Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:

ECOLOGICAL SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT

October 2020

[ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd ref: 2019-140b]

ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd 49a Manor Lane Penwortham Preston Lancashire PR1 0TA

Tel: 01772 750502 [email protected] www.erap.co.uk

CONTENTS Summary ...... 3 1.0 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Background and Rationale ...... 4 1.2 Scope of Works ...... 4 2.0 Method of Survey ...... 4 2.1 Desktop Study ...... 4 2.2 Vegetation and Habitats ...... 5 2.3 Animal Life ...... 5 2.4 Survey and Reporting Limitations ...... 10 2.5 Evaluation Methodology ...... 10 3.0 Survey Results ...... 11 3.1 Desktop Study ...... 11 3.2 Vegetation and Habitats ...... 14 3.3 Animal Life ...... 17 4.0 Evaluation and Assessment ...... 19 4.1 Introduction and Description of Proposals...... 19 4.2 Designated Sites for Nature Conservation ...... 19 4.3 Vegetation and Habitats ...... 19 4.4 Protected Species and Other Wildlife ...... 20 5.0 Recommendations and Ecological Enhancement ...... 20 5.1 Introduction ...... 20 5.2 Protection of Existing Vegetation and Recommendations in Relation to Site Layout ...... 21 5.3 Invasive Plant Species ...... 21 5.4 Bats ...... 22 5.5 Birds ...... 23 5.6 Enhancement and Management of Retained Habitats and Landscape Planting ...... 25 6.0 Conclusion ...... 26 7.0 References ...... 27 8.0 Appendix: Tables, Photographs and Figures ...... 29 8.1 Plant Species Lists and Hedgerow Assessments ...... 29 8.2 Photographs ...... 34 8.3 Figures ...... 38

List of Tables Table 2.1: Survey Equipment used during Daylight Bat Survey ...... 6 Table 2.2: Consideration of Suitability of Foraging and Commuting Habitat for Bats ...... 7 Table 2.3: Ponds within 500 metres of the site ...... 7 Table 2.4: Rapid Risk Assessment Result ...... 8 Table 2.5: Pond Habitat Suitability Index Categories ...... 9 Table 2.6: Important Habitat Characteristics for Reptiles ...... 9 Table 3.1: Biological Heritage Sites within 2 Kilometres of the Site ...... 11 Table 3.2: Records of Protected Species Within a 2 Kilometre Radius of the Site ...... 12 Table 3.3: Bird species Detected on 14th September 2020 ...... 18 Table 5.1: Suitable Native Species for Tree and Shrub Planting ...... 26 Table 8.1: Plant Species List for Fields 1 and 2 ...... 29 Table 8.2: Plant Species List for Fields 3, 4 and 5 ...... 30 Table 8.3: Plant Species List for Field 6 ...... 31 Table 8.4: Plant Species List for Hedgerow 1 ...... 31 Table 8.5: Plant Species List for Hedgerow 2 ...... 32 Table 8.6: Plant Species List for Hedgerow 3 ...... 32 Table 8.7: Hedgerow Description and Assessment in Accordance with The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 ...... 33

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 1

List of Figures Figure 8.1: Aerial Image of the Site and its Surrounding Habitats ...... 38 Figure 8.2: Phase 1 Habitat and Vegetation Plan ...... 39 Figure 8.3: Opportunities and Constraints Plan ...... 40

Document Control Survey Type: Surveyors1 Survey Date(s) Habitat Suitability Index Luke Atherton B.Sc. (Hons) M.Sc. & Brian Robinson 14th September 2020 Assessment B.Sc.(Hons) MCIEEM Phase 1 Habitat survey Luke Atherton B.Sc. (Hons) M.Sc. & Brian Robinson 14th September 2020 B.Sc.(Hons) MCIEEM Reporting Personnel Date Author Luke Atherton B.Sc. (Hons) M.Sc. 30th September 2020 Graduate Ecologist Signature(s)

Luke Atherton B.Sc. (Hons) M.Sc. Graduate Ecologist Checked by Luke Atherton B.Sc. (Hons) M.Sc. 12th October 2020 Revised and issued by Brian Robinson B.Sc. (Hons) M.Sc. MCIEEM 12th October 2020 Report issued to Redrow Homes Limited Version Number 1 1 Licence reference numbers Bats Brian Robinson Natural England Class Survey Licence (bats, Level 2) Registration Number 2015-13161-CLS-CLS Great crested newt Brian Robinson Natural England Class Survey Licence (Level 1) Registration Number 2017-30960-CLS-CLS

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 2

SUMMARY i. This Ecological assessment presents the ecological, biodiversity and nature conservation status of the land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods. The assessment was requested to inform an outline planning application at the site for residential development. ii. The assessment presents the results of a desktop study and an updated extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey carried out in September 2020; an initial survey was completed in May 2019. The scope of survey undertaken is appropriate to identify potential ecological opportunities and constraints, the remit of any mitigation required, recommendations relating to site design and site layout, and opportunities for biodiversity associated with any development proposals. iii. The approximately 12.96 hectare site is located within a largely rural area and is surrounded by fields of pasture grassland to the north, east and south, with housing adjacent to the west. The site supports fields of improved and semi-improved grassland, an area of broad-leaved woodland, scattered trees and shrubs, scrub, three hedgerows and two ditches. iv. The proposals will have no adverse effect on statutory or non-statutory designated sites for nature conservation. v. The site contains only common and widespread plant species. None of the habitats within the site are of significant interest in terms of their plant species composition. None of the habitats present are representative of semi-natural habitat. The NVC communities present are typical of the geographical area and conditions present. vi. The three hedgerows are Priority Habitat, and the broad-leaved woodland at the northern end of the site is an example of Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat. Any proposed development should seek to retain the hedgerows and woodland in the long term, and manage them to enhance their value to biodiversity. vii. The section of River Lostock which lies adjacent to the northern boundary of the site is of ‘local’ importance as it contributes to the diversity of habitats for the wider area and will function as a wildlife link, and will provide a resource for a variety of invertebrate species (and consequently foraging birds, bats and other wildlife). It is recommended that a suitable buffer is retained along the length of the river and the habitats within this buffer are managed in terms of their benefits to biodiversity. viii. The mature trees and ditches within the site are of ‘site’ value as they contribute to the diversity of habitats within the site, and the trees provide structural diversity and are suitable for use by nesting birds. ix. The improved grassland fields are of low ecological value. The areas of semi-improved grassland are of ‘site’ value only, however areas (in particular Field 6) have the potential to be enhanced in the long-term via the creation of areas of wildflower grassland. x. Localised areas of Indian Balsam were detected within the site; any proposed development would provide an opportunity to control the spread of this species via long-term management. xi. The presence of badger, great crested newt and water vole is reasonably discounted at the site. xii. The hedgerows, River Lostock, trees, shrubs and scrub at the northern end of the site provide favourable habitats for foraging and commuting bats. It is recommended that any development takes into account the suitability of the northern site boundary (and its retained buffer) for wildlife via retaining and protecting the habitats present during the construction phase and ensuring no artificial lighting shines over them. Protection of the section of the River Lostock which lies adjacent to the northern site boundary will ensure that otter (if present) are protected during works. Any proposed development must take into consideration the protection of nesting birds and install features suitable for use by nesting birds. xiii. No other protected species have been detected. xiv. It is concluded that an area of appropriately designed development is feasible but must be fully informed and guided by the ecological survey. Mitigation and compensation for loss of hedgerows, scrub and ditches by enhancement elsewhere is considered feasible. Development at part of the site will secure the enhancement and long-term management for biodiversity of retained habitats (grassland and woodland). xv. Consideration of the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems and creation of swales of marshy grassland habitat should be explored. Ecological enhancements within the built development area must be provided as part of any proposed development to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF, and are feasible at the site. xvi. Subject to the implementation of an appropriate site layout it is concluded that development is feasible at the site in accordance with the guidelines of the NPPF and UK wildlife legislation.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Rationale

1.1.1 ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd was commissioned by Redrow Homes Limited to carry out an ecological assessment of land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ (hereafter referred to as the ‘site’). The Ordnance Survey (OS) grid reference at the centre of the site is SD 5855 2118. An aerial image of the site and its surrounding habitats is appended at Figure 8.1 (Source image: Google Earth).

1.1.2 The assessment was requested to inform an outline planning application to develop the site to residential dwellings.

1.2 Scope of Works

1.2.1 The scope of ecological works undertaken in September 2020 comprised:

a. An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and assessment; b. Assessment of the ecological value of the habitats within the site with the use of the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and the Ratcliffe criteria, as presented in A Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, 1977); c. Survey and assessment of all habitats for relevant statutorily protected species1 and other wildlife including badger (Meles meles), great crested newt (Triturus cristatus), water vole (Arvicola amphibius), bird species and reptiles; d. A preliminary bat survey of any trees; e. The identification of any potential ecological constraints on the proposals and the specification of the scope of mitigation and ecological enhancement required in accordance with wildlife legislation, planning policy guidance and other relevant guidance; and f. The identification of any further surveys or precautionary actions that may be required prior to the commencement of any development activities.

