly within the proposed SANG area) to provide a range of new habitats and opportunities to benefit invertebrate species at the site in the long term (see Chapter 6., below).
5.11 Summary
5.11.1 On the basis of the above, a summary of the evaluation of fauna is provided below:
Table 5.1. Evaluation summary of fauna forming important ecological features. Supported by or Species / Group Level of Importance associated with the site Number of trees identified as having Bats – Roosting - Trees Local (all tree roosts combined) bat roosting potential Bats – Foraging / Commuting Confirmed presence on site Up to Local
Reptiles Present in low numbers Site Possibly present on land to the north Great Crested Newt of the proposed NDR and within Site SANG Birds Confirmed presence on site Local
Stag Beetle Likely present in boundary features Local
5.11.2 Other fauna potentially supported by the site include non-priority species of mammals and invertebrates. However, these species do not form important ecological features and are not considered to be of importance beyond the context of the site.
June 2020 32 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
6 Mitigation Measures and Ecological Enhancements
6.1 Mitigation
6.1.1 Based on the habitats, ecological features and associated fauna identified within / adjacent to the site, it is recommended that the following mitigation measures (MM1 to MM10) are implemented under the proposals. Further, detailed mitigation strategies or method statements can be secured via suitably-worded planning conditions, as recommended by relevant best practice guidance (BS 42020:2013).
Hedgerows and Trees
6.1.2 MM1 – Tree Protection. The trees and hedgerows to be retained within the proposed development shall be protected during construction in line with standard arboricultural best practice (BS5837:2012) or as otherwise directed by a suitably qualified, competent arboriculturalist. This will involve the use of protective fencing or other methods appropriate to safeguard the root protection areas of retained trees and hedgerows.
Watercourses
6.1.3 MM2 – Pollution Prevention. In order to safeguard against any potential run-off or pollution events during construction (particularly in the vicinity of watercourse WC1), it is recommended that best management practice is followed in accordance with the advice issued by the Environment Agency in its former Pollution Prevention Guidelines22 or relevant updated documents. This will essentially reduce potential pollution effects to nil, minimising any harm to wildlife associated with offsite habitats. This will include relevant safeguards such as:
• Storage areas for chemicals, fuels, etc. will be sited well away from the watercourse (minimum 10m), and stored on an impervious base within an oil- tight bund with no drainage outlet. Spill kits with sand, earth or commercial products approved for the stored materials shall be kept close to storage areas for use in case of spillages; • Where possible, and with prior agreement of the sewage undertaker, silty water should be disposed of to the foul sewer or via another suitable form of disposal, e.g. tanker off-site; • Water washing of vehicles, particularly those carrying fresh concrete and cement, mixing plant, etc. will be carried out in a contained area as far from the watercourse as practicable (minimum 10m), to avoid contamination; and • Refuelling of plant will take place in a designated area, on an impermeable surface, away from the watercourse (minimum 10m).
6.1.4 Post-development, the drainage system for the development will ensure offsite habitats are not subject to adverse changes in surface water run-off or quality.
22 Primarily: Environment Agency (2012) ‘Working at construction and demolition sites: PPG6 Pollution Prevention Guidelines’, 2nd Edition (now withdrawn)
June 2020 33 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
Invasive Species
6.1.5 MM3 – Eradication of Invasive Species. Japanese Knotweed is present within the site. This species is highly invasive and is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) making it an offence to cause this species to grow in the wild. As such, all relevant precautions should be taken when carrying out actions that could potentially spread these plants. The government has set out guidance on what can be considered ‘causing to grow in the wild’ within a response to the Schedule 9 review which states:
“We would expect that where plants listed in Schedule 9 are grown in private gardens, amenity areas etc., reasonable measures will be taken to confine them to the cultivated area so as to prevent their spreading to the wider environment and beyond the landowner’s control. It is our view that any failure to do so, which in turn results in the plant spreading to the wild, could be considered as ‘causing to grow in the wild’ and as such would constitute an offence…Additionally, negligent or reckless behaviour such as inappropriate disposal of garden waste, where this results in Schedule 9 species becoming established in the wild would also constitute an offence.”
6.1.6 As such, it is recommended that appropriate safeguards be put in place to prevent the spread of the Schedule 9 species during the proposed development works.
6.1.7 Therefore, it is recommended that an eradication programme is put in place as soon as possible to ensure this plant is not inadvertently spread as an incidental result of construction activities and that it does not affect the future development. A number of options for treating Japanese Knotweed (a challenging species to eradicate) are available, including chemical treatment, bunding and ‘dig and dump’ operations. It is recommended that advice be sought from a specialist invasive species consultant in regard to timescales and the most appropriate treatment method.
Bats
6.1.8 MM4 – Trees. As detailed above, under the current masterplan layout, all of the trees noted to support features offering potential for use by roosting bats are located within areas of retained and enhanced corridors vegetation based on the current masterplan. Accordingly, where possible (subject to arboricultural considerations), it is recommended that these trees be protected throughout the works, so that they continue to provide potentially suitable opportunities for this group at the site.
6.1.9 Precautions will be undertaken to ensure that retained trees with potential opportunities for roosting bats are safeguarded during works. Such trees will be protected with suitable tree protection fencing (e.g. Heras fencing or similar), whilst all contractors will be made aware of such trees and the potential presence of roosting bats within trees. If appropriate, associated mitigation (such as soft-felling techniques and/or prior inspection and ecological supervision) will be put in place at the appropriate time.
6.1.10 Should any works be proposed to other individual trees offering potential to support roosting bats (e.g. to address arboricultural management requirements and/or for health and safety), any such works should be preceded by further specific ecological consideration and a suitably qualified ecologist (e.g. Aspect Ecology) should first be contacted for further advice in regard to any potential to affect this group.
June 2020 34 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
6.1.11 Where evidence of bat roosting activity is found and trees are to be affected, it may be necessary to undertake further, more detailed mitigation/compensation works, including obtaining a European Protected Species licence in order to continue with works at that time.
