Site: Land off Road,

Lenwade Work Ecology Assessment and

Item: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening

Client: Matthew & Elgerschuizen

Author: Dr GW Hopkins CEnv MCIEEM Date: 27 March 2018

Hopkins Ecology Ltd, St George’s Works, 51 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1DD T. 01603 435598 M: 07481 477103 E: [email protected] W: www.hopkinsecology.co.uk

CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. METHODS 3 3. DESIGNATED SITES 5 4. SITE DESCRIPTION 7 5. PROTECTED SPECIES SCOPING 9 6. HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT SCREENING 12 7. DISCUSSION 16 8. APPENDIX 1: ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS 18 9. APPENDIX 2: LEGISLATION INCLUDING HRA GUIDANCE 20

SUMMARY Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by Brown & Co on behalf of Matthew & Elgerschuizen to prepare an ecology assessment for a proposed commercial scheme at Land off Norwich Road, Dereham. The site is brownfield and ~1.57ha in area. The habitats comprise: an area of hardstanding; some limited ephemeral / short perennial vegetation developed on a veneer of soil accumulated over the hardstanding; and peripheral silver birch scrub. None of the habitats are considered to qualify as Habitats of Principal Importance. Specifically, the scrub is not considered to qualify as Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland, and the open vegetation does not qualify as Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land. A number of protected species were scoped-out, including great crested newts on the basis that the waterbodies within 500m are flooded gravel pits (many of which are active fisheries) and none are thought suitable for great crested newts due to fish. None of the scrub / trees supported potential roost features for bats. Direct surveys were undertaken for reptiles, but these were negative. No evidence was found of badgers. The scrub is very likely to support nesting birds, but only common and widespread but declining species, such as willow warbler. The scrub lacks dead wood and dense cover or thickets at the understorey level, and it is unlikely that the rare species of scrub and woodland that are known locally will be present. The species of conservation concern scoped-in are therefore: common and also some declining but widespread birds, foraging bats, hedgehogs and widespread but declining moths. A Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening is presented, in relation to the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) located ~303m north. It is considered that the main pathway of potential impact is via surface water, both in terms of quality and quantity. A surface water management strategy including the results of infiltration testing is available for the scheme, and this shows that a mitigation train is both realistic and feasible for the scheme. A range of stages are appropriate for inclusion within the mitigation train, and it is likely that infiltration using ‘crate soakways’ will be the preferred option and as an integral part of the scheme. It is considered that the surface water management strategy provides sufficient confidence to conclude that impacts on the River Wensum SAC will be negligible and that there will not be an impact on site integrity. It is also concluded that this scheme will not contribute to in-combination impacts from any other schemes. Impacts on other designated sites are also concluded to be negligible via a combination of the surface water management strategy and distance. In the specific case of the Marriott’s Way County Wildlife Site (CWS) that runs adjacent to the site, it is recommend that the lighting strategy is designed to minimise light spill and glare. Recreational impacts are thought likely to be negligible, by virtue of the current use of the Marriott’s Way CWS for recreation and its existing infrastructure for visitors and to manage any impacts. Site clearance should avoid the nesting bird season or be under a watching brief. There would be merit in providing bat and bird boxes along the north fringe of the scheme on retained trees Felled timber should be retained on-site to create habitat piles especially along the north boundary offering a valuable dead wood resource and cover for many species that is otherwise lacking within the local scrub habitats.

Page | 1 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND 1.1 Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by Brown & Co on behalf of Matthew & Elgerschuizen to prepare an ecology assessment of a parcel of Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade. The proposed development site is ~1.57ha in area, with a scheme of office or general commercial units. SITE CONTEXT 1.2 The site is a roughly rectangular brownfield site with existing industrial units to the east and west, Marriott’s Way to the north, and the A1067 Norwich Road to the south. It is located close to the bottom of the Wensum Valley and the natural soil profile is ‘freely draining, slightly acid sandy soils’; it is within the Central North Natural Character Area1 (ref. 78) where the landscape is typified as: “… ancient countryside with a long-settled agricultural character, where arable land is enclosed by winding lanes and hedgerows, interspersed with woodland and remnant heath and dissected by lush pastoral river valleys”. LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY 1.3 The following key pieces of nature conservation legislation are relevant to legally protected species (with a more detailed description in Appendix 5): • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations); and • The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). 1.4 Also, the National Planning Policy Framework (DfCLG, 20122) requires local authorities to avoid and minimise impacts on biodiversity and, where possible, to provide net gains in biodiversity when making planning decisions. A substantial number of species are of conservation concern in the UK. A small number of these species are fully protected under the legislation listed above, but others in are recognised as Species of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and reinforced by the National Planning Policy Framework. For these species local planning authorities are required to promote the “protection and recovery” via planning and development control. Examples include the widespread reptiles, many widespread but declining moths, house sparrows, and soprano pipistrelle and noctule bats. 1.5 Although the NPPF has an overarching aim of minimise impacts to biodiversity, the majority of species of conservation concern are not specifically recognised by legislation or planning policy. The level of protection afforded to these is undefined and should be considered within the overall aim of minimising impacts on biodiversity.

1 Natural England (2014) NCA Profile 84: Central North Norfolk. Available from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6232246738485248?category=587130 2 DCLG (2010) A National Planning Policy Framework for England. Department for Communities and Local Government, .