2.0 METHOD OF SURVEY

2.1 Desktop Study

2.1.1 The following sources of information and ecological records were consulted:

a. MAGiC: A web-based interactive map which brings together geographic information on key environmental schemes and designations, including details of statutory nature conservation sites; b. Lancashire Environment Record Network (LERN); c. Environment Agency Main River Map (Environment Agency, 2018); and d. Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP); and e. 2019-140 Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ: Ecological Survey and Assessment (ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd, 2019), the previous ecological study completed for the site, hereafter referred to as the ‘2019 report’.

1 In accordance with Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and Their Impact on the Planning System (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2005) developers should not be required to undertake surveys for protected species unless there is reasonable likelihood of the species being present and affected by the development.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 4

2.2 Vegetation and Habitats

2.2.1 An updated Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site was carried out by Brian Robinson and Luke Atherton on 14th September 2020. The weather was dry and sunny, with a light air (Beaufort scale 1) and a maximum air temperature of 25oC. The conditions and time of year were favourable for the ecological survey.

2.2.2 A habitat and vegetation map was produced for the site and the immediate surrounding area at a scale of 1:2500 (refer to Figure 8.2). The mapping is based on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC, 2010) with minor adjustments to illustrate and examine the habitats with greater precision.

2.2.3 The plant species within the site boundary were determined with estimates of the distribution, ground cover, abundance and constancy of individual species. The estimation of abundance was based on the DAFOR system, where D = Dominant, A = Abundant, F = Frequent, O = Occasional and R = Rare, this being a widely used and accepted system employed by ecological surveyors. The terms L = Locally and V = Very were additionally used to describe the plant species distributions with greater precision.

2.2.4 Stands of vegetation and habitats were described and evaluated using the National Vegetation Classification (NVC). The NVC provides a systematic and comprehensive analysis of British vegetation and is a reliable framework for nature conservation and land-use planning.

2.2.5 Hedgerows were assessed in accordance with The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 Wildlife and Landscape Criteria (H.M.S.O., 1997).

2.2.6 Searches were made for uncommon, rare and statutorily protected plant species, those species listed as protected in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and species which are indicators of important and uncommon plant communities. Plant nomenclature follows New Flora of the British Isles 3rd Edition (Stace, 2010).

2.2.7 Searches were carried out for the presence of invasive species, including those listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), including Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Indian Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) and Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum).

2.3 Animal Life

Badger

2.3.1 The survey area for badger covered the site (as annotated on Figure 8.2) and extended to accessible land within a radius of 50 metres from the site boundary. Private gardens / land were excluded from the survey.

2.3.2 The survey was conducted in accordance with guidance presented within Badgers and Development (Natural England, 2007) and Badgers: surveys and mitigation for development projects (Natural England, 2015).

2.3.3 The following signs of badger activity were searched for:

a. Sett entrances, e.g. entrances that are normally 25 to 35cm in diameter and shaped like a ‘D’ on its side; b. Large spoil heaps outside sett entrances; c. Bedding outside sett entrances; d. Badger footprints; e. Badger paths; f. Latrines; g. Badger hairs on fences or bushes;

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 5

h. Scratching posts; and i. Signs of digging for food.

2.3.4 Habitats within and surrounding the site were assessed in terms of their suitability for use by foraging and sheltering badger in accordance with their known habitat preferences as detailed in current guidance and Badger (Roper, 2010).

Bat Species

Daylight Survey

2.3.5 The site was assessed for its suitability to support roosting bats by Brian Robinson. Brian holds a Natural England Class Survey Licence (bats, Level 2) Registration Number 2015-13161-CLS-CLS.

2.3.6 The surveyor’s qualifications and experience meet the criteria as defined in the Technical Guidance Series Competencies for Species Survey: Bats (CIEEM, 2013).

2.3.7 A list of equipment used is detailed at Table 2.1, below:

Table 2.1: Survey Equipment used during Daylight Bat Survey Ladders LED Lenser P14 torch Fenix HL50 head torch Panasonic DMC- FT1 digital camera 8x20 binoculars Ridgid Micro Inspection Camera Borescope CA-100

2.3.8 A preliminary assessment of the trees within the site was conducted to assess their suitability for use by roosting bats, and to inform whether further surveys or precautionary measures were required.

2.3.9 Trees were assessed from the ground using binoculars and a high-powered torch. Each tree was searched for the presence of the following features:

Woodpecker holes, rot holes, hazard beams, other vertical or horizontal cracks or splits in stems and branches, partially decayed platey bark, knot holes, man-made holes, tear-outs, cankers in which cavities have developed, other hollows or cavities, including butt-rots, double-leaders forming compression forks with included bark, gaps between overlapping stems or branches, partially detached Ivy (Hedera helix) with stem diameters in excess of 50mm and bat, bird or dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius) boxes.

2.3.10 Terms used to describe any features present follow (where possible) those outlined and described in Bat Tree Habitat Key, 2nd Edition (Andrews, H (ed), 2013) and Bat Roosts in Trees: A Guide to Identification and Assessment for Tree-care and Ecology Professionals (BTHK, 2018).

Habitat Assessment for Commuting / Foraging Bats

2.3.11 Habitats within and adjacent to the site were assessed for their value and suitability for commuting and foraging bats in accordance with Table 4.1 of Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn), (Collins, J. (ed), 2016). Reference has been made using the following categories and descriptions / examples, presented at Table 2.2, below.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 6

Table 2.2: Consideration of Suitability of Foraging and Commuting Habitat for Bats Suitability Commuting Habitat Foraging Habitat Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be used Negligible habitat features on site likely to be by commuting bats. used by foraging bats. Low Habitat that could be used by small numbers of Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be commuting bats such as a gappy hedgerow or used by small numbers of foraging bats such unvegetated stream, but isolated i.e. not very well as a lone tree or patch of scrub. connected to the surrounding landscape by other habitat. Moderate Continuous habitat connected to the wider Habitat that is linked to the wider landscape landscape that could be used by bats for that could be used by bats for foraging such commuting such as lines of trees and scrub or as trees, scrub, grassland or water. linked back gardens. High Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well High-quality habitat that is well-connected to connected to the wider landscape and is likely to be the wider landscape and is likely to be used used regularly by commuting bats such as river regularly by foraging bats such as valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees and broadleaved woodland, tree-lined woodland edge. watercourses and grazed parkland. Habitats close to and connected to known roosts. Habitats close to and connected to known roosts.

Bird Species

2.3.12 Bird species observed and heard during the survey were recorded.

2.3.13 Habitats throughout the site and in the immediate surrounding area were assessed for their value to roosting, feeding and nesting birds, as indicated by the amount of shelter, feeding value, woody vegetation structure and species diversity of tree and shrub species in the site.

Great Crested Newt

Desktop Search for Ponds

2.3.14 In accordance with current Natural England guidance (Natural England, 2015) all ponds within an unobstructed 500 metres of a site should be considered for their suitability to support breeding great crested newts. The potential of the proposed development to impact upon any great crested newt population(s) whose breeding ponds are within 500 metres must be considered.

2.3.15 The search of habitats in the wider area up to a distance of 500 metres from the site boundary revealed the presence of fourteen ponds, as detailed in Table 2.3, below (also refer to Figure 8.1).

Table 2.3: Ponds within 500 metres of the site Pond OS Central Grid Distance from Site Boundary Reference Reference A1 SD 58739 21566 39 metres to the north-east of the site B1 SD 58724 21646 115 metres to the north of the site B2 SD 58229 20946 126 metres to the south of the site C1 SD 58142 20810 276 metres to the south of the site C2 SD 58807 21803 287 metres to the north-east of the site C3 SD 58497 21741 293 metres to the north of the site C4 SD 58503 21769 305 metres to the north of the site C5 SD 58459 21953 487 metres to the north of the site C6 SD 58472 21981 500 metres to the north of the site C7 SD 58440 21972 504 metres to the north of the site D1 SD 59097 21700 413 metres to the north-east of the site D2 SD 58698 20608 396 metres to the south of the site D3 SD 58716 20563 457 metres to the south of the site Note: This table includes ponds which occur on OS maps but were found to be dry upon surveying, details of ponds are presented in Section 3.0.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 7

Consideration of Requirement for Further Survey

2.3.16 The requirement for further survey at each pond was then assessed using the following criteria:

a. Presence of dispersal barriers to great crested newt movements between ponds and the site, as detected during the walkover survey; b. Distance of ponds from the site, and the potential influence of the proposed development of the site on any populations of great crested newt (if present at ponds), using the Natural England rapid risk assessment tool; and c. Presence of other ponds which may form metapopulations and/or alter the influence of the site on ponds at greater distances.