6.1.12 MM5 – Sensitive Lighting. Light-spill onto retained and newly created habitat, in particular the retained hedgerows, tree lines and scrub (especially along the south- western boundary), will be minimised in accordance with good practice guidance23 to reduce potential impacts on light-sensitive bats (and other nocturnal fauna). This may be achieved through the implementation of a sensitively designed lighting strategy, with consideration given to the following key factors:
• Light exclusion zones – ideally no lighting should be used in areas likely to be used by bats. Light exclusion zones or ‘dark buffers’ may be used to provide interconnected areas free of artificial illumination to allow bats to move around the site; • Appropriate luminaire specifications – consideration should be given to the type of luminaires used, in particular luminaries should lack UV elements and metal halide and fluorescent sources should be avoided in preference for LED luminaries. A warm white spectrum (ideally <2,700K) should be adopted to reduce the blue light component; • Light barriers / screening – new planting (e.g. hedgerows and trees) or fences, walls and buildings can be strategically positioned to reduce light spill; • Spacing and height of lighting units – increasing spacing between lighting units will minimise the area illuminated and allow bats to fly in the dark refuges between lights. Reducing the height of lighting will also help decrease the volume of illuminated space and give bats a chance to fly over lighting units (providing the light does not spill above the vertical plane). Low level lighting options should be considered for any parking areas and pedestrian / cycle routes, e.g. bollard lighting, handrail lighting or LED footpath lighting; • Light intensity – light intensity (i.e. lux levels) should be kept as low as possible to reduce the overall amount and spread of illumination; • Directionality – to avoid light spill lighting should be directed only to where it is needed. Particular attention should be paid to avoid the upward spread of light so as to minimise trespass and sky glow;
• Dimming and part-night lighting – lighting control management systems can be used, which involves switching off/dimming lights for periods during the night, for example when human activity is generally low (e.g. 12.30 – 5.30am). The use of such control systems may be particularly beneficial during the active bat season (April to October). Motion sensors can also be used to limit the time lighting is operational. Water Vole
23 Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals (2018) ‘Guidance Note 08/18: Bats and artificial lighting in the UK’; Stone, E.L. (2013) ‘Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance.’; ILP (2011) ‘Guidance notes for the reduction of obtrusive light’ Institution of Lighting Professionals, GN01:2011.
June 2020 35 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
6.1.13 MM6 – Supervised Vegetation Clearance. The site is considered sub-optimal for Water Vole, whilst it is understood that works to the watercourse (including realignment works) will be progressed under the permitted NDR scheme such that the current proposals will not result in any further effects on the watercourse corridor. Nonetheless, should any works be proposed within the proximity of the watercourse, a precautionary approach is recommended in regard to this species. As such, it is recommended that any works affecting the watercourse banks and associated vegetation be undertaken sensitively, with vegetation removal using hand tools under ecological supervision. In the unlikely event Water Vole is recorded within the site during the vegetation clearance or during the construction phase, work within 5m of the watercourse should cease immediately and Natural England may need to be contacted and a Mitigation Licence obtained before works to and in the vicinity of the watercourse can commence.
Reptiles and Amphibians
6.1.14 MM7 – Habitat Manipulation Exercise and Destructive Search. Survey work undertaken in 2018 recorded the presence of a single Slow Worm on 2 separate occasions within habitats within the NDR boundary, adjacent to and continuous with the current site boundary. Notwithstanding the majority of the grassland sward within the site remains short, with little potential to support reptiles, as a best practice precautionary measure, a habitat manipulation exercise is recommended, to avoid the killing or injury of reptiles within the site. The habitat manipulation exercise will involve progressive cutting of the Bramble scrub and long grass within the development footprint in order to reduce the vegetation to a uniformly short height, unsuitable to support individual reptiles. The above exercise should be carried out under the supervision of a competent ecologist. Any potential hibernation features will be dismantled by hand under ecological supervision immediately prior to their removal during spring / summer when reptiles are active and above ground level. Following completion of the habitat manipulation exercise and destructive search, the ground may be turned under ecological supervision in order to clear it of vegetation and remove any potential to support reptiles.
6.1.15 MM8 – Great Crested Newt Method Statement. As set out above, proposed development works associated with the residential scheme, located south of the NDR are unlikely to result in any adverse effects on Great Crested Newt, whilst in the long term, the provision of new and enhanced habitats within the proposed SANG will benefit this species. However, in the short term localised works associated with new habitat provision and associated SANG provision (including provision of new paths) have some potential to harm individual Great Crested Newts should they be present. As such, it is recommended that a precautionary approach be undertaken to any clearance of localised vegetation and ground preparation within the vicinity (250m) of offsite ponds as part of the SANG provision in order to ensure this species is appropriately safeguarded and ensure compliance with the legislation. As such, it is recommended that any such works are undertaken under a detailed method statement, including supervision by an appropriately qualified ecologist once the precise extent and timing of proposed works is confirmed. Such measures would likely include habitat manipulation prior to clearance (in line with MM7) and timing of works to coincide with seasonal activity (e.g. works to open grassland areas during winter when Great Crested Newts would likely be in hibernation away from these areas). Should more extensive works be required within close proximity of ponds (e.g. ground
June 2020 36 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
re-profiling) consideration should be given the any need for licensing in order to facilitate the level of works required.
Invertebrates
6.1.16 MM9 – Stag Beetle. In order to safeguard individual Stag Beetles and larvae that may be present within the site, any removal of suitable deadwood or other woody habitats including hedgerows and trees will be undertaken under a suitable watching brief including checks of surrounding soil areas for any Stag Beetles or their larvae which should be carefully relocated. Deadwood habitat should be retained within open space areas at the site within discrete piles.
Nesting Birds
6.1.17 MM10 – Timing of Works. To avoid a potential offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act, no clearance of suitable vegetation, building demolition, or building conversion works to any structure of the buildings with the potential to support or conceal nesting birds should be undertaken during the bird-nesting season (1st March to 31st August inclusive). If this is not practicable, any potential nesting habitat to be removed should first be checked by a competent ecologist in order to determine the location of any active nests. Any active nests identified would then need to be cordoned off (minimum 5 m buffer) and protected until the end of the nesting season or until the birds have fledged. These checking surveys would need to be carried out no more than three days in advance of vegetation clearance.