Page | 2 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

2. METHODS PERSONNEL 2.1 This ecological assessment was prepared by Dr Graham Hopkins CEnv MCIEEM FRES, who holds full survey licences for great crested newts and bats. He has over 15 years of consultancy experience and is familiar with the ecology of the Wensum Valley. DATA SEARCH 2.2 A data search for a 2km radius around the site was commissioned from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service. Additionally, information on statutory sites was taken from the Multi Agency Government Information for the Countryside website3. FIELD SURVEY 2.3 The site visit for the ecological assessment was on 7 October 2017. The description of habitats was based on the methods of JNCC (2010)4 and trees were surveyed from ground level for their potential suitability for roosting bats, looking for gaps, cracks and other voids5; searches were also made for signs of badgers, such as sett entrances, latrines and paths. The local presence of ponds (to a radius of 500m) was determined from OS maps and Google Earth and these used to assess the potential presence of great crested newts in conjunction with site specific factors such as the presence of fish in waterbodies. REPTILE SURVEYS 2.4 An assessment of the site for the potential presence of reptiles was made on the site walkover, and the ‘triggers’ for undertaking a suite of direct surveys were the presence of some open vegetation near to cover and in close proximity to the Marriott’s Way and other areas of scrub / grassland habitat nearby. 2.5 Reptile surveys were undertaken using direct survey methods to identify the presence / absence of reptiles and the species present. These surveys were carried out following best practice guidance recommended by the JNCC Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual (Gent and Gibson, 20036) and Froglife (19997). The reptile survey involved the placement and checking of artificial refugia, together with general observations during visits. The refugia were made from heavy grade bitumen felt, cut to a size of approximately 500mm x 1000mm. A total of 15 refugia were deployed on 7 October 2017 and checked between 12 October and 31 October 2017 (Table 1); the refuges were located at the interface of the open vegetation and scrub, ten on each of the north and south sides of the hardstanding and five at its western end. 2.6 The surveys were undertaken late in the season but within the period recognised as acceptable by Froglife (loc cit), namely March to October (albeit not within the ‘profitable’ months of April, May and September). During the survey period there were periods of warm weather and reptiles were very unlikely be in hibernation.

3 www.magic.gov.uk 4 JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Surveys. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 5 Collins, J. (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists. Bat Conservation Trust, London. 6 Gent, T. & Gibson, S. (2003) Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough UK. 7 Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.

Page | 3 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

Table 1. Reptile survey dates and weather conditions Visit Number Date Start Time Temp. OC Weather Felts out 7 October 2017 - - - 1 11 October 2017 10.00 13 Sunny periods 2 12 October 2017 11.15 14 Sunny periods 3 16 October 2017 09.00 14 Sunny periods 4 19 October 2017 11.30 16 Overcast 5 21 October 2017 10.30 15 Sunny periods 6 24 October 2017 10.00 15 Hazy sunshine 7 25 October 2017 10.00 15 Sunny with cloud 8 30 October 2017 11.00 11 Sunny with cloud 9 31 October 2017 10.30 12 Mostly overcast

GUIDANCE 2.1 The ecological assessment has been prepared with reference to best practice guidance published by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and as detailed in British Standard 42020:2013 Biodiversity - Code of Practice for Biodiversity and Development.

Page | 4 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

3. DESIGNATED SITES OVERVIEW 3.1 The proposed development site is within the Wensum Valley, with designated sites associated with the River Wensum itself, valley bottom habitats especially flooded gravel pits and also some other sites away from the valley bottom (Figure 1). Figure 1. Designated sites within 2km.

STATUTORY SITES 3.2 Two sites have statutory designations, one at the national level only and the River Wensum as an European and nationally designated site (Table 2). The River Wensum in particular is considered again in detail in Section 6: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening. Table 2. Summary of statutory sites within 2km. Designation Location Description River River Wensum Special Area of 303m north Chalk river and associated Wensum Conservation (SAC) vegetation and invertebrates River Wensum Site of Special 303m north Chalk river and associated Scientific Interest (SSSI) vegetation and invertebrates Alderford Alderford Common SSSI 1.7km north- Chalk grassland, woodland, bats Common east and great crested newts

NON-STATUTORY SITES 3.3 There are nine-statutory County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) within 2km (Table 3) including the Marriott’s Way CWS, running alongside the north boundary of the site, and flooded gravel pits within the valley bottom. The gravel pits and associated scrub to the immediate north of the

Page | 5 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

Marriott’s Way CWS is designated as the Lenwade Pits CWS (and is ~25m north of the site boundary). Table 3. County Wildlife Sites within 2km. Site name Location Description (reference) Marriott's Way Adjacent Marriott’s Way follows a disused railway line which closed finally in (2176) 1985, and is now used by walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. A firm track has been laid along its whole length. The central track is generally unvegetated. However, the track edges present one type of habitat and each side of the track up to the railway fence offers another. These aspects all vary along the path, with cuttings and embankments, different soils and the influence of water on the vegetation Lenwade Pits 25m north A complex of gravel pits with mature varied woodland bordered on (East) (1349) the south by the Marriott’s Way and the River Wensum to the north Lake adjacent to 542m east A large water-filled gravel pit with woodland around its margins Concrete Plant (1346) Weston Meadow 630m Lowland marshy grassland (1345) south- west Lenwade Pits 656m A complex of disused gravel pits, woodland and wet grassland (West) (1350) west Great 787m A number of disused gravel pits with a variety of habitats including Witchingham west open water, tall herb/grassland and wet woodland Common (1323) Pits near Lyng 1.35 A large site which includes large eutrophic lakes surrounded by Easthaugh (677) south- neutral marshy grassland and areas of woodland west Meadow 1.39km Unimproved meadow rich in herbs although rather heavily grazed adjacent to south- Sandy Lane west (1322) Bush Meadow 1.5km A mature semi-natural woodland and a small shaded pond Plantation east (1347)