Presence of Dispersal Barriers

2.3.17 Ponds D1, D2 and D3 lie across the M61 motorway, which is considered is significant dispersal barrier to amphibian species.

2.3.18 No significant dispersal barriers are present between the remainder of the ponds and the site.

Consideration of Distance of Ponds from Site and Relative Size of Site

2.3.19 To inform the requirement for further surveys, the Natural England Rapid Risk Assessment tool from GCN Method Statement WML-A14-2 (Version November 2017) (Natural England, 2017) has been completed, as presented at Table 2.4, below.

2.3.20 The tool has been completed based on the distances of the ponds from the site, and the areas of the 12.956 hectare of the site which lie within the distance categories presented below. The rapid risk assessment tool assumes that great crested newt are present.

Table 2.4: Rapid Risk Assessment Result Component Likely Effect Notional Offence Probability Score Great crested newt breeding pond(s) No effect 0 Land within 100m of any breeding pond(s) > 1 ha lost or damaged 0.9 Land 100-250m from any breeding pond(s) > 10 ha lost or damaged 0.7 Land >250m from any breeding pond(s) > 10 ha lost or damaged 0.5 Individual great crested newts No effect 0 Maximum: 0.9 Rapid risk assessment result: Red: Offence highly likely

2.3.21 The results indicate that if a breeding population of great crested newt is present at all ponds within 500 metres of the site an offence (as a consequence of development) would be likely.

Habitat Suitability Index Assessment

2.3.22 All ponds (with the exception of Ponds D1 to D3) were assessed using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) (Oldham, et al., 2000). The ponds were examined with reference to the ten HSI scoring criteria, which are: SI1: Geographical location; SI2: Pond area; SI3: Pond drying; SI4: Water quality (as indicated by the diversity of aquatic plants and invertebrates); SI5: Shade; SI6: Waterfowl; SI7: Fish; SI8: Abundance of other ponds within a 1 kilometre radius; SI9: Quality of terrestrial habitat; and SI10: Macrophyte cover (i.e. aquatic and emergent plants). The survey was conducted in accordance with ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom (ARG UK, 2010).

2.3.23 The survey and assessment of ponds was carried out by Luke Atherton and Brian Robinson on the 14th September 2020.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 8

2.3.24 The assessment followed guidance in relation to interpreting HSI scores, following the categorical scale shown at Table 2.5, below.

Table 2.5: Pond Habitat Suitability Index Categories HSI Score Pond Suitability for Great Crested Newt <0.5 Poor 0.5 – 0.59 Below average 0.6 – 0.69 Average 0.7 – 0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent

Assessment of Terrestrial Habitat

2.3.25 An assessment of the terrestrial habitat within the site for great crested newts was conducted, as informed by the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature, 2001) and the Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook (Langton, et al., 2001).

2.3.26 Habitats present within the site were assessed for their value to support foraging, sheltering and hibernating great crested newt. Favourable habitats can comprise rough grassland, scrubland, woodland and sites with underground crevices or cracks, such as mammal holes, voids in tree stumps or banks, and refugia such as rock piles or dead wood.

Reptile Species

2.3.27 The site and its surroundings were assessed in terms of their suitability for use by reptile species using the important characteristics for reptiles outlined in the draft document ‘Reptile Mitigation Guidelines’ (Natural England, 2011), and the Reptile Habitat Management Handbook (Edgar, et al., 2010). These habitat characteristics are outlined in Table 2.6, below.

Table 2.6: Important Habitat Characteristics for Reptiles 1. Location (in relation to species range) 7. Connectivity to nearby good quality habitat 2. Vegetation Structure 8. Prey abundance 3. Insolation 9. Refuge opportunity 4. Aspect 10. Hibernation habitat potential 5. Topography 11. Disturbance regime 6. Surface geology 12. Egg-laying site potential

Water Vole and Otter

2.3.28 Two ditches are present within the site, and the site lies adjacent to the River Lostock at its northern boundary. Each was examined for evidence of use by water vole. The survey methodology detailed in The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series) Eds. Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin (Dean, et al., 2016), was applied and the watercourses and associated banks were searched for burrows, latrines, feeding remains, runs, feeding lawns, nests and footprints.

2.3.29 Habitat assessment of the ditches to determine their suitability for use by water vole was also conducted.

2.3.30 An assessment of the suitability of each ditch and the river was undertaken to assess their suitability for use by otter (Lutra lutra) in accordance with the habitat requirements and preferences detailed in Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers, Ecology Series 10 (Chanin, 2003) and searches were made for signs of otter in accordance with Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No 10 (Chanin, 2003) and current Natural England guidance (Natural England, 2014).

2.3.31 Each ditch was searched for dung (spraints), tracks (footprints), feeding remains, otter slides (into water), holts (underground dens) and couches (above ground sites where otters rest during the day).

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 9

2.3.32 A total length of 380 metres was surveyed (i.e. the full length of the two ditches and an accessible 160 metres of the River Lostock).

2.4 Survey and Reporting Limitations

2.4.1 The surveys were completed at a favourable time of year.

2.4.2 The section of broad-leaved woodland which lines the southern edge of the reservoir and the reservoir could not be directly accessed from the site during the survey as they lie within private ownership. It is considered that suitable measures and recommendations to retain and protect these areas are possible without a direct inspection, however. All other areas of the site could be accessed.

2.4.3 No access could be gained to Pond C2; Pond C2 is located 300 metres to the north of the site and across an existing residential dwelling. It is considered that a reliable assessment of the likely impacts to any breeding population of great crested newt associated with ponds within the surrounding 500 metres of the site has been possible despite this access constraint however.

2.4.4 All measurements have been either estimated whilst on site or measured using QGIS or internet-based mapping software, such as MAGiC Map and Google Earth.

2.5 Evaluation Methodology

2.5.1 The habitats, vegetation and animal life were evaluated with reference to standard nature conservation criteria as described in A Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, 1977) and Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs (Bainbridge, et al., 2013). These are size (extent), diversity, naturalness, rarity, fragility, typicality, recorded history, position in an ecological or geographical unit, potential value and intrinsic appeal.

2.5.2 Habitats have been assessed to determine whether they meet those described in UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Priority Habitat Descriptions (Maddock, A (ed), 2008); these lists are used to help draw up the statutory lists of Priority Habitats, as required under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Where suitable, the ecological value of the habitats present have been assessed using the terms outlined in Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (CIEEM, 2018).

2.5.3 Government advice on wildlife, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019) and associated government circulars has been taken into consideration. Legislation relating to protected species, such as those listed under Schedules 1, 5, 6 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, is referenced where applicable, and any impacts to protected species are evaluated in accordance with current guidance.

2.5.4 The presence of any Priority Species, as listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 is noted, and habitats are assessed in terms of their suitability and value for these species. The presence of habitats and/or species listed by the Lancashire BAP Provisional Long List has been taken into account in the evaluation of the site.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 10

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS

3.1 Desktop Study

Designated Sites for Nature Conservation

Statutory Designated Sites for Nature Conservation and SSSI Impact Risk Zones

3.1.1 The site lies within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Impact Risk Zone for the West Pennine Moors SSSI, located 4 kilometres to the east of the site . The SSSI Impact Risk Zone requires the Local Planning Authority to consult with Natural England on likely risks from the following development categories (Ordnance Survey, 2019):

a. Airports, helipads and other aviation proposals; and b. Livestock and poultry units with floorspace greater than 500m², slurry lagoons greater than 750m² and manure stores greater than 3500 tonnes.

3.1.2 This is considered further at Section 4.2 below.

Non-statutory Designated Sites for Nature Conservation

3.1.3 The site lies within 2 kilometres of 5 Biological Heritage Sites (refer to Figure 8.1), the details of which are presented at Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1: Biological Heritage Sites within 2 Kilometres of the Site BHS Name and OS Location 'Reasons for Designation' Grid Reference Lucas Lane Pasture 75 metres to The site comprises a relict area of semi-natural habitat on a steep field- SD 58399 20886 the south slope bounded by Lucas Lane to the east and a small stream to the north- east. It contains neutral grassland, with seepage zones along the slope creating flushed neutral to acidic habitats. Leeds/Liverpool 230 metres to The site comprises the short remaining length of the Walton Summit Canal (Walton the south-east Branch of the Leeds-Liverpool canal. The site also includes the towpath, Summit Branch) which is bounded by a hedge and a small area of grassland at the SD 58972 20826 northern end of the site. Denham Wood 290 metres to The site consists of semi-natural woodland and an area of carr around a SD 59646 21778 the north-east mill lodge. The woodland is situated on the valley side above the River Lostock and on either side of Birchin Lane. The woodland above the River Lostock is listed in the Lancashire Inventory of Ancient Woodland (Provisional), (English Nature, 1994), whilst the woodland on Birchin Lane is shown on the 1844 6” OS map. Kem Mill Ponds 0.9 kilometres The site comprises two ponds, the intervening grassland and a derelict SD 57322 21798 to the north- boundary hedge. It supports a breeding population of great crested newt. west Tan House Valley 1.05 The site comprises grassland and a mosaic of semi-natural habitats SD 59800 20014 kilometres to situated in the valley of Tan House Brook, east of Goose Hall Quarry. the south-east The main habitat types present are neutral and acidic grasslands, scrub and woodland, ponds, valley mire and Tan House Brook itself.