6.2 Biodiversity Action Plan
6.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages new developments to maximise the opportunities for biodiversity through incorporation of enhancement measures. The proposals present the opportunity to deliver these through a biodiversity action plan (BAP) at the site for the benefit of local biodiversity, thereby making a positive contribution towards the broad objectives of national conservation priorities.
6.2.2 The recommendations and enhancements summarised below in the Biodiversity Action Plan are considered appropriate given the context of the site and the scale and nature of the proposals. Through implementation of the following enhancement measures (BAP1 to BAP7), the opportunity exists for the proposals to deliver a range of benefits for biodiversity at the site.
6.2.3 Habitat Creation
6.2.4 BAP1 – Wildlife Planting. It is recommended that where practicable, new planting within the site be comprised of native species of local provenance, including trees and shrubs appropriate to the local area. Suitable species for inclusion within the planting could include native trees such as Oak, Beech Fagus sylvatica and Field Maple Acer campestre, whilst native shrub species of particular benefit would likely include fruit and nut bearing species which would provide additional food for wildlife, such as Blackthorn Prunus spinosa, Hawthorn, Crab Apple Malus sylvestris and Hazel Corylus avellana.
6.2.5 BAP2 – Wildflower Grassland. Wildflower grassland is proposed within the site, predominantly as part of the new SANG provision, north of the NDR. A diverse
June 2020 37 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
grassland sward is recommended, with the precise grass sward proposed related to the ecological requirements as well as amenity considerations. This is likely to be achieved predominantly through over seeding the existing grassland areas with a species rich wildflower mix such as Emorsgate EM3F, in line with the proposed landscape masterplan information (see Appendix 4583-05/1)..
6.2.6 This habitat will add considerably to the ecological value of the habitats present on the site by providing a much increased foraging area for invertebrates, small mammals, amphibians and reptiles. A sympathetic cutting regime, involving traditional cutting times and removal of arisings to keep nutrient levels low, will aim to maintain floristic diversity and reduce ruderal encroachment.
6.2.7 BAP3 – New Pond Creation. No ponds are currently present within the site itself. As part of the Biodiversity Action Plan, a new pond will be created in the proposed SANG area (as indicated at Appendix 4583-05/1) specifically in order to provide ecological benefits. New pond(s) should be designed to be of value to wildlife and include elements such as sinuous margins (to create a variety of conditions and micro-climates which would encourage a broad range of invertebrates to colonise), gently sloping margins (which are favoured by amphibians) and conditions to allow abundant marginal and aquatic vegetation to develop. Creation of this new aquatic habitat would provide opportunities for a range of wildlife (if guided by ecological principles), including amphibians.
Bats
6.2.8 BAP4 - Bat Boxes. It is recommended that a number of bat boxes be incorporated within the proposed development. The provision of such features will provide new roosting opportunities for bats in the area. So as to maximise their potential use, the bat boxes should ideally be situated on suitable retained trees, erected between 3-5m above ground level and sited in sheltered wind-free areas that are exposed to the sun for part of the day, facing a south-easterly, southerly or south-westerly direction.
6.2.9 In addition, where architectural design allows, it is recommended that bat boxes / roost features be installed on external walls of or within the fabric of proposed buildings within the site. The precise number and locations of boxes / roost features should be determined by a competent ecologist, post-planning once the relevant final development design have been approved
6.2.10 Consideration should be given to health and safety during the siting of boxes their siting should ensure that new roosting locations are situated away from lighting in order to maximise any potential for use, with dark corridors maintained between roosting opportunities and retained foraging/commuting habitats and links with offsite areas.
Hedgehog
6.2.11 BAP5 – Garden Fence Cut-outs. It is recommended that small cut-outs (measuring approximately 12-15cm x 12-15cm) be provided within the base of garden fences in order to maintain the permeability of the site for the UK Priority Species Hedgehog
June 2020 38 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
and other small mammals in the long-term. Commercially available gravel boards with readymade cut outs for hedgehogs can now be sourced from a number of suppliers24.
Birds
6.2.12 BAP6 - Bird Boxes. It is recommended that a number of bird boxes be incorporated within the proposed development. The provision of bird boxes will provide new nesting opportunities for birds in the area, including UK Priority Species, such as House Sparrow and Starling Sturnus vulgaris. So as to maximise their potential use, the bird boxes should ideally be situated on suitable retained trees, erected in line with species-specific guidance and sited in sheltered wind-free locations.
6.2.13 In addition, where architectural design allows, it is recommended that bird boxes / nesting features be installed on external walls of or within the fabric of proposed buildings within the site. The precise number and locations of boxes should be determined by a competent ecologist, post-planning once the relevant final development design details have been approved. Consideration should also be given to health and safety during the siting of boxes.
Reptiles, Amphibians and Invertebrates
6.2.14 BAP7 – Habitat Piles. A proportion of any deadwood arising from vegetation clearance works should be retained within the site in a number of wood piles located within areas of new planting, adjacent to new wetland habitats or within areas of wildflower grassland in order to provide potential habitat opportunities for reptile, amphibian and invertebrate species, which in turn could provide a prey source for a range of other wildlife. In addition, the provision and management of new native landscape planting will likely provide additional opportunities for invertebrates at the site in the long term.
Biodiversity Action Plan Summary
i. Wildlife planting incorporating native species;
ii. Creation of wildflower grassland;
iii. Creation of a new pond;
iv. Inclusion of bat boxes in suitable areas;
v. Inclusion of cut-outs at the base of garden fences to allow movement of Hedgehogs and other small mammals;
vi. Inclusion of bird nesting boxes;
vii. Inclusion of habitat piles to benefit reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates;
24 An example: https://www.jacksons-fencing.co.uk/News/outdoor-living/new-hedgehog-friendly-gravel-boards-winter-news- topical-treats-and-more-6511.aspx
June 2020 39 | Page Ashridge Farm, Warren House Road, Wokingham Ecological Appraisal
7 Conclusions
7.1.1 Aspect Ecology has carried out an ecological appraisal of the proposed development, based on the results of a desktop study, Phase 1 habitat survey and a number of detailed protected species surveys.