Page | 6 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

4. SITE DESCRIPTION OVERVIEW 4.1 The site (Figure 2) comprises a roughly rectangular plot of brownfield land located between Norwich Road and the Marriott’s Way with industrial units to the west and east. As viewed historically: • In the 1946 aerial photograph the site is part of a larger arable field, between the Norwich Road and the railway (that then becomes the Marriott’s Way after the railway shut). A hedgerow runs along the Norwich Road boundary. • In the late 1980s the broad layout is as it is today, with industrial units along Norwich Road and the proposed development site comprising a large area of hardstanding located roughly centrally, with the remainder of the site largely open grassland other than a few trees: along Norwich Road; close to the Marriott’s Way; and also along the edge of the bank to the south of the hardstanding. • By the late 1990s the site appears to be unused with scrub encroachment over the grassland, the density of which increases to the most recent photograph. PHASE 1 HABITATS 4.2 The site comprises scrub habitat, developed largely since the 1980s with hardstanding and some limited areas of ephemeral / short perennial vegetation developed on a veneer of soil over the hardstanding. In terms of topography: • The site may possibly have been excavated from its former ground levels, to leave a strip of elevated land (~10m) wide) alongside Norwich Road with a steep bank down to the hardstanding for most of its length.

Figure 2. Current habitat plan (with the extent of hardstanding determined from historic images).

Page | 7 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

4.3 The vegetation is described as follows: • Scrub. The scrub is largely silver birch Betula pendula, relativity dense and with the trees mostly sub-mature but with occasional mature individuals. Also present are saplings of sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, Norway maple Acer platanoides, ash Fraxinus excelsior, goat willow Salix caprea and oak Quercus robur. Additional points are: o Along the Norwich Road boundary there do not appear to be any trees remaining from the hedgerow visible in 1946, but there are a number of planted trees, mature but of small stature: sycamore (~20) and horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum (three). o There are a number (~20) multi-stemmed oaks along the bank edge at the south of the hardstanding, these are mature but with stems <40cm diameter and post- dating the 1940s. o A shrub layer beneath the scrub canopy is largely absent other than for low brambles Rubus fructicosus agg and occasional field rose Rosa arvensis. o The herb layer comprises seedlings of ash and Norway maple with ivy Hedera helix as a prostrate ground cover along with occasional plants of meadow grass Poa species (probably P. trivialis), nettle Urtica dioica, and ground ivy Glechoma hederacea. Throughout, there are occasional plants of agrimony Agrimonia eupatoria and strawberry Fragaria vesca, especially along the edges, and occasional singletons of male fern Dryopteris filix-mas. At the south end, alongside Norwich Road, there are also a few plants of hedge woundwort Stachys sylvatica. Bryophytes are occasional components of the ground cover: most conspicuously occasional patches of common feather moss Kindbergia praelonga and a Dicranella species. • Ephemeral / short perennial vegetation. Where a thin veneer of humic material has developed over the hardstanding the vegetation comprises a mixed ephemeral / short perennial cover. In open situations these areas include patches of a Cladonia-type lichen; the associated vegetation does not include grasses or herb species indicative of acid swards. Species of very shallow substrates comprise biting stonecrop Sedum acre and the mosses Calliergon species and cuspidate earth-moss Phascum cuspidatum. The other species comprise species that are probably rooting through cracks in the concrete, such as straggly individuals of false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius, nettle, dove’s foot cranesbill Geranium molle, ground ivy, ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris and young herb seedlings (possibly of a hawkweed Hypericum species but likely to include a much wider range of annual species). OFF-SITE 4.4 The verge to the south, alongside the north side of Norwich Road, is heavily shaded by mature oaks to the south of the road. The vegetation comprises a sparse false oat grass sward with tall ruderal species: mainly nettle and ground ivy Aegopodium podagraria, interspersed with garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata and herb Robert Geranium robertianum. 4.5 The strip of land between the north boundary and the Marriott’s Way path comprises scrub that is similar in composition to that on the proposed development Site, but with a more open canopy and consequently a taller understorey of bramble. Additionally, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and blackthorn Prunus spinosa are present as occasional straggly bushes. 4.6 Further along the Marriott’s Way but in the general vicinity there are similar patches of open ephemeral / short perennial vegetation including the Cladonia-type lichen.