3.1.4 The presence of the BHSs is considered further at Section 4.2 below.

Main River Designation

3.1.5 The section of River Lostock (located adjacent to the northern site boundary) is listed as a Main River by the Environment Agency. The two ditches within the site do not hold a Main River designation.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 11

Protected and Notable Species

3.1.6 Data requested from LERN in 2019 returned the following records of protected and notable species are held within a 2 kilometre radius of the site.

Table 3.2: Records of Protected Species Within a 2 Kilometre Radius of the Site Taxon Group Species Name and Designations1 and Notes Amphibians Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus): EPS, WCAs5, PS & LBAP. A total of 73 records, dated between 1902 and 2017, the closest of which is 695m to the west of the site, and dates from 1999. Common toad (Bufo bufo): PS & LBAP. A total of 15 records, dated between 1984 and 2015, the closest of which is 300m from the site. Common frog (Rana temporaria): LBAP. A total of 17 records, dated between 1984 and 2016, the closest of which is 90m from the site. Palmate newt (Lissotriton helveticus): A total of 6 records, dated between 1984 and 2012, the closest of which is 300m from the site. Smooth newt (Lissotriton vulgaris): A total of 32 records, dated between 1984 and 2013, the closest of which is 300m from the site. Birds – Hobby (Falco subbuteo): WCAs1 & LBAP. 1 record, dated 2018, 1020m from the site. WCAs1 Species Peregrine (Falco peregrinus): WCAs1 & LBAP. A total of 3 records, dated between 2018 and 2018, the closest of which is 470m from the site. Brambling (Fringilla montifringilla): WCAs1. 1 record, dated 2009, 320m from the site. Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis): WCAs1. A total of 7 records, dated between 1999 and 2017, the closest of which is 540m from the site. Redwing (Turdus iliacus): WCAs1. A total of 3 records, dated between 2017 and 2017, the closest of which is 690m from the site. Birds – Priority PS & LBAP and LBAP Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus), curlew (Numenius arquata), grey partridge (Perdix perdix), house species sparrow (Passer domesticus), lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus), tree sparrow (Passer montanus), wood warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix), yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella), bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), dunnock (Prunella modularis), herring gull (Larus argentatus), lesser spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor), skylark (Alauda arvensis), song thrush (Turdus philomelos), starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and yellow wagtail (Motacilla flava). LBAP Black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus), grey heron (Ardea cinerea), kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis), oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), pink- footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus), raven (Corvus corax), swift (Apus apus), willow tit (Poecile montana) and willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus). Bony fish Bullhead (Cottus gobio): LBAP. A total of 3 records, dated between 2006 and 2013, the closest (Actinopterygii) of which is 540m from the site. Brown/sea trout (Salmo trutta): PS & LBAP. A total of 3 records, dated between 2004 and 2011, the closest of which is 540m from the site. European eel (Anguilla anguilla): PS & LBAP. A total of 9 records, dated between 1995 and 2011, the closest of which is 400m from the site. Flowering plants LBAP Barberry (Berberis vulgaris), Bristly Ox-tongue (Picris echioides), Common Cornsalad (Valerianella locusta), Fat Duckweed (Lemna gibba), Narrow-leaved Water-plantain (Alisma lanceolatum), Sheep's-bit (Jasione montana) and Tuberous Comfrey (Symphytum tuberosum). Invertebrates: PS & LBAP butterflies White-letter hairstreak (Satyrium w-album) and wall (Lasiommata megera). LBAP Ringlet (Aphantopus hyperantus).

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 12

Taxon Group Species Name and Designations1 and Notes Invertebrates - PS moths Centre-barred sallow (Atethmia centrago), cinnabar (Tyria jacobaeae), dark-barred twin-spot carpet (Xanthorhoe ferrugata), dot moth (Melanchra persicariae), dusky brocade (Apamea remissa), dusky thorn (Ennomos fuscantaria), garden dart (Euxoa nigricans), ghost moth (Hepialus humuli), knot grass (Acronicta rumicis), latticed heath (Chiasmia clathrata), mottled rustic (Caradrina morpheus), powdered Quaker (Orthosia gracilis), September thorn (Ennomos erosaria), small phoenix (Ecliptopera silaceata), small square-spot (Diarsia rubi) and white ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda). LBAP Chimney sweeper (Odezia atrata) and puss moth (Cerura vinula). Terrestrial Bats (Chiroptera): EPS & WCAs5. A total of 2 records, dated between 2012 and 2015, the mammals closest of which is 1570m from the site. Pipistrelle bat species (Pipistrellus sp.): EPS & WCAs5. A total of 3 records, dated between 2009 and 2013, the closest of which is 700m from the site. Daubenton's bat (Myotis daubentonii): EPS & WCAs5. 1 record, dated 2012, 580m from the site. Common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus): EPS & WCAs5. A total of 15 records, dated between 1992 and 2017, the closest of which is 300m from the site. Eurasian red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris): WCAs5, PS & LBAP. 1 record, dated 1981, 880m from the site. European water vole (Arvicola amphibius): WCAs5 & LBAP. A total of 8 records, dated between 1981 and 2005, the closest of which is 120m from the site. Eurasian badger (Meles meles): Protection of Badgers Act 1992. A total of 3 records, dated between 2018 and 2018, the closest of which is 1700m from the site. Brown hare (Lepus europaeus): PS & LBAP. 1 record, dated 1981, 880m from the site. West European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus): PS & LBAP. A total of 7 records, dated between 2010 and 2018, the closest of which is 520m from the site. 1Key to Designation Codes: EPS = European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. WCAs1 = Species receives full protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). WCAs5 = Species receives full protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). PS = Priority Species listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 LBAP = Species listed on the Lancashire BAP Provisional Long List

3.1.7 The presence of these protected and notable species within the wider area has been taken into account throughout this report.

Summary of 2019 Report

3.1.8 The site was described in the 2019 ecology report as only containing common and widespread plant species, with none of the habitats within the site being of significant interest in terms of their plant species composition. Furthermore, none of the habitats present were considered representative of semi-natural habitat and the NVC communities present are typical of the geographical area and conditions present.

3.1.9 Indian Balsam was noted within the site and recommendations for its eradication were given.

3.1.10 The three hedgerows were identified as Priority Habitat, and the broad-leaved woodland at the northern end of the site was also identified as an example of Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat.

3.1.11 The section of River Lostock which lies adjacent to the northern boundary of the site was considered to be ‘parish’ or ‘local’ importance as it contributes to the diversity of habitats for the wider area, will function as a wildlife link, and will provide a resource for a variety of invertebrate species (and consequently foraging birds, bats and other wildlife).

3.1.12 The mature trees and ditches within the site were identified as having ‘site’ value as they contribute to the diversity of habitats within the site, and the trees provide structural diversity and are suitable for use by nesting birds. No trees within the site had the potential to support roosting bats.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 13

3.1.13 The improved grassland fields were identified as being of low ecological value. The areas of semi-improved grassland were identified as having ‘site’ value only.

3.1.14 Recommendations were made for the protection of the nearby River Lostock, the protection of nesting birds within the site, the provision of suitable native species within any landscape proposals, and the provision of bat and bird boxes within the site. Recommendations were also made for the retention and enhancement of field 6, including Ditches 1 and 2.

3.2 Vegetation and Habitats

General Description

3.2.1 Refer to Figure 8.1. The approximately 12.96 hectare site is located within a largely rural area and is surrounded by fields of pasture grassland to the north, east and south with housing located adjacent to the west.

3.2.2 The northern site boundary is defined by fencing, beyond which (from west to east) lies a works yard, a reservoir (managed as a fishery), and a section of the River Lostock beyond which lie fields of improved pasture grassland.

3.2.3 The eastern site boundary is characterised by post and rail fencing, beyond which lies a further field of improved grassland and the M61 motorway.

3.2.4 The southern site boundary is, at its eastern end, defined by post and rail fencing, beyond which lie further fields of improved grassland. At its middle section the southern boundary is defined by a hedgerow (Hedgerow 2) beyond which lies Town Lane and further pasture grassland fields, and by post and rail and metal fencing which defines the curtilage of a residential dwelling. The western end of the southern boundary is defined by Hedgerow 3, beyond which lies Town Lane and further fields of pasture grassland.