7.1.2 The available information confirms that no statutory or non-statutory nature conservation designations are present within or adjacent to the site, and none of the designations within the surrounding area are likely to be adversely affected by the proposals.
7.1.3 The Phase 1 habitat survey has established that the site is dominated by habitats of negligible to low ecological value, namely improved grassland. However, there are also hedgerows qualifying as Priority Habitats, and mature trees with potential to support roosting bats. The proposals have sought to retain those features of greatest ecological value.
7.1.4 The habitats within the site support, or have potential to support, several protected species, including species protected under the provisions of the relevant legislation. Accordingly, a number of recommendations and measures are set out in regard to these species, with suitable mitigation strategies and compensatory measures identified, which would minimise the risk of harm to protected species, whilst enabling the conservation status of local populations to be maintained (and potentially enhanced) as a result of the proposals.
7.1.5 In conclusion, the proposals have sought to minimise impacts and subject to the implementation of appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, it is considered unlikely that the proposals will result in significant harm to biodiversity. On the contrary, the opportunity exists to provide considerable net gains in biodiversity as part of the proposals.
June 2020 40 | Page
Plan 4583-05/ECO1:
Site Location
Plan 4583-05/ECO2:
Ecological Designations
Plan 4583-05/ECO3:
Habitats and Ecological Features
Appendix 4583-05/1:
Proposed Context Landscape Masterplan
Aspect Landscape Planning Drawing Ref : 7041/ASP4/CLM
Appendix 4583-05/2:
Desktop Study Data
4583-05 Designations
Legend Local Nature Reserves (England) National Nature Reserves (England) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Biosphere Reserves (England)
Projection = OSGB36 Map produced by MAGIC on 11 June, 2020. xmin = 467100 Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map ymin = 164700 must not be reproduced without their permission. Some information xmax = 493600 in MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2020. Ordnance Survey 100022861. ymax = 176800 continually updated by the originating organisation. Please 0 1 2 refer to the metadata for details as information may be illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage.
km 11/06/2020 Site Check Report Report generated on Thu Jun 11 2020 You selected the location: Centroid Grid Ref: SU81397002 The following features have been found in your search area:
SSSI Impact Risk Zones - to assess planning applications for likely impacts on SSSIs/SACs/SPAs & Ramsar sites (England)
1. DOES PLANNING PROPOSAL FALL INTO ONE OR MORE OF2. IF YES, CHECK THE CORRESPONDING DESCRIPTION(S) BELOW. LPA SHOULD CONSULT THE CATEGORIES BELOW? NATURAL ENGLAND ON LIKELY RISKS FROM THE FOLLOWING: All Planning Applications Infrastructure Airports, helipads and other aviation proposals. Wind & Solar Energy Minerals, Oil & Gas Rural Non Residential Residential Residential development of 50 units or more. Rural Residential Any residential development of 50 or more houses outside existing settlements/urban areas. Air Pollution Livestock & poultry units with floorspace > 500m², slurry lagoons > 750m² & manure stores > 3500t. Combustion General combustion processes >50MW energy input. Incl: energy from waste incineration, other incineration, landfill gas generation plant, pyrolysis/gasification, anaerobic digestion, sewage treatment works, other incineration/ combustion. Waste Composting Discharges Water Supply Notes 1 Notes 2 GUIDANCE - How to use the Impact Risk Zones /Metadata_for_magic/SSSI IRZ User Guidance MAGIC.pdf
1/1 11/06/2020 Site Check Report Report generated on Thu Jun 11 2020 You selected the location: Centroid Grid Ref: SU81397002 The following features have been found in your search area:
Ramsar Sites (England) - points
Name SOUTH WEST LONDON WATERBODIES Reference UK11065 Hectares 830.26
Ramsar Sites (England)
Name SOUTH WEST LONDON WATERBODIES Reference UK11065 Hectares 830.26
Special Areas of Conservation (England) - points
Name BURNHAM BEECHES Reference UK0030034 Hectares 383.4 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0030034
Name HARTSLOCK WOOD Reference UK0030164 Hectares 29.4 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0030164
Name WINDSOR FOREST & GREAT PARK Reference UK0012586 Hectares 1685.92 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0012586
Name THURSLEY, ASH, PIRBRIGHT & CHOBHAM Reference UK0012793 Hectares 5154.33 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0012793
Special Areas of Conservation (England)
Name BURNHAM BEECHES Reference UK0030034 Hectares 383.4 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0030034
Name HARTSLOCK WOOD Reference UK0030164 Hectares 29.4 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0030164
Name CHILTERNS BEECHWOODS Reference UK0012724 Hectares 1283.85 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0012724
Name WINDSOR FOREST & GREAT PARK Reference UK0012586 Hectares 1685.92 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0012586
Name THURSLEY, ASH, PIRBRIGHT & CHOBHAM Reference UK0012793 Hectares 5154.33 Hyperlink http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?eucode=UK0012793
Special Protection Areas (England) - points
Name SOUTH WEST LONDON WATERBODIES Reference UK9012171 Hectares 830.26
Name THAMES BASIN HEATHS Reference UK9012141 Hectares 8309.5
1/2 11/06/2020
Special Protection Areas (England)
Name SOUTH WEST LONDON WATERBODIES Reference UK9012171 Hectares 830.26
Name THAMES BASIN HEATHS Reference UK9012141 Hectares 8309.5
Proposed Ramsar Sites (England) - points No Features found
Proposed Ramsar Sites (England) No Features found
Possible Special Areas of Conservation (England) - points No Features found
Possible Special Areas of Conservation (England) No Features found
Potential Special Protection Areas (England) - points No Features found
Potential Special Protection Areas (England) No Features found
2/2 11/06/2020 Site Check Report Report generated on Thu Jun 11 2020 You selected the location: Centroid Grid Ref: SU81397002 The following features have been found in your search area:
Local Nature Reserves (England) - points
Reference 1009622 Name FARLEY COPSE Hectares 3.28 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009622
Reference 1009010 Name LAVELLS LAKE Hectares 12.45 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009010
Reference 1009623 Name HEATHLAKE Hectares 22.27 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009623
Reference 1009625 Name JOCK'S COPSE Hectares 1.48 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009625
Reference 1009921 Name HOLT COPSE & JOEL PARK Hectares 5.28 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009921
Reference 1009629 Name TEMPLE COPSE Hectares 1.91 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009629
Reference 1009630 Name TINKERS COPSE Hectares 1.88 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009630
Local Nature Reserves (England)
Reference 1009622 Name FARLEY COPSE Hectares 3.28 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009622
Reference 1009010 Name LAVELLS LAKE Hectares 12.45 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009010