Page | 8 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

5. PROTECTED SPECIES SCOPING BATS 5.1 The data search returned records for: barbastelle, serotine, Daubenton’s, Natterer’s, noctule, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, and brown long-eared bat. Many of the records are derived from the Norfolk Bat Survey8 including many from the Marriott’s Way. A number of roost records are contained within the data – mainly derived from work on the Norwich NDR – but none are from the vicinity of the site (all are >500m distant). 5.2 As the data search suggests, the Marriott’s Way is likely to be important for commuting bats and offering good foraging habitat, including areas of shelter and open but enclosed areas in windy weather. 5.3 None of the trees on the Site or along the boundaries have potential roost features for bats, and all are rated as having negligible bat roost potential. Although the hardstanding areas are extensive and do not offer foraging habitat, the reminder of the scrub vegetation is likely to be productive for insects (from the silver birches and humic soil) and offering good foraging habitat, including areas of cover and shelter when windy. GREAT CRESTED NEWTS 5.4 The only records of great crested newts are from Alderford Common >1.5km distant. 5.5 In the valley bottom of the River Wensum there are extensive areas of flooded gravel workings, for much of its length from to Costessey. As far as can be established these are not known to support great crested newts, or at least great crested newts are not described as being associated with gravel pits within the River Wensum’s restoration strategy (Natural England, 20099). 5.6 In relation to the proposed development site the only static waterbodies within 500m are believed to be former gravel workings located within the valley bottom. Those to the west are managed as part of the Layfield Lakes fishery10 and those to the immediate north within the Lenwade Pits CWS are likewise believe to be managed as fisheries or are at least well stocked with fish, formerly owned by a celebrity angler and stocked with ‘carp, tench, grass carp, catfish, roach and rudd’ 11. Based on the available information regarding the waterbodies within 500m – from desk study including internet searches, aerial photographs and the observations during the field survey – it is believed that there are no waterbodies that offer potential breeding habitat for great crested newts in the vicinity. It is concluded that great crested newts can be scoped-out, on the basis they are absent locally and that the site is not therefore used as terrestrial habitat. BIRDS 5.7 Records for a wide range of species were returned although many are unlikely to be relevant, such as purple heron and other vagrants and wetland species. The local assemblage of birds includes a number of rare woodland species, such as willow tit, lesser spotted woodpecker, nightingale, and turtle dove, and also more widespread species of scrub such as linnet, marsh tit and willow warbler. The hardstanding area does not appear to be seasonally flooded

8 http://www.batsurvey.org/ 9 Natural England (2009) Natural England Commissioned Report NECR010 River Wensum Restoration Strategy. Natural England, Sheffield. 10 http://www.spotfish.co.uk/fishery/layfield-lakes 11 http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38561980.html

Page | 9 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

therefore wetland species that may be found in such open anthropogenic areas are considered very unlikely to be present 5.8 As assessed, however, the scrub habitat within the proposed development Site has a sparse understorey and lacks dense cover or ‘thickets’ of vegetation and also lacks larger diameter trees, rotten stumps or dead/moribund ‘snags’ that are required by many rarer species. The quality of the scrub for nesting birds is thought to be relatively low and that is it is unlikely to be used by the rare species known locally. It is, however, very likely that the site will be used by nesting birds including widespread but declining species of conservation concern, such as willow warbler. 5.9 In summary, the site is very likely to be used by nesting birds, both common species and widespread but declining species of conservation concern but not the rare woodland / scrub species. REPTILES 5.10 The reptile records from the 2km data search comprise a small number of records for common lizard and slow worm, all >500m distant but none from the Marriott’s Way. 5.11 As initially assessed the site offered possible reptile habitat at the interface of the scrub and ephemeral / short perennial vegetation with colonisation possibly from the Marriott’s Way (even without reptile records from Marriott’s Way itself). 5.12 Direct surveys were therefore undertaken and none were recorded. They are concluded to be absent from the site. SMALL MAMMALS 5.13 Small mammals are assessed as follows: • Water vole and otter are considered absent due to the absence of water. • Badgers are known locally from the vicinity of Lenwade (~1km) as road kills or singletons observed casually. None of the records appear to be of setts. A thorough search was possible of the proposed development site and no evidence of badgers was found. Setts are concluded to be absent from the site and immediate surrounding area. • Hedgehogs are known locally from Lenwade (~500m distant) and Morton on the Hill (~1km distant) and the site offers potential shelter and foraging habitat, thus they may be present. • Brown hare are known locally from several locations, but the site is small, enclosed and lacking grass vegetation and consequently not suitable as habitat. They are considered absent. INVERTEBRATES 5.14 Records for 16 invertebrate species of conservation concern were returned and these were analysed using Natural England’s Invertebrate Species-habitat Information System (Drake et al., 200712). A few species were not assigned to habitats types. In summary: • Three wetland spices are present, including two Annex II species listed on the River Wensum SAC citation: white clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes (Decapoda: Astacidae) and Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana (Gastropoda:

12 Drake C.M., Lott, D.A., Alexander, K.N.A. and Webb, J. (2007) Surveying Terrestrial and Freshwater Invertebrates for Conservation Evaluation. Natural England, Sheffield.

Page | 10 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

Vertiginidae) (the site lacks wetland or swamp vegetation and therefore these species are absent); • Three species of open grassland: the wall butterfly Lasiommata megera (Lepidoptera: Satyridae) and two bees; and • The remainder are widespread moths. 5.15 The site lacks dead wood habitat other than small narrow timbers. The ephemeral / short perennial vegetation is of low quality for many invertebrates, lacking features needed by many species (such as the friable substrate deep enough to dig burrows, gradual transitions between scrub and the open vegetation, and small-scale habitat variation). It is thought that the assemblage of invertebrates is at most likely to support a small number of widespread moths afforded the status of Species of Principal Importance due to national declines while remaining widespread13, these comprising a few scrub-edge species. Specialist invertebrates are almost certainly absent. SUMMARY 5.16 The overall summary of the protected species scoping is provided below (Table 4). Water vole and otter are scoped-out due to the absence of on-site water or water immediately nearby. Table 4. Summary of protected species scoping. Species Data search result On-site habitat Scoping assessment group Great crested None recorded No aquatic habitat Considered absent newts considered suitable within 500m, all waterbodies being flooded pits stocked with fish Bats Foraging records for nine No trees with roost Likely to be used for species potential, foraging bats foraging only likely Breeding Several potentially On site habitat of low Nesting birds likely: birds relevant species known quality, without thickets common and widespread locally, including a number of vegetation or larger declining species of rare scrub and trees / or snags included. Rare species woodland species unlikely to be present Reptiles Common lizard and slow Scrub edge vegetation Considered absent worm >500m distant but offering potential habitat none recorded from but direct surveys Marriott’s Way negative Badgers Several records of No evidence Considered absent singletons but none of setts Hedgehog Several records Cover and foraging Likely present habitat present Brown hare Numerous records locally Unsuitable, enclosed Considered absent and lacking grass swards Invertebrates Small assemblages of Wetland habitat absent, Small number of wetland and open open vegetation low widespread declining grassland species, and quality, scrub habitat species likely present in also generalist moths suitable for a few low numbers species of moths