3.2.5 The western site boundary is defined by fencing and scrub beyond which lies a residential dwelling.

3.2.6 The site supports fields of improved and semi-improved grassland, an area of broad-leaved woodland, scattered trees and shrubs and scrub vegetation, three hedgerows and two ditches.

3.2.7 The habitats present within the site remain as described in the 2019 report.

3.2.8 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey map is appended at Figure 8.2, and can be referred to for all habitat descriptions. Plant species lists are appended at Section 8.1, and photographs are appended at Section 8.2.

Grassland Fields

Fields 1 and 2

3.2.9 Refer to Photos 1 and 2. Field units 1 and 2 are similar in their plant species composition, and are both managed as horse grazed pasture.

3.2.10 Both are characterised by constant and frequent Perennial Rye-grass (Lolium perenne), Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Meadow Buttercup (Ranunculus acris), Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and Meadow Foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) frequent White Clover (Trifolium repens), occasional and locally abundant Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), occasional and locally frequent Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) saplings, Common Mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum), Cock's-foot (Dactylis glomerata), Annual Meadow-grass (Poa annua), Creeping Bent (Agrostis stolonifera), Common Sorrel (Rumex acetosa), Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex obtusifolius), Broad-leaved Dock (Rumex obtusifolius) and Yorkshire-fog (Holcus lanatus).

3.2.11 The semi-improved mesotrophic (i.e. neutral) grassland holds characteristics of an MG7 Perennial Rye- grass leys and related grasslands (Rodwell, 1992) of the NVC. A plant species list is appended at Table 8.1.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 14

3.2.12 Refer to Photo 3. A unmanaged paddock and tennis court are located at the south-eastern corner of Field 2. The paddock is characterised by a sparser assemblage of the plant species which characterise Fields 1 and 2. The tennis court is composed of hard standing and supports no significant assemblage of plant species.

Fields 3, 4 and 5

3.2.13 Refer to Photos 4 and 5. Fields 3, 4 and 5 are similar in their plant species composition, and are grazed by cattle and / or managed for silage.

3.2.14 The improved grassland fields are characterised by constant and abundant Perennial Rye-grass, constant and frequent Yorkshire-fog, constant, occasional and locally frequent Common Mouse-ear, Smooth Meadow-grass (Poa pratensis) and Meadow Foxtail and occasional and very locally frequent Creeping Buttercup.

3.2.15 The improved grassland is an MG7 Perennial Rye-grass leys and related grasslands (Rodwell, 1992). A plant species list is appended at Table 8.2.

Field 6

3.2.16 Refer to Photo 6. Field 6 is located on a north-facing slope at its southern end, includes Ditches 1 and 2, and lies adjacent to the River Lostock at its northern end.

3.2.17 The cattle-grazed grassland is characterised by constant and frequent Sweet Vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), Perennial Rye-grass and Crested Dog’s-tail (Cynosurus cristatus) with frequent Yorkshire-fog and Creeping Buttercup, with occasional and locally frequent Daisy, Common Mouse-ear, Soft-rush (Juncus effusus), Ribwort Plantain, Broad-leaved Dock and Common Chickweed.

3.2.18 The semi-improved mesotrophic pasture holds characteristic of an MG10 Yorkshire-fog – Soft-rush rush- pasture (Rodwell, 1992) with areas of MG7 Perennial Rye-grass ley (Rodwell, 1992) at the drier sections of the sloping ground. A plant species list is appended at Table 8.3.

Broad-leaved Woodland, Scrub, Scattered Trees and Shrubs

3.2.19 Refer to Photo 24. The broad-leaved woodland (which could not be directly accessed and was viewed from the far side of a fence) is located between a public footpath and the reservoir to the north of the site. The canopy is characterised by constant and abundant Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur) with occasional Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). The shrub layer is characterised by locally abundant Hawthorn, and the ground flora was characterised by constant and frequent Bramble, Common Nettle, Cleavers (Galium aparine), Cow Parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris) and Wood Avens (Geum urbanum).

3.2.20 The woodland holds characteristics of an W10 Pedunculate Oak – Bracken – Bramble woodland (Rodwell, 1991).

3.2.21 Refer to Photos 8 and 9. Mature Sycamore are present at the south-eastern corner of Field 3. Locally abundant Hawthorn is present along the field boundaries of the site, and locally abundant Goat Willow (Salix caprea) and Crack-willow (Salix fragilis) scrub is present adjacent to the northern boundary at Field 3.

3.2.22 Refer to Photo 10. An area of scrub and tall-herb vegetation is present at the south-eastern end of Field 1. This vegetation is characterised by constant and frequent Hawthorn, constant and abundant Bramble, locally abundant Pedunculate Oak, occasional Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and locally abundant Rosebay Willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium). The vegetation holds characteristics of an W21 Hawthorn - Ivy (Rodwell, 1991) scrub community, the W24 Bramble – Yorkshire-fog (Rodwell, 1991) underscrub community and the OV27 Rosebay Willowherb (Rodwell, 2000) tall-herb community of the NVC.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 15

Hedgerows 1 to 3

Hedgerow 1

3.2.23 Refer to Photo 11. Hedgerow 1 is located between Fields 1 and 2 and is 100 metres long. The hedgerow is unmanaged and defunct, and lined by fencing on both sides. No adjacent footpath, ditch or wall is present, and no parallel hedgerows are present within 15 metres. The hedgerow, which is approximately 4 metres in height and 2 metres wide, supports two Sycamore trees along its length.

3.2.24 The hedgerow is characterised by constant and frequent Hawthorn with locally abundant Sycamore, occasional Elder (Sambucus nigra) and very locally frequent Pedunculate Oak. The ground flora is characterised by constant and frequent Cleavers, Common Nettle and Perennial Rye-grass. Sections of locally frequent Indian Balsam are also present within Hedgerow 1.

3.2.25 The hedgerow is typical of the W21 Hawthorn - Ivy (Rodwell, 1991) scrub community of the NVC. A plant species list is appended at Table 8.4

Hedgerow 2

3.2.26 Refer to Photo 12. Hedgerow 2 is located at the southern boundary of Field 3 and is 125 metres long. The hedgerow is trimmed on all sides and 100% continuous. The hedgerow, which supports no trees and is between 1 and 2 metres in height and 1.5 metres wide, is adjacent to a public footpath (Town Lane) and supports a wall along approximately half its length. No ditch is present and no parallel hedgerows are present within 15 metres.

3.2.27 The hedgerow is characterised by constant and abundant Hawthorn with occasional / very locally frequent Sycamore and Elder. The ground flora is characterised by constant and frequent Cleavers, Common Nettle Meadow Foxtail and Yorkshire-fog.

3.2.28 The hedgerow is typical of the W21 Hawthorn - Ivy (Rodwell, 1991) scrub community of the NVC. A plant species list is appended at Table 8.5

Hedgerow 3

3.2.29 Refer to Photos 13 and 14. Hedgerow 3 is located along the southern boundary of Fields 1 and 2 and is 310 metres long. The hedgerow is trimmed on its southern and unmanaged at its northern faces. The hedgerow, which is 100% continuous along the majority of its length (gaps appear at its eastern end), is 2 metres in height and 1.5 metres in width. It supports 5 trees and a wall along half its length, and is adjacent to a public footpath (Town Lane). No ditch and no parallel hedgerows are present within 15 metres.

3.2.30 The hedgerow is characterised by constant and abundant Hawthorn and occasional and locally abundant Sycamore and Ash. The ground flora is characterised by constant and frequent Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), Occasional Cock's-foot (Dactylis glomerata), Field Horsetail (Equisetum arvense) and Field Forget-me-not (Myosotis arvensis). Locally dominant and occasional Indian Balsam is also present at the western and eastern ends of Hedgerow 3.

3.2.31 The hedgerow is typical of the W21 Hawthorn - Ivy (Rodwell, 1991) scrub community of the NVC. A plant species list is appended at Table 8.6

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 Wildlife and Landscape criteria

3.2.32 None of the hedgerows meet the criteria for importance in accordance with The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 Wildlife and Landscape criteria. A table showing a full assessment of each hedgerow is appended at Table 8.7.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 16

Ditches 1 and 2

3.2.33 Refer to Photos 15 and 16. Ditches 1 and 2 are both located within Field 6 and comprise dry ditches, approximately 0.5 metre wide, with banks of 60o and 1 metre in height. Both ditches support vegetation typical of the surrounding pasture grassland, with the exception of a greater abundance of Soft-rush.

River Lostock

3.2.34 Refer to Photos 17 and 18. The section of the River Lostock which lies adjacent to the site’s northern boundary is a shallow (between 0.1 and 0.5 metres depth) body of fast flowing water, approximately 3 metres in width, with a bed of stone and silt and banks between 1 and 1.5 metres in height, set at 80 to 90o, and composed of brown earth soils. No aquatic or emergent vegetation was detected along the section of river, which is shaded by trees and shrubs on both sides. Indian Balsam is locally abundant along the banks of the river.