Reference 1009623 Name HEATHLAKE Hectares 22.27 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009623
Reference 1009625 Name JOCK'S COPSE Hectares 1.48 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009625
Reference 1009921 Name HOLT COPSE & JOEL PARK Hectares 5.28 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009921
Reference 1009629 Name TEMPLE COPSE Hectares 1.91 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009629
Reference 1009630
1/2 11/06/2020 Name TINKERS COPSE Hectares 1.88 Hyperlink https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteLNRDetail.aspx?SiteCode=L1009630
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) - points
Name Lodge Wood & Sandford Mill SSSI Reference 1000495 Natural England Contact Conservation Delivery Team Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 2.33 Citation 1003870 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1003870
Name Heath Lake SSSI Reference 1000699 Natural England Contact Conservation Delivery Team Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 6 Citation 1005507 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1005507
Name Wykery Copse SSSI Reference 1000510 Natural England Contact Conservation Delivery Team Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 3.2 Citation 1004173 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1004173
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England)
Name Lodge Wood & Sandford Mill SSSI Reference 1000495 Natural England Contact Conservation Delivery Team Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 2.33 Citation 1003870 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1003870
Name Heath Lake SSSI Reference 1000699 Natural England Contact Conservation Delivery Team Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 6 Citation 1005507 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1005507
Name Wykery Copse SSSI Reference 1000510 Natural England Contact Conservation Delivery Team Natural England Phone Number 0845 600 3078 Hectares 3.2 Citation 1004173 Hyperlink http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=s1004173
National Nature Reserves (England) - points No Features found
National Nature Reserves (England) No Features found
Biosphere Reserves (England) - points No Features found
Biosphere Reserves (England) No Features found
2/2 4583-05 MAGIC Habitats
Legend Priority Habitat Inventory - Coastal Saltmarsh (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Coastal Sand Dunes (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Coastal Vegetated Shingle (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Maritime Cliffs and Slopes (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Mudflats (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Saline Lagoons (England) Saline Lagoons (Wales) Saltmarsh (Wales) Sand Dunes (Wales) Priority Habitat Inventory - Calaminarian Grassland (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Good quality semi-improved grassland (Non Priority) (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Calcareous Grassland (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Dry Acid Grassland (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Meadows (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pasture (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Upland Calcareous Grassland (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Upland Hay Meadows (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Heathland (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Mountain Heaths and Willow Scrub (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Upland Heathland (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Limestone Pavements (England) Intertidal Substrate Foreshore (England and Scotland) Boulders/Loose Rock Projection = OSGB36 Map produced by MAGIC on 11 June, 2020. xmin =G r4a8v0e10l0 Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map ymin = 169500 must not be reproduced without their permission. Some information xmax M= a4d82e6 0G0round (Man Madein) MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2020. Ordnance Survey 100022861. ymax = 170700 continually updated by the originating organisation. Please 0 Mud 0.1 0.2 refer to the metadata for details as information may be illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage.
Mud ankdm Gravel Not Present Rock Platform Rock Platform with Bank of Gravel Rock Platform with Boulders/Loose Rock Sand Sand and Gravel Sand and Mud Unspecified Intertidal Substrate (Wales) Mud Mud/Shingle Rock Rock/Shingle Sand Sand/Shingle Shingle Nationally Important Intertidal Habitats (Wales) Seagrass (Wales) Priority Habitat Inventory - Blanket Bog (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Fens (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Lowland Raised Bog (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Reedbeds (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Upland Flushes, Fens and Swamps (England) Ancient Woodland (England) Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland Ancient Replanted Woodland Priority Habitat Inventory - Deciduous Woodland (England) Forestry Commission Legal Boundary (England) National Forest Inventory (GB) Assumed woodland Broadleaved Cloud \ shadow Conifer Coppice Coppice with standards Failed Felled Ground prep Low density Mixed mainly broadleaved Mixed mainly conifer Shrub Uncertain Windthrow Young trees Priority Habitat Inventory - Traditional Orchards (England) Woodpasture and Parkland BAP Priority Habitat (England) National Habitat Network All Habitats Combined (England) Ancient woodland Blanket bog Coastal saltmarsh Coastal sand dunes Coastal vegetated shingle Lakes Limestone pavement Lowland calcareous grassland Lowland dry acid grassland Lowland fens Lowland heathland Lowland meadows Lowland raised bog Maritime cliff & slope Purple moor grass & rush pastures Reedbeds Rivers Traditional orchard Upland calcareous grassland Upland flushes fens & swamps Upland hay meadow Upland heathland Wood pasture and parkland PHI_Other Additional land within SSSIs Habitat Restoration-Creation Restorable Habitat Fragmentation Action Zone Network Enhancement Zone 1 Network Enhancement Zone 2 Network Expansion Zone
Open Mosaic Habitat (Draft) Priority Habitat Inventory - Fragmented heath (Non Priority) (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - Grass Moorland (Non Priority) (England) Priority Habitat Inventory - No main habitat but additional habitat exists (England) Great Crested Newt Class Survey Licence Returns (England) Great Crested Newt Pond Surveys 2017 - 2019 10 FIG present 10 FIG absent 10 FIG inconclusive 8 FIG present 6 FIG present 4 FIG present 4 FIG absent 4 FIG inconclusive
Appendix 4583-05/3:
Evaluation Methodology
Evaluation Methodology
1. The evaluation of ecological features and resources is based on professional judgement whilst also drawing on the latest available industry guidance and research. The approach taken in this report is based on that described by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland’ (2018)1.
Importance of Ecological Features
2. Ecological features within the site/study area have been evaluated in terms of whether they qualify as ‘important ecological features’. In this regard, CIEEM guidance states that “it is not necessary to carry out detailed assessment of features that are sufficiently widespread, unthreatened and resilient to project impacts and will remain viable and sustainable”.