13 Butterfly Conservation (2007) Biodiversity Action Plan – Moths. Available from: http://butterfly- conservation.org/files/uk-bap-species-moths-research-only.pdf

Page | 11 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

6. HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT SCREENING OVERVIEW 6.1 As described within the Methods and Appendix 2, the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process is intended to establish whether a project (or plan) is likely to impact the integrity of a European site or Ramsar site. 6.2 The scheme itself is for a small commercial project of business / light industrial units: • B1, business; • B2, general industrial (not within B3-B7 special industrial groups A-D); and • B8, storage or distribution. INFORMATION GATHERING Scoping of Potential Impacts 6.3 Many of the pathways of potential impact that are sometimes attributable to industrial uses are scoped-out from consideration, as the potential uses are for general business and general industrial use. The proposed use therefore does not include specialist industrial processes. such as smelting, treatments of ores/minerals, many chemical processes, and processes with animal offals including putrescible material. 6.4 Access to the scheme will be directly off the Norwich Road. 6.5 The following potential pathways of impact are considered to be potentially relevant: • Recreational impacts from an increase in the local workforce; and • Water ‘quality and quantity’ impacts from surface water disposal. Local Recreation Areas 6.6 The scheme will employ a number of people, and it is conceivable that they will use local area for amenity during lunch and other breaks. 6.7 The only footpath or open space public recreation facility in the vicinity is the Marriott’s Way, a well promoted long distance walking, running and cycling route14. It has a hard surface of compacted aggregate and a car park for users is located 600m west of the site. Water Management 6.8 Drinking water and foul water disposal will be via the Anglian Water ‘mains’ networks. 6.9 A Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy accompanies the application (Canham Consulting, 201815), and this includes a mitigation strategy for surface water management, including data from infiltration testing. 6.10 The Site is in Flood Zone 1 (which in general terms is outside of the ‘floodplain’) and is suitable for a range of developments without risk of possible flooding surface flood impacting the Site.

14 http://www.marriottsway.info/ 15 Canham Consulting (2018) Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy on Norwich Road, Lenwade Norfolk, NR9 5SH. Unpublished report informing the application.

Page | 12 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

6.11 A surface water management strategy is presented for the scheme (Canham Consulting, loc. cit.), and given the proposed use of the Site, ground conditions and topography a range of measures are potentially suitable for inclusion within the mitigation train, following best practice (CIRIA, 201516) and in relation to the River Wensum as a sensitive receiving water (Ellis et al., 201217). Infiltration is the preferred method of water management, using crate soakaways (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Indicative plan showing crate soakaways within the context of surface water management strategy.

Scoping-in of Sites 6.12 As described above, there is only a single European site within 2km (Table 5), the River Wensum SAC, ~303m north. There is no public access to the River Wensum in the vicinity, with no public footpaths leading to it or alongside, although the Marriott’s Way crosses the River Wensum ~600m upstream and ~1.1km downstream.

16 CIRIA C753 (2015) The SuDS Manual. Available from: http://www.ciria.org/Resources/Free_publications/SuDS_manual_C753.aspx 17 Ellis, J. B., Revitt, D. M., & Lundy, L. (2012). An impact assessment methodology for urban surface runoff quality following best practice treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 416, 172-179.

Page | 13 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

Table 5. European sites within 2km. Site name Designated feature of the European site River Wensum Annex I habitats: SAC • 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Annex II species: • 1092 White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes • 1016 Desmoulin`s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana • 1096 Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri 1163 Bullhead Cottus gobio •

STAGE 1: TEST OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT 6.13 The potential pathways proposed as potentially relevant are recreation pressure and water ‘quality and quantity’ impacts. They are assessed as follows: • Recreation impacts are not likely to be significant. It is thought unlikely that employees would access the River Wensum itself by virtue of the very limited access. Irrespective of the level of use, the qualifying features of the River Wensum are considered to be insensitive to recreation pressure (The Landscape Partnership, 201718). • Water quality and quantity impacts are not thought likely to impact the River Wensum SAC. First, the Anglian Water network will be used for supply and disposal of foul water. Second, surface water management will be via a mitigation train following best practice and able to ensure no impacts in relation to quantity and the quality of surface water flows. An appropriate surface water management strategy has been identified. Various types of surface water management features are suitable for inclusion in the mitigation train, and infiltration is considered to be the preferred option as informed by infiltration testing. As such, there is an appropriate and realistic surface water management strategy available for the scheme, most likely based on infiltration using crate soakaways, and able to avoid impacts on the River Wensum SAC. 6.14 It is thought very unlikely that the scheme would impact the designated features of the River Wensum SAC or its wider ecology. It is concluded that there will not be an impact on site integrity and that there is sufficient confidence in this conclusion for further assessment to not be required. STAGE 1: TEST OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT (IN COMBINATION) 6.15 This scheme will have negligible impacts on the River Wensum SAC. It is not thought that these would act in-combination with other schemes locally. Specifically, the surface water management strategy for the scheme will include an adequate mitigation train to ensure surface water flow volumes and quality will have negligible impact. Given that these impacts are negligible it is not thought they would act in-combination with impacts from other schemes. Any impacts from other schemes would not have greater impacts when considered in- combination with this scheme. It is concluded that there is sufficient confidence to conclude that there will not be an in-combination impacts attributable to this scheme and that this scheme will not result in an in-combination impact on the site integrity of the River Wensum SAC.