Invasive Species

3.2.35 As illustrated on Figure 8.2, stands of Indian Balsam were detected at the northern and southern boundaries of Field 2 and within Hedgerows 1 and 3. This species is listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); it is an offence to spread or cause its spread in the wild. This is considered further at Section 4.3, below.

3.3 Animal Life

Badger

3.3.1 No badger or signs of badger were detected within the site or within the access 50 metres around the site. The presence of badger is reasonably discounted.

Bat Species

Trees

3.3.2 None of the trees support any features suitable for use by roosting bats.

Habitat Assessment for Commuting and Foraging Bats

3.3.3 The improved pasture grassland which characterises the majority of the site is open and is unlikely to provide an abundance or diversity of invertebrate prey; these habitats are considered to be of low suitability for use by foraging bats.

3.3.4 The semi-improved grassland fringed by scrub and close to areas of broad-leaved woodland and water bodies along the northern site boundary are considered to be of better quality for a variety of bat species. These habitats, which are dark, are likely to provide a greater abundance and diversity of invertebrate prey, provide suitable shelter, and are unlit. The habitats which line the northern site boundary (including Field 6) are considered to be of moderate suitability for use by foraging and commuting bats, including pipistrelle species, myotis species, and noctule (Nyctalus noctula).

Bird Species

3.3.5 Birds detected in the site in September 2020 are listed in Table 3.3, below.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 17

Table 3.3: Bird species Detected on 14th September 2020 Scientific Name Common Name BOCC Status1 Priority Species? Aegithalos caudatus Long-tailed tit Green Columba livia Feral pigeon Green Corvus corone corone Carrion crow Green Cyanistes caeruleus Blue tit Green Erithacus rubecula Robin Green Larus ridibundus Black-headed gull Amber Motacilla alba Pied wagtail Green Parus major Great tit Green Passer domesticus House sparrow Red Yes Phylloscopus collybita Chiffchaff Green Pica pica Magpie Green Prunella modularis Dunnock Amber Yes Sitta europaea Nuthatch Green Troglodytes troglodytes Wren Green Turdus merula Blackbird Green Turdus philomelos Song thrush Red Yes 1BOCC: Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton, et al., 2015)

3.3.6 No ground nesting birds or signs of ground nesting birds were detected within the site. The open fields are of poor suitability for nesting bird species, however the hedgerows, areas of scrub, broad-leaved woodland at the northern end of the site and scattered shrubs are all suitable for use by nesting passerine (i.e. perching) bird species.

Great Crested Newt and other Amphibians

3.3.7 Ponds A1, B1, B2, C1 and C3 were all found to be dry and unsuitable for use by breeding amphibians (Photographs of Ponds A1, B1,B2 and C1 are presented at Photos 19 to 22.

3.3.8 No access could be gained to Pond C2; Pond C2 is located 300 metres to the north of the site and across an existing residential dwelling. It is considered that any proposed development would be reasonably unlikely to impact upon any breeding great crested newt population associated with Pond C2.

3.3.9 Pond C4 received a HSI score of ‘Poor’; previous studies of the pond completed by ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd2 did not detect the presence of great crested newt, and the pond is isolated from other ponds.

3.3.10 Ponds C5, C6 and C7 have also been shown in previous studies by ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd to not support breeding great crested newt. Large-scale earthworks were ongoing within the former quarry area in 2019, and the ponds no longer exist.

3.3.11 The ponds within an unobstructed 500 metres of the site are largely dry, with a single pond assessed to be of ‘low’ ecological value, and at which the presence of great crested newt has been previously discounted.

3.3.12 The presence of great crested newt is reasonably discounted at the site, and further surveys are not required in respect of great crested newt (or other amphibians).

Reptiles

3.3.13 The habitats within the site provide poor quality habitat for sheltering, basking and hibernating reptiles. There are no piles of garden waste or other suitable debris for use by sheltering or hibernating reptiles, and the site supports no favourable habitat for basking reptiles. The species-poor habitats within the site are reasonably unlikely to support a large populations or a variety of invertebrate prey.

2 See 2012_112 Little Quarry, Whittle-le-Woods: Ecological Survey and Assessment (ERAP Ltd, 2012)

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 18

3.3.14 The site is not adjacent or linked to any areas of favourable habitat for reptile species, and there are no records of reptile for the site or the wider area. The presence of reptiles within the site is reasonably discounted.

Water Vole and Otter

3.3.15 The dry ditches within the site are unsuitable for use by water vole.

3.3.16 The relatively shallow, shaded and fast flowing River Lostock is considered to be of poor suitability for use by water vole, and no signs of water vole were detected along the section adjacent to the site. No aquatic or emergent vegetation typically associated with water vole is present. The presence of water vole is reasonably discounted at the section of River Lostock adjacent to the site and at the two ditches within the site.

3.3.17 No signs of otter were detected and no records of otter are held for the wider area. The section of River Lostock adjacent to the northern site boundary is potentially suitable for use by otter however, and this is considered further at Section 4.4, below.

4.0 EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT

4.1 Introduction and Description of Proposals

4.1.1 Section 4.2 provides an assessment of any impacts of a development on the designated sites in the wider area. The ecological value of habitats within the site are evaluated at Section 4.3, and the presence of protected and notable species is considered at Section 4.4.

4.2 Designated Sites for Nature Conservation

4.2.1 It is considered that the site is sufficiently distant from all statutory designated sites for nature conservation that a development (such as housing) will have no impact upon them. The site does not support any features which would contribute to or are complimentary to the statutory designated sites present in the wider area.

4.2.2 The site is located 75 metres to the north of Lucas Lane Pasture BHS, however the BHS is not accessible to the public and is not hydrologically linked to the BHS The proposals are reasonably unlikely to impact upon the BHS either directly or indirectly. It is considered that the site is sufficiently distant from all other BHS that no impacts as a consequence of the development of the site would be expected.

4.3 Vegetation and Habitats

4.3.1 The site contains only common and widespread plant species. None of the habitats within the site are of significant interest in terms of their plant species composition. None of the habitats present are representative of semi-natural habitat. The NVC communities present are typical of the geographical area and conditions present.

4.3.2 The three hedgerows are Priority Habitat, and the broad-leaved woodland at the northern end of the site is an example of Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland Priority Habitat. Any proposed development should seek to retain the hedgerows and woodland in the long term, and manage them to enhance their value to biodiversity.

4.3.3 The section of River Lostock which lies adjacent to the northern boundary of the site is considered to be of ‘local’ importance as it contributes to the diversity of habitats for the wider area, will function as a wildlife link, and will provide a resource for a variety of invertebrate species (and consequently foraging birds, bats and other wildlife). It is recommended that a suitable buffer is retained along the length of the river and the habitats within this buffer are managed in terms of their benefits to biodiversity.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 19

4.3.4 The mature trees and ditches within the site are of ‘site’ value as they contribute to the diversity of habitats within the site, and the trees provide structural diversity and are suitable for use by nesting birds.

4.3.5 The improved grassland fields are of low ecological value. The areas of semi-improved grassland are of ‘site’ value only, however areas (an in particular Field 6) have the potential to be enhanced in the long-term via the creation of areas of wildflower grassland.

4.3.6 Recommendations relating to the retention and protection of existing habitats are presented at Section 5.2. Recommendations relating to enhancing the retained and proposed habitats are presented at Section 5.6, with recommendations relating to any proposed landscape planting within the site.

4.3.7 Localised areas of Indian Balsam were detected within the site; any proposed development would provide an opportunity to control the spread of this species via long-term management. Recommendations for the control of this species are presented at Section 5.3.

4.4 Protected Species and Other Wildlife

4.4.1 The presence of badger, great crested newt and water vole is reasonably discounted at the site.

4.4.2 The hedgerows, River Lostock, trees, shrubs and scrub at the northern end of the site provide favourable habitats for foraging and commuting bats, and the north-facing slope at the southern end of Field 6 creates a natural ‘bowl’ which will further increase this area’s suitability for foraging bats.

4.4.3 It is recommended that any development takes into account the suitability of the northern site boundary (and its retained buffer) for foraging and commuting bats and other wildlife via retaining and protecting the habitats present during the construction phase, ensuring no artificial lighting shines over the northern site boundary, and managing this area and its protective buffers in the long-term. Protection of the section of the River Lostock which lies adjacent to the northern site boundary will ensure that otter (if present) are protected during works. Recommendations relating to the protection of habitats suitable for use by foraging and commuting bats (and other wildlife) and for the enhancement of roosting bats are presented at Section 5.4.

4.4.4 The trees, shrubs, hedgerows and scrub provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the species of birds detected within the site and the wider area via the records search (including house sparrow, a Priority Species). Any proposed development must take into consideration the protection of nesting birds and install features suitable for use by nesting birds; recommendations are presented at Section 5.5.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 These recommendations aim to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with relevant wildlife legislation, Natural England guidance, the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), local planning policy and best practice.