3. Various characteristics contribute to the importance of ecological features, including:
• Naturalness; • Animal or plant species, sub-species or varieties that are rare or uncommon, either internationally, nationally or more locally, including those that may be seasonally transient; • Ecosystems and their component parts, which provide the habitats required by important species, populations and/or assemblages; • Endemic species or locally distinct sub-populations of a species; • Habitat diversity; • Habitat connectivity and/or synergistic associations; • Habitats and species in decline; • Rich assemblages of plants and animals; • Large populations of species or concentrations of species considered uncommon or threatened in a wider context; • Plant communities (and their associated animals) that are considered to be typical of valued natural/semi-natural vegetation types, including examples of naturally species- poor communities; and • Species on the edge of their range, particularly where their distribution is changing as a result of global trends and climate change.
4. As an objective starting point for identifying important ecological features, European, national and local governments have identified sites, habitats and species which form a key focus for biodiversity conservation in the UK, supported by policy and legislation. These are summarised by CIEEM guidance as follows:
Designated Sites
• Statutory sites designated or classified under international conventions or European legislation, for example World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA);
1 CIEEM (2018) ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine’, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester Page 1 of 3
• Statutory sites designated under national legislation, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserves (NNR) and Local Nature Reserves (LNR); • Locally designated wildlife sites, e.g. Local Wildlife Sites (LWS). Biodiversity Lists
• Habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales (largely drawn from UK BAP priority habitats and priority species), often referred to simply as Priority Habitats / Species; • Local BAP priority species and habitats.
Red Listed, Rare, Legally Protected Species
• Species of conservation concern, Red Data Book (RDB) species; • Birds of Conservation Concern; • Nationally rare and nationally scarce species; • Legally protected species.
5. In addition to this list, other features may be considered to be of importance on the basis of local rarity, where they enable effective conservation of other important features, or play a key functional role in the landscape.
Assigning Level of Importance
6. The importance of an ecological feature should then be considered within a defined geographical context. Based on CIEEM guidance, the following frame of reference is used:
• International (European); • National; • Regional; • County; • District; • Local (e.g. Parish or Neighbourhood); • Site (not of importance beyond the immediate context of the site).
7. Features of ‘local’ importance are those considered to be below a district level of importance, but are considered to appreciably enrich the nature conservation resource or are of elevated importance beyond the context of the site.
8. Where features are identified as ‘important’ based on the list of key sites, habitats and species set out above, but are very limited in extent or quality (in terms of habitat resource or species population) and do not appreciably contribute to the biodiversity interest beyond the context of the site, they are considered to be of ‘site’ importance.
9. In terms of assigning the level of importance, the following considerations are relevant:
Page 2 of 3
Designated Sites
10. For designated sites, importance should reflect the geographical context of the designation (e.g. SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites are designated at the international level whereas SSSIs are designated at the national level). Consideration should be given to multiple designations as appropriate (where an area is subject to differing levels of nature conservation designations).
Habitats
11. In certain cases, the value of a habitat can be measured against known selection criteria, e.g. SAC selection criteria, ‘Guidelines for the selection of biological SSSIs’ and the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. However, for the majority of commonly encountered sites, the most relevant habitat evaluation will be at a more localised level and based on relevant factors such as antiquity, size, species-diversity, potential, naturalness, rarity, fragility and typicalness (Ratcliffe, 1977). The ability to restore or re-create the habitat is also an important consideration, for example in the case of ancient woodland.
12. Whether habitats are listed as priorities for conservation at a national level in accordance with Sections 41 and 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, so called ‘Habitats of Principal Importance’ or ‘Priority Habitats’, or within regional or local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) is also relevant, albeit the listing of a particular habitat under a BAP does not in itself imply any specific level of importance.
13. Habitat inventories (such as habitat mapping on the MAGIC database) or information relating to the status of particular habitats within a district, county or region can also assist in determining the appropriate scale at which a habitat is of importance.
Species
14. Deciding the importance of species populations should make use of existing criteria where available. For example, there are established criteria for defining nationally and internationally important populations of waterfowl. The scale within which importance is determined could also relate to a particular population, e.g. the breeding population of common toads within a suite of ponds or an otter population within a catchment.
15. When determining the importance of a species population, contextual information about distribution and abundance is fundamental, including trends based on historical records. For example, a species could be considered particularly important if it is rare and its population is in decline. With respect to rarity, this can apply across the geographic frame of reference and particular regard is given to populations where the UK holds a large or significant proportion of the international population of a species.
16. Whether species are listed as priorities for conservation at a national level in accordance with Sections 41 and 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006, so called ‘Species of Principal Importance’ or ‘Priority Species’, or within regional or local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) is also relevant, albeit the listing of a particular species under a BAP does not in itself imply any specific level of importance.
17. Species populations should also be considered in terms of the potential zone of influence of the proposals, i.e. if the entire species population within the site and surrounding area were to be affected by the proposed development, would this be of significance at a local, district, county or wider scale? This should also consider the foraging and territory ranges of individual species (e.g. bats roosting some distance from site may forage within site whereas other species such as invertebrates may be more sedentary).
Page 3 of 3
Appendix 4583-05/4:
Consideration to inform a Habitats Regulations Assessment
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Screening Assessment and Appropriate Assessment In the light of the “Sweetman Judgement” (People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta, April 2018), the comments below comprise an Appropriate Assessment which includes advice on necessary avoidance and mitigation measures which is consistent with the advice provided to the Planning Inspectorate on such matters.
Summary of Response Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), in consultation with Natural England, has formed the view that any net increase in residential development between 400m and 5km straight-line distance from the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (SPA), along with any larger developments comprising over 50 new dwellings within the wider 5km to 7km zone are likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects in the absence of mitigation. An Appropriate Assessment has been carried out which includes regard to mitigation requirements.
This site is located approximately 5.6 km from the boundary of the SPA, whilst the proposals are for over 50 new dwellings and therefore are likely to result in an adverse effect on the SPA, unless it is carried out together with appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.