18 The Landscape Partnership (2017) Habitats Regulations Assessment of Greater Norwich Local Plan Issues and Options stage for Greater Norwich Development Partnership. Available from: https://gnlp.jdi-consult.net/documents/pdfs_14/reg.18_gnlp_interim_hra.pdf

Page | 14 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

OTHER DESIGNATED SITES 6.16 Within 2km the other designated sites are listed below (Table 6) and also the assessment of impacts. In all cases they are concluded to be negligible by virtue of distance or integral measures such as surface water mangement and lighting design. Table 6. Summary of potential impacts on other designated sites. Site Potential impact Justification Potential pathway impact Alderford None likely to Distance to the designated site and the Negligible Common SSSI operate over character of this scheme 1.7km Lenwade Pits Surface water A surface water management mitigation train Negligible CWS wetlands drainage is a feasible option for the scheme, most likely based on infiltration Marriott’s Way Recreational Increase in recreational use likely to be low Negligible CWS impacts in absolute and relative terms Artificial lighting Lighting scheme to minimise light spill and Negligible glare, via directional lighting, baffles and other measures

SUMMARY 6.17 It is concluded that the scheme will not result in an impact on designated sites. The River Wensum SAC is a key consideration, located 303m north across the valley bottom. A surface water management strategy informs the HRA Screening, and this shows that a mitigation train following current best practice is a realistic and feasible option (as an integral component) for the scheme, most likely utilising infiltration. There is sufficient confidence to conclude that the mitigation train for surface water will able to reduce impacts on the River Wensum SAC to a negligible level, such that there will not be an impact on site integrity. 6.18 Other pathways of impact on designated sites are likewise thought likely to be negligible, by virtue of measures such as the surface water management strategy and also distance. In the specific case of the Marriott’s Way CWS that runs adjacent to the Site, there is an existing high level of recreational use, with infrastructure to management visitors and impacts. Additional measures such as lighting design can reduce lighting impacts to a negligible level.

Page | 15 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

7. DISCUSSION EVALUATION Habitats 7.1 The intrinsic value of the main part of the proposed development site is considered to be low, without any Habitats of Principal Importance19 considered to be present. Of note is: • The scrub is relatively young and although comprising native species and with some woodland ground flora it is nevertheless scrub and is not considered to qualify as woodland, and specifically it does not qualify as Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland. • The vegetation does not qualify as the Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land, not meeting any of the criteria other than the presence of the limited patches of ephemeral / short perennial (Table 7).

Table 7 Criteria for Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land. Criteria Assessment The area of open mosaic habitat is at least 0.25 ha in size. The site is ~1.57ha in total and the total extent of open vegetation is estimated as ~0.05ha (minus the scrub and hardstanding) Known history of disturbance at the site or evidence that soil has The level main surface been removed or severely modified by previous use(s) of the site. appears to have been Extraneous materials/substrates such as industrial spoil may have excavated but as a been added. construction activity rather as an on-going activity The site contains unvegetated, loose bare substrate and pools may Without loose substrates be present. other than veneers of superficial material accumulated onto hardstanding The site contains some vegetation. This will comprise early The ephemeral / short successional communities consisting mainly of stress-tolerant perennial vegetation is early species (e.g. indicative of low nutrient status or drought). Early successional and including a successional communities are composed of (a) annuals, or (b) few stress tolerant species mosses/liverworts, or (c) lichens, or (d) ruderals, or (e) inundation species, or (f) open grassland, or (g) flower-rich grassland, or (h) heathland. The site shows spatial variation, forming a mosaic of one or more of The transitions between the early successional communities (a) – (h) above (criterion 3) plus vegetation types are sharp bare substrate, within 0.25ha. and lack mosaics

Species 7.2 Many species are scoped-out as being potentially present. The species scoped-in are: • Foraging bats, • Breeding birds, • Hedgehogs, and • Widespread, declining moths with the status of Species of Principal Importance.