5.1.2 In accordance with Chapter 15, paragraph 175 point ‘d’ of the NPPF, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should encourage opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.

5.1.3 Where possible, opportunities to enhance the ecological interest and habitat connectivity and seek biodiversity gain through appropriate landscape planting and habitat creation have been identified, as required by the NPPF and other relevant planning documents.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 20

5.1.4 All recommendations are appropriate to the geographical area, the habitats in the wider area, the wildlife present in the local area (and likely to use the site post-construction) and take into consideration the end use of the site as a residential development.

5.2 Protection of Existing Vegetation and Recommendations in Relation to Site Layout

Recommendations in Relation to Site Layout

5.2.1 The following recommendations are made to inform the proposed site layout:

a. Retain the whole of the woodland at the northern site boundary and secure appropriate management for biodiversity in the long-term; b. Incorporate an appropriate buffer along the northern site boundary and where the site lies adjacent to the River Lostock, and ensure the protection of the River (and all other retained habitats) during works; c. Consider enhancing the ecological value of the grassland present at Field 6 via the incorporation of wildflower grassland (overseeding with wildflower species and appropriate long-term management should be considered); d. Control of invasive plant species within the site in the long-term; e. Retention of the hedgerows, ditches and trees with suitable compensation for loss of these habitats (note that any loss of hedgerow must be compensated for by the provision of an equal or greater length of native species-rich hedgerow which must be managed in the long-term for its benefits to biodiversity); and f. Ensure any lighting strategy is in accordance with current guidance and excessive illumination of the habitats along the northern site boundary, retained hedgerows and any other areas of ecological enhancement is avoided.

Protection of Woodland, Hedgerows, Trees and Other Retained Habitats

5.2.2 During the construction phase, temporary protective demarcation fencing will be used to protect the trees and shrubs to be retained. The fencing must extend outside the canopy of the retained trees and must remain in position until all areas have been developed to ensure protection is provided throughout the construction phase.

5.2.3 The fencing will be in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction: Recommendations (BSI, 2012).

Protection of River Lostock and Ditches 1 and 2

5.2.4 In the absence of updated guidance, the following Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) will be adhered to at any works near the River Lostock and / or Ditches 1 and 2:

a. PPG1: Basic good environmental practices (Environment Agency, 2013); b. PPG5: Works in, near or over watercourses (Environment Agency, 2014); c. PPG6: Construction and demolition sites (Environment Agency, 2012); and d. PPG7: Operating refuelling sites (Environment Agency, 2011).

5.2.5 Any mitigation measures relating to the River Lostock will be discussed and agreed with the Environment Agency and the Canal and Rivers Trust.

5.3 Invasive Plant Species

5.3.1 It is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to cause the spread of Indian Balsam in the wild.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 21

5.3.2 It is recommended that a specialist contractor is employed for the eradication/control of Indian Balsam at the site, and that this is completed under a suitable Invasive Species Management Plan.

5.4 Bats

Lighting

5.4.1 Paragraph 180, bullet point ‘c’ in Chapter 15 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF states that development should:

‘limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.’

Construction Phase

5.4.2 Any lighting to be used at the site during construction should be directional and screened where possible, this specification should be included within a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), or similar.

Development Lighting Design

5.4.3 The lighting scheme to be implemented at the developed site must involve the use of appropriate products and screening, where necessary, to ensure no excessive artificial lighting shines over the River Lostock, retained habitats, areas of ecological enhancement and any landscape planting, as lighting overspill may deter use by wildlife such as foraging bats.

5.4.4 The lighting scheme will be designed with reference to current guidance, namely:

a. Guidance Note 8: Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK (Institution of Lighting Professionals & Bat Conservation Trust, 2018); and b. Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance (Stone, 2014).

Enhancing Habitats for Roosting Bats

5.4.5 It is recommended that the development incorporates the installation of bat access panels at the new buildings.

5.4.6 The bat access panels should be sited at least 4 metres above ground level, ideally facing or close to areas of landscape planting or existing linear features. The access panels should not be positioned over windows or doorways where bat droppings may become a nuisance. Once the development layout has been finalised, an ecologist should advise on appropriate positions for the bat access panels. Suitable bat access panels are available from NHBS Ecology (www.nhbs.com) or Wild Care (www.wildcare.co.uk) and are presented at Insert 1, below:

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 22

Insert 1: Examples of bat access panels and externally mounted boxes3

5.4.7 It is recommended that bat boxes are erected onto suitable retained mature trees within the site. An ecologist will advise on the siting of the bat boxes whilst on site.

5.4.8 Suitable bat boxes are the Schwegler 1FF, Greenwood Ecohabitat single or double cavity boxes and Schwegler 1FD (or similar), see Insert 2, below.

Insert 2: Schwegler 1FF, Greenwood Ecohabitat single cavity and Schwegler 1FD bat boxes

5.4.9 Bat boxes should be installed to the following guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2016):

5.4.10 At least 4 metres above the ground (where safe installation is possible);

a. Sheltered from strong winds and exposed to the sun for part of the day (usually south or south-west). Ideally several bat boxes will be installed to provide a variety of different thermal options for bats. Grouping a number of boxes each with a different aspect can achieve this; while a number of boxes is preferable to one, a single box is still viable and may be used by roosting bats; b. Located close to unlit linear features, such as lines of trees or hedgerows; and c. Installed where the bat box entrance is not cluttered or impeded by branches, or accessible to predators (such as cats) by large branches underneath them.

5.5 Birds

Protection

5.5.1 All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) while they are breeding. It is advised that any works such as vegetation clearance that will affect habitats suitable for use by nesting birds are scheduled to commence outside the bird nesting season. Commencement of works in

3 Left to right: IBstock Enclosed Bat Box ‘c’ (left); Habibat Bat Access Panels (centre left and centre right) and Greenwood’s Ecohabitats two crevice bat box (right). Products with a brick face are illustrated, however the Habibat bat access panels can be supplied unfaced to enable the additional of matching material.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 23

the nesting season must be informed by a pre-works nesting bird survey, carried out by a suitably experienced ecologist. The bird breeding season typically extends between March to August inclusive (Natural England, 2015).

5.5.2 If breeding birds are detected the ecologist will issue guidance in relation to the protection of the nesting birds in conjunction with the scheduled works. This may involve cordoning off an area of the site until the young birds have fledged.

Enhancing Habitats for Nesting Birds

House Sparrow

5.5.3 House sparrows are associated with suburban areas. Monitoring suggests a severe decline in the UK house sparrow population, estimated as halving in rural areas, and dropping by 60% in towns and cities since the mid-1970’s (RSPB, 2018).

5.5.4 The installation of house sparrow terrace nest boxes is recommended at the proposed new housing. The boxes will not be positioned over windows or doorways where droppings may become a nuisance. RSPB advice states that boxes should ideally be sited facing north to east, to avoid exposure to direct sunlight, which may cause overheating of chicks in the nest. An example of a suitable house sparrow bird box is given below at Insert 3:

Insert 3: Schwegler 1SP House Sparrow Nesting Terrace

5.5.5 Such bird boxes are available from the NHBS (www.nhbs.com) or Wild Care (www.wildcare.co.uk). ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd will advise on the siting of bird boxes.

Woodland Birds

5.5.6 Bird boxes associated with woodland bird species are to be installed at the retained mature trees within the site. An ecologist will advise on the siting of the woodland bird boxes whilst on site. RSPB advice states that boxes should ideally be sited facing north to east, to avoid exposure to direct sunlight, which may cause overheating of chicks in the nest. The boxes should be at least 4 metres from ground level.

5.5.7 A variety of each of the boxes presented at Insert 4, below (or similar), will be used.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 24

Insert 4: Schwegler 3SV, Schwegler 1N, Schwegler 2M and Schwegler 2H bird boxes, suitable for a variety of woodland birds.

5.6 Enhancement and Management of Retained Habitats and Landscape Planting

Enhancement and Management of the Retained Habitats

5.6.1 It is recommended that the retained habitats (which will include the section of broad-leaved woodland, Ditches 1 and 2 and the surrounding grassland and the retained sections of hedgerow) are brought into active management for biodiversity and to promote their longevity.

5.6.2 Consideration of the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems and creation of swales of marshy grassland habitat within the retained areas around Field 6 should be explored.

5.6.3 A Habitat Management Plan would be prepared to include detail of how the habitats will be managed to promote their biodiversity value.

5.6.4 Such measures will include suitable management of Field 6 to promote plant species diversity, and management of the retained hedgerows in order that they provide habitat for foraging and nesting birds and foraging and commuting bats.