On commencement of the proposed development, a contribution (calculated on a per-bedroom basis) is to be paid to WBC towards the cost of measures to avoid and mitigate against the effect upon the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, as set out in WBC’s Infrastructure Delivery Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
The strategy is for relevant developments to provide (or make financial contributions towards the provision of) Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) in perpetuity as an alternative recreational location to the SPA and financial contributions towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) measures.
In this instance, the proposed development would result in a net increase of 165 new dwellings within 5-7km of the SPA. This would usually require a SANG contribution to WBC. However, in this instance a bespoke SANG area will be provided as part of the scheme. This will be connect to the development and tie in to two neighbouring SANG areas, creating a substantial area of Greenspace.
The proposed development is required to make a contribution towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) which is also calculated on a per bedroom basis.
The applicant must agree to enter into a S106/s111 agreement to secure this contribution prior to occupation of each dwelling. Subject to the completion of the S106 agreement, the proposal would not lead to an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and would comply with SEP Saved Policy NRM6, policy CP8 of the Core Strategy, and the NPPF.
1. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) In accordance with The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) Regulation 63 a competent authority (in this case Wokingham Borough Council (WBC)), 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…(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 of the plan or project for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.
A person applying for any such consent, permission or other authorisation must provide such information as WBC may reasonably require for the purposes of the assessment or to enable it to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required.
WBC must for the purposes of the assessment consult Natural England (NE) and have regard to any representations made by that body. It must also, if it considers it appropriate, take the opinion of the general public, and if it does so, it must take such steps for that purpose as it considers appropriate. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to Regulation 64 (Considerations of overriding public interest), WBC may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.
In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, WBC must have regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which it proposes that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given.
2. Stage 1 Screening for Likely Significant Effects WBC accepts that this proposal is a ‘plan or project’ which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European Site. The Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) is a European designated site which affects the borough, and WBC must ensure that development does not result in an adverse impact on the SPA. The potential adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA include recreational activities from inside the SPA and air pollution from inside and outside the SPA.
At this stage WBC cannot rule out ‘likely significance effects’ on the SPA (alone or in combination with other plans or projects) because the proposal could undermine the Conservation Objectives of these sites. This is because the proposal lies within 5.6 km of the SPA and:
- represents a net increase of 165 dwellings within 5 – 7km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) which will lead to an increase in local population and a potential increase in recreational activity on the SPA
As the ‘likely significance effects’ cannot be ruled out at this stage an Appropriate Assessment must be undertaken.
3. Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment Based on the information proposed by the applicant, WBC must decide whether or not an adverse effect on site integrity (alone or in combination with other plans or projects) can be ruled out. Mitigation may be able to be provided so that the proposal is altered to avoid or reduce impacts.
The following policies and guidance set out WBC’s approach to relevant avoidance and mitigation measures which have been agreed with Natural England. For the majority of housing developments this will comprise the provision of (or contribution towards) Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and a contribution towards the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Project. The financial contributions towards SANG would be either through an obligation in a s106 agreement that requires WBC to allocate an appropriate amount of the development CIL receipt towards the provision of SANG, or through an obligation in an agreement under s111 of the Local Government Act, that requires the developer to make an appropriate financial contribution towards the provision of SANG (to be used in the event that the developer successfully seeks CIL relief). Developers will be required to secure an appropriate financial contribution to the SAMM project through an obligation in a s106 agreement.
For SDL development (and occasionally some other larger non SDL developments) within 5km of the SPA, SANG is required at a minimum of 8 ha per 1,000 new residents, constructed and delivered to Natural England’s quality and quantity standards and a contribution towards SPA access management and monitoring (as advised by the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board). For SDL development (and occasionally some other larger non SDL developments) between 5 and 7km, the proposals will need to be individually assessed but it is likely that SANG will be required on site in line with Natural England’s quality and quantity standards, although the exact requirement will be agreed having regard to evidence supplied. a. Policies and Guidance For this proposal the following guidance and policies apply:
• South East Plan (May 2009) Policy NRM6 (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100528160926/http://www.gos.gov .uk/gose/planning/regionalPlanning/815640/ • Wokingham Borough Core Strategy (2010) Policy CP8 (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) sets out the approach WBC will take in order to protect the TBH SPA http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/planning- policy/local-plan-and-planning-policies/ • Wokingham Borough Core Strategy (2010) Policy CP7 (Biodiversity) sets out the approach WBC will take in order to protect national and international nature conservation sites http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/planning- policy/local-plan-and-planning-policies/ • Wokingham Borough Managing Development Delivery Local Plan (2014) Policy TB23 (Biodiversity and Development) http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-and- planning-policies/ • Infrastructure Delivery and Contributions SPD (2011) http://www.wokingham.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=193415
The project as proposed would not adversely impact on the integrity of the SPA if avoidance and mitigation measures are provided as stipulated by these policies and guidance. b. SPA Avoidance and Mitigation Measures i) The provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and its ongoing maintenance in perpetuity.
In accordance with the development plan, the proposed development will be required to provide alternative land to attract new residents away from the SPA. The term given to this alternative land is Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).
The SANG will be constructed and delivered to Natural England’s quality and quantity standards and the developer will need to make an appropriate contribution towards in perpetuity maintenance of the SANG. An occupation restriction will be included in the Section 106 Agreement in order to ensure that the SANGs are complete and open to the public prior to the occupation of the dwellings. This gives the certainty required to satisfy the Habitats Regulations in accordance with South East Plan Policy NRM6 (iii) and Core Strategy Policy CP8
ii. Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) Contribution The proposed development will also be required to make a contribution towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM). This project funds strategic visitor access management measures on the SPA to mitigate the effects of new development on it.
The level of contributions are calculated on a per bedroom basis. The application for this development is for 30 no 4 bedroom dwellings, 60 no 3 bedroom dwellings, 54 no 2 bedroom dwellings and 21 no 1 bedroom dwellings
No. of SAMM Aggregate SAMM bedrooms Contribution 5-7km Contribution 1 bedroom £101.69 £2,135.49 2 bedrooms £132.93 £7,178.22 3 bedrooms £174.52 £10.471, 20 4 bedrooms £230.03 £6,900.90 Total SAMM Contribution £26,658.81
Prior to the permission being granted the applicant must enter into a Section 106 Agreement based upon the above measures.