19 Maddock, A. (2011) UK BAP Priority Habitat Descriptions. Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2010.pdf

Page | 16 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

7.3 For all four species / groups it is thought likely that the site is of lower value, lacking any particularly limiting or scarce/specialist resources, and that any individuals present will be component(s) of larger local population(s). They are only of value at the local scale. IMPACTS Designated Sites 7.4 As argued within Section 6: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening, it is concluded that there will not be impacts on designated sites including the River Wensum SAC and other sites. Appropriate mitigation measures will be integral to the scheme, for pathways such as surface water management and lighting. Habitats 7.5 The scheme would result in the loss of much of the on-site habitat areas, and require an access route from Norwich Road across the highway verge of ruderal / sparse grass vegetation. These are considered to be of low ecological value. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER SURVEY 7.6 It is not thought that additional surveys are required to inform the assessment of the scheme. MITIGATION OF IMPACTS 7.7 The following are recommended to avoid harm during construction works: • Nesting birds. The nests of all birds are protected from destruction. Clearance of scrub and long herbage should be outside of the nesting bird season (March-August inclusive). If this is not possible then a watching brief should be employed to confirm absence from areas of habitat prior to clearance. • As discussed, the lighting scheme should minimise light spill and glare onto the Marriot’s Way, through measures such as directional lighting and the use of baffles. DESIGN AND ENHANCEMENTS 7.8 Soft landscaping is the most appropriate key enhancement for the site, either via the retention of parcels of existing scrub vegetation or replanting with locally relevant species. Silver birch (but not the non-native ornamental birches) would be of particular value and relevance: it is a successful species locally and of very high wildlife value, is attractive and will grow well within landscaping schemes. Other structural planting could include a range of species such as hazel Corylus avellana, cherry Prunus avium, elm Ulmus species, crab Malus sylvestris, aspen Populus tremula; and dogwood Cornus sanguinea. 7.9 Suggested additional measures include: • Bat and bird boxes to be erected on retained trees, especially close to the north and west boundaries. General purpose boxes would be of high value and likely to be successful, such as small hole bird boxes and wooden bat boxes. Both types of boxes should be erected as high as possible (>3m) and bat boxes should be arranged as small groups facing different aspects. • Felled timber should be retained on-site to create habitat piles especially along the north boundary, to provide a valuable dead wood resource and cover for many species that is otherwise lacking within the local scrub habitats.

Page | 17 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

8. APPENDIX 1: ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 4. The main part of the site, looking eastwards.

Figure 5. Scrub alongside Norwich Road (south boundary) with planted trees visible.

Page | 18 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

Figure 6. Ephemeral / short perennial vegetation including Cladonia- type lichen.

Figure 7. View along Marriott’s Way close to the proposed development site.

Page | 19 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

9. APPENDIX 2: LEGISLATION INCLUDING HRA GUIDANCE Non-technical account of relevant legislation and policies. Species Legislation Offence Licensing Bats: Conservation of Deliberately capture, injure or kill A Natural England (NE) European Habitats and a bat; deliberate disturbance of licence in respect of protected Species bats; or damage or destroy a development is required. species Regulations breeding site or resting place 2010 (as used by a bat. [The protection of amended) Reg bat roosts is considered to apply 41 regardless of whether bats are present.] Bats: Wildlife and Intentionally or recklessly Licence from NE is National Countryside Act obstruct access to any structure required for surveys protection 1981 (as or place used for shelter or (scientific purposes) that amended) S.9 protection or disturb a bat in would involve disturbance such a place. of bats or entering a known or suspected roost site. Birds Wildlife and Intentionally kill, injure or take No licences are available Countryside Act any wild bird; intentionally take, to disturb any birds in 1981 (as damage or destroy the nest of regard to development. amended) S.1 any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. Intentionally or recklessly disturb a Schedule 1 species while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young; intentionally or recklessly disturb dependent young of such a species [e.g. kingfisher]. Great Conservation of Deliberately capture, injure or kill Licences issued for crested Habitats and a great crested newt; deliberate development by Natural newt: Species disturbance of a great crested England. European Regulations newt; deliberately take or protected 2010 (as destroy its eggs; or damage or species amended) Reg destroy a breeding site or resting 41 place used by a great crested newt. Great Wildlife and Intentionally or recklessly A licence is required from crested Countryside Act obstruct access to any structure Natural England for newt: 1981 (as or place used for shelter or surveying and handling. National amended) S.9 protection or disturb it in such a protection place. Adder, Wildlife and Intentionally kill or injure any No licence is required. common Countryside Act common reptile species. However, an assessment lizard, 1981 S.9(1) and for the potential of a site to grass S.9(5) support reptiles should be snake slow undertaken. worm

Page | 20 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

Species Legislation Offence Licensing Scientific Wildlife and To carry out or permit to be Owners, occupiers, public Interest Countryside Act carried out any potentially bodies and statutory (SSSI) 1981 (as damaging operation. SSSIs are undertakers must give It is an amended) given protection through policies notice and obtain the offence in the Local Development Plan. appropriate consent under S.28 before undertaking operations likely to damage a SSSI. All public bodies to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs. County There is no Local sites are given protection Development proposals Wildlife statutory through policies in the Local that would potentially affect Sites designation for Development Plan. a local site would need to local sites. provide a detailed justification for the work, an assessment of likely impacts, together with proposals for mitigation and restoration of habitats lost or damaged. HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION 9.1 Within the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, Regulation 61(5) states that ‘In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 62 (considerations of overriding public interest), the competent authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be)’. Regulation 61(6) also states ‘In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, the authority must have regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which they propose that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given.’ 9.2 The Habitats Regulations Assessment relates to Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Sites. 9.3 SPAs are sites classified in accordance with Article 4 of the EC Directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC), more commonly known as the Birds Directive. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, and for regularly occurring migratory species. 9.4 SACs are classified in accordance with EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive). Article 3 of this Directive requires the establishment of a European network of important high-quality conservation sites that will make a significant contribution to conserving the 189 habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive. 9.5 These sites are known as the Natura 2000 network and are commonly referred to as European sites. Ramsar Sites qualify under the International Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the Ramsar Convention, Iran 1971 and amended by the Paris Protocol 1992). Although Ramsar Sites are not protected in law by the Birds and Habitats Directives as a matter of policy, government – reiterated in the National Planning Policy Framework has decreed that, unless otherwise specified, procedures relating to SPAs and SACs will also apply to Ramsar Sites. The term ‘international sites’ is used in this report to refer to all three of these qualifying sites. 9.6 An appropriate assessment is a decision by a 'competent authority', as to whether the proposed plan or project can be determined as not having an adverse effect on the integrity