4. Conclusion An Appropriate Assessment has been carried out for this development in accordance with the Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended). Without any appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures the Appropriate Assessment concludes that the development is likely to have a significant effect upon the integrity of the SPA with the result that WBC would be required to refuse a planning application.
Provided that the applicant is prepared to make a financial contribution (see above) towards the costs of SPA avoidance and mitigation measures, the application will be in accordance with the SPA mitigation requirements as set out in the relevant policies above.
WBC is convinced, following consultation with Natural England, that the above measures will prevent an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and Regulation 61(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017), and permission may be granted.
If the applicant does not agree with the above mitigation and does not enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure the measures, then the application must be refused using the following reason for refusal.
5. Example Reason for Refusal In the absence of a planning obligation to secure suitable avoidance and mitigation measures and access management monitoring arrangements, in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the LPA is unable to satisfy itself that the proposals include adequate mitigation measures to prevent the proposed development from having an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, in line with the requirements of Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017and Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC. The proposal would be contrary to Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan, Policies CP8 and CP4 of the Core Strategy.
Appendix 4583-05/5:
Legislation
LEGISLATION SUMMARY
1. In England and Wales primary legislation is made by the UK Parliament, and in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament, in the form of Acts. The main piece of legislation relating to nature conservation in the UK is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
2. Acts of Parliament confer powers on Ministers to make more detailed orders, rules or regulations by means of secondary legislation in the form of statutory instruments. Statutory instruments are used to provide the necessary detail that would be too complex to include in an Act itself1. The provisions of an Act of Parliament can also be enforced, amended or updated by secondary legislation.
3. In summary, the key pieces of legislation relating to nature conservation in the UK are:
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
• Hedgerows Regulations 1997 • Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act for England and Wales 2000 • Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 • Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
4. A brief summary of the relevant legislation is provided below. The original Acts and instruments should be referred to for the full and most up to date text of the legislation.
5. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The WCA Act provides for the notification and confirmation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) identified for their flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features. The Act contains strict measures for the protection and management of SSSIs.
6. The Act also refers to the treatment of UK wildlife including protected species listed under Schedules 1 (birds), 5 (mammals, herpetofauna, fish, invertebrates) and 8 (plants).
7. Under Section 1(1) of the Act, all wild birds are protected such that is an offence to intentionally:
• Kill, injure or take any wild bird; • Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst in use* or being built; • Take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.
The nests of birds that re-use their nests as listed under Schedule ZA1, e.g. Golden Eagle, are protected against taking, damage or destruction irrespective of whether they are in use or not.
8. Offences in respect of Schedule 1 birds are subject to special, i.e. higher, penalties. Schedule 1 birds also receive greater protection such that it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly:
• Disturb any wild bird included in Schedule 1 while it is building a nest or while it is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; • Disturb dependent young of such a bird.
1 http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/secondary-legislation/statutory-instruments/ Page 1 of 3
9. Under Section 9(1) of the Act, it is an offence to:
• Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal included in Schedule 5.
10. In addition, under Section 9(4) it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly:
• Obstruct access to, any structure or place which any wild animal included in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection; or • Disturb any wild animal included in Schedule 5 while occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose.
11. Under Section 13(1) it is an offence:
• To intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant listed in Schedule 8; or • Unless the authorised person, to intentionally uproot any wild plant not included in Schedule 8.
12. The Act also contains measures (S.14) for preventing the establishment of non-native species that may be detrimental to native wildlife, prohibiting the introduction into the wild of animals (releases or allows to escape) and plants (plants or causes to grow) listed under Schedule 9.
14. Licences can be obtained from the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (SNCO) for development activities that would otherwise be unlawful under the legislation, provided there is suitable justification. The SNCO for England is Natural England.
15. Hedgerows Regulations 1997. ’Important’ hedgerows (as defined by the Regulations) are protected from removal (up-rooting or otherwise destroying). Various criteria specified in the Regulations are employed to identify ‘important’ hedgerows for wildlife, landscape or historical reasons.
16. Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act for England and Wales 2000. The CRoW Act provides increased measures for the management and protection of SSSIs and strengthens wildlife enforcement legislation. Schedule 12 of the Act amends the species provisions of the WCA 1981, strengthening the legal protection for threatened species. The Act also introduced a duty on Government to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity and maintain lists of species and habitats for which conservation steps should be taken or promoted, in accordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Page 2 of 3
17. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Section 41 of the NERC Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species that are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. The S41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as local planning authorities, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the Act, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when exercising their normal functions. 56 habitats and 943 species of principal importance are included on the S41 list. These are all the habitats and species in England that were identified as requiring action in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).
18. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The Regulations enact the European Union's Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) in the UK. The Habitats Directive was designed to contribute to the maintenance of biodiversity within member states through the conservation of sites, known in the UK as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), containing habitats and species selected as being of EC importance (as listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive respectively). Member states are required to take measures to maintain or restore these natural and semi-natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status.
19. The Regulations also require the compilation and maintenance of a register of European sites, to include SACs and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)2 classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the Birds Directive). These sites constitute the Natura 2000 network. The Regulations impose restrictions on planning decisions likely to significantly affect SPAs or SACs.
20. The Regulations also provide protection to European Protected Species of animals that largely overlaps with the WCA 1981, albeit the provisions are generally stricter. Under Regulation 43 it is an offence, inter alia, to:
• Deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of a European Protected Species; • Deliberately disturb any wild animals of any such species, including in particular any disturbance likely to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, to rear or nurture their young, to hibernate or migrate, or which is likely to affect significantly their local distribution or abundance; • Deliberately take or destroy the eggs of such an animal; • Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.
21. Similar protection is afforded to European Protected Species of plants, as detailed under Regulation 47.
22. The Regulations do provide a licensing system that permits otherwise illegal activities in relation to European Protected Species, subject to certain tests being fulfilled.
2 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are protected sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) (aka the Birds Directive), which came into force in April 1979. SPAs are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species. Page 3 of 3