Page | 21 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

of any European sites. An adverse effect on integrity is likely to be one that prevents the site from maintaining the same contribution to favourable status for the relevant feature(s), as it did when the site was qualifying. Only where a plan or project can be determined by the competent authority as not having an adverse effect on site integrity can it be allowed to proceed. 9.7 The favourable conservation status of the site is defined through the site's conservation objectives and it is against these objectives that the effects of the plan or project must be assessed. Regulation 61(2) requires that a person applying for any such consent, permission or other authorisation must provide such information as the competent authority may reasonably require for the purposes of the assessment or to enable them to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required. Process 9.8 The Appropriate Assessment process is outlined in Table 8, presented for illustrative purposes, outlining the steps required to be undertaken by the competent authority when considering projects that may impact on European sites. Table 8. The stages of a Habitat Regulations Assessment. Task Requirements Evidence Collation of documentation relating to the project. Gathering Collecting information on relevant European sites, their conservation objectives and characteristics Stage 1 The ‘test of likely significant effect’ Establishing whether a plan is ‘likely to have a significant effect’ on a European site, and therefore requiring the Appropriate Assessment Stage 2 Assessment of whether there is an effect on site integrity This is potentially a two-stage process, with a consideration of whether there are likely to be effects, followed if necessary by a detailed consideration of site-specific factors Stage 3 If there is an effect on site integrity then the project should be re-assessed with the inclusion of compensation and a repeat of stage 2 9.9 An important part of this HRA is the significance of mitigation and compensation; these are defined below (Mitigation Versus Compensatory Measures). Following Tyldesley (2011)20 it is considered that compensatory measures may be proposed if the project is permitted under the provisions of regulations 49 and 53, but rather than forming part of the Appropriate Assessment they are included in Stage 3; in contrast, mitigation measures may form part of the Appropriate Assessment (i.e. Stage 2). SITE INTEGRITY 9.10 Following English Nature (2004)21 and based on definitions within Article 1 of the Habitats Directive, site integrity is defined below. 9.11 For habitats: • Their range and area must be stable or increasing; • The species structure and functions necessary for long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future; and • The status of the typical species is considered to be favourable. 9.12 For species: • The population dynamics data on the species indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; and

20 Tyldesley, D. (2011) Assessing Projects under the Habitats Directive: Guidance for Competent Authorities. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor. 21 English Nature (2004) Internal Guidance to Decisions on ‘Site Integrity’: A Framework for Provision of Advice to Competent Authorities. English Nature, Peterborough.

Page | 22 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment

• The natural range is stable and likely to continue to be, and there is and will probably continue to be a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis. 9.13 English Nature (199922) proposes a checklist of questions as a pragmatic approach to identifying likely effects and to potential mechanisms that may affect site integrity. Where each answer is ‘yes’, then it can be concluded that there are no adverse effects. Thus, for the assessment to conclude that there are no adverse effects then it is required to show that: • The area of Annex I habitats (or composite features) will not be reduced; • There will be no direct effect on the population of the species for which the site was Qualifying or classified; • There will be no indirect effects on the populations of species for which the site was Qualifying or classified due to loss or degradation of their habitat (quantity/quality); • There will be no changes to the composition of the habitats for which the site was Qualifying (e.g. reduction in species structure, abundance or diversity that comprises the habitat over time); and • That there will be no interruption or degradation of the physical, chemical or biological processes that support habitats and species for which the site was Qualifying or classified. 9.14 If the answer is ‘no’ to any of these or if there is uncertainty, then it is necessary to consider further site-specific factors in order to reach a decision. 9.15 The key site-specific factors that need to be considered when forming judgments on site integrity are: • Scale of impact, • Long term effects and sustainability, • Duration of impact and recovery/reversibility, • Dynamic systems, • Conflicting feature requirements, • Off-site impacts, and • Uncertainty in cause and effect relationships and a precautionary approach. MITIGATION VERSUS COMPENSATORY MEASURES 9.16 There are three types of counteracting measures to reduce impacts: avoidance and reduction (which are grouped together as mitigation) and then compensatory measures. “Mitigation (avoidance and reduction) measures (are) built into the project and form(in) part of the project as proposed or applied for”; compensatory measures are those which “do not already form part of the project but may be applied as additional conditions or restrictions (Tyldesley lock city; pp13). 9.17 The distinction is: • Mitigation measures are those measures which aim to minimise, or even cancel, the negative impacts on a site that are likely to arise as a result of the implementation of a plan or project. These measures are an integral part of the specifications of a plan or project (see section 4.5 of the leaflet "Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive"), and • Compensatory measures in the strict sense are independent of the project (including any associated mitigation measures). They are intended to offset the negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 Network is maintained.

22 English Nature (1999) Habitats Regulations Guidance Note. English Nature, Peterborough.

Page | 23 Land off Norwich Road, Lenwade: Ecology Assessment