Maintenance of Habitat Connectivity Throughout the Developed Site

5.6.5 To ensure habitat connectivity is maintained as part of the development proposals, gaps within the proposed fencing (see Insert 5, below, although a simpler design is also appropriate) to allow access by other wildlife (including hedgehog) across the site. It is recommended that suitable wildlife gaps (at least 0.1 metre tall and 0.15 metre wide) are installed at suitable intervals around the base of the proposed fencing.

Insert 5: Showing wildlife access gap within fencing.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 25

Landscape Planting

5.6.6 It is recommended that the landscape planting within the residential site is composed from native species and species known to be of value for the attraction of wildlife.

5.6.7 It is recommended that trees which support blossom and fruit which will attract insects are incorporated into the landscape planting. Suitable species are presented at Table 5.1, below.

Table 5.1: Suitable Native Species for Tree and Shrub Planting Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Acer campestre Field Maple Prunus spinosa Blackthorn Corylus avellana Hazel Rosa arvensis Field Rose Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn Rosa canina Dog-rose Ilex aquifolium Holly Sambucus nigra Elder Malus sylvestris Crab Apple Sorbus aucuparia Rowan Prunus avium Wild Cherry Ulmus glabra Wych Elm Prunus padus Bird Cherry Viburnum opulus Guelder Rose

5.6.8 The understorey and ground cover planting design should be prepared to optimise the attraction of invertebrates such as feeding bumblebees and butterflies. Where possible the use of native species should be maximised but where necessary non-native species known to be attractive to invertebrates should be used.

5.6.9 Planting schemes that include flowering species such as Viburnum, Ceanothus, Hebe, Lavandula, Lonicera, Potentilla, Rosmarinus and Vinca can maximise opportunities for feeding invertebrates and for the attraction of foraging bats and birds.

5.6.10 For further plants suitable for the attraction of pollinators please refer to the Perfect for Pollinators Plant List (Royal Horticultural Society, 2012). It is recommended that the selection of plant species at the site ensures that a variety of flowering species are available throughout the year.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 This ecological appraisal has demonstrated that a residential development at the site is feasible and acceptable in accordance with ecological considerations and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6.2 It is possible to implement reasonable actions for the protection and long-term conservation of fauna such as nesting birds and commuting/foraging bats associated with the site.

6.3 Measures to conserve the habitat connectivity through the site are entirely feasible.

6.4 Development at the site will provide an opportunity to secure ecological enhancement for fauna typically associated with residential areas such as breeding birds and roosting bats.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 26

7.0 REFERENCES

Andrews, H (ed), 2013. Bat Tree Habitat Key, 3rd Edition. Bridgewater: AEcol Ltd. ARG UK, 2010. ARG Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. [Online] Available at: http://www.arguk.org/advice-and-guidance/view-category Bainbridge, I. et al., 2013. Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservancy Council. Bat Conservation Trust, 2016. Bat Box Information Pack. [Online] Available at: https://cdn.bats.org.uk/pdf/Bat-Box-Information-Pack.pdf?mtime=20181101151309 [Accessed 11 April 2019]. BSI, 2012. Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations. London: BSI Standards Limited. BTHK, 2018. Bat Roosts in Trees - A Guide to Identification and Assessment for Tree-Care and Ecology Professionals, Exeter: Pelagic Publishing. Chanin, P., 2003. Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers, Ecology Series 10. Peterborough: English Nature. Chanin, P., 2003. Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No 10, Peterborough: English Nature. CIEEM, 2013. Technical Guidance Series Competencies for Species: Bats. Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. CIEEM, 2018. Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine, Winchester: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Collins, J. (ed), 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). London: The Bat Conservation Trust. Crosher, I. et al., Beta version, July 2019. The Biodiversity Metric 2.0: Auditing and accounting for biodiversity value: technical supplement, Peterborough: Natural England. Dean, M., Strachan, R., Gow, D. & Andrews, R., 2016. The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The Mammal Society Mitigation Guidance Series) Eds. Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin, London: The Mammal Society. Eaton, M. A. et al., 2015. Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds, Issue 108, pp. 708-746. Edgar, P., Foster, P & Baker, J., 2010. Reptile Habitat Management Handbook. Bournemouth: Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. English Nature, 2001. Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature. Environment Agency, 2011. Operating Refuelling Sites, PPG7: Prevent Pollution. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operating-refuelling-sites-ppg7-prevent-pollution Environment Agency, 2012. Construction and Demolition Sites, PPG6: Prevent Pollution. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/construction-and-demolition-sites-ppg6-prevent-pollution Environment Agency, 2013. Basic Good Environmental Practices, PPG1: Prevent Pollution. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/basic-good-environmental-practices-ppg1-prevent-pollution Environment Agency, 2014. Works in, near or over watercourses, PPG5: Prevent Pollution. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/works-in-near-or-over-watercourses-ppg5-prevent-pollution Environment Agency, 2018. Main River Map. [Online] Available at: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=17cd53dfc524433980cc333726a56386 [Accessed 21 November 2018]. ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd, 2019. 2019-140 Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ: Ecological Survey and Assessment, Preston: ERAP (Consultant Ecologists) Ltd. ERAP Ltd, 2012. 2012_112 Little Quarry, Whittle-le-Woods: Ecological Survey and Assessment, Preston: ERAP Ltd. Great Britain, 1981. Wildlife and Countryside Act. London: H.M.S.O. Great Britain, 2006. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. London: H.M.S.O. Great Britain, 2017. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. London: H.M.S.O.

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 27

H.M.S.O., 1997. The Hedgerows Regulations 1997, SI 1997/1160. London: H.M.S.O. Institution of Lighting Professionals & Bat Conservation Trust, 2018. Guidance Note 8: Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK. [Online] Available at: https://www.theilp.org.uk/documents/guidance-note-8-bats-and-artificial-lighting/ [Accessed 18 October 2018]. JNCC, 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: A technique for Environmental Audit. Peterborough: NCC. Langton, T. E., Beckett, C. L. & Foster, J. P., 2001. Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Halesworth: Froglife. Maddock, A (ed), 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Priority Habitat Descriptions. [Online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5718 Maddock, A., 2008. UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions (Updated Dec 2011). [Online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706 Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2005. Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within The Planning System, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, July 2018. National Planning Policy Framework, London: Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019. National Planning Policy Framework. London: H.M.S.O. Natural England, 2007. Badgers and Development, Peterborough: Natural England. Natural England, 2011. The Reptile Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough: Natural England. Natural England, 2014. Otters: surveys and mitigation for development projects. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/otters-protection-surveys-and-licences [Accessed 03 November 2016]. Natural England, 2015. Badgers: Surveys and mitigation for development projects. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/badgers-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects [Accessed 3 December 2015]. Natural England, 2015. Great crested newts: surveys and mitigation for development projects. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/great-crested-newts-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects [Accessed 2017]. Natural England, 2015. Wild birds: surveys and mitigation for development projects. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wild-birds-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects [Accessed 04 March 2020]. Natural England, 2017. GCN Method Statement WML-A14-2 (Version November 2017). [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-crested-newts-apply-for-a-mitigation-licence Oldham, R. S., Keeble, J., Swan, M. J. S. & Jeffcote, M., 2000. Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal, Volume 10(4), pp. 143-155. Ordnance Survey, 2019. Site Check Report Centroid Grid Ref: SD58352113. [Online] Available at: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/magicmap.aspx [Accessed 13 May 2019]. Ratcliffe, D. A., 1977. A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J. S., 1991. British Plant Communities: Volume 1, Woodlands and Scrub. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J. S., 1992. British Plant Communities: Volume 3, Grasslands and Montane Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J. S., 2000. British Plant Communities Volume 5, Maritime Communities and Vegetation of Open Habitats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roper, T., 2010. Badger (Collins New Naturalist Library, Book 114). Glasgow: Harper Collins. Royal Horticultural Society, 2012. Perfect for Pollinators, Garden Plants. [Online] Available at: https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/conservation-biodiversity/wildlife/encourage-wildlife-to-your- garden/plants-for-pollinators

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 28

RSPB, 2018. Population Trends: The Recent Decline of House Sparrows. [Online] Available at: https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/house-sparrow/population-trends/ [Accessed 25 August 2018]. Stace, C. A., 2010. New Flora of the British Isles 3rd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stone, E. L., 2014. Bats and Lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance. Bristol: University of Bristol. Strachan, R., Moorhouse, T. & Gelling, M., 2011. Water Vole Conservation Handbook 3rd Edition. Oxford: The Wildlife Conservation Research Unit.

8.0 APPENDIX: TABLES, PHOTOGRAPHS AND FIGURES

8.1 Plant Species Lists and Hedgerow Assessments

Table 8.1: Plant Species List for Fields 1 and 2 Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Woody Species Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn O/LF <1% Fraxinus excelsior Ash O/LF <1% Herb Species Agrostis capillaris Common Bent LF 3% Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent O/LF 5% Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard VLF <1% Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail R <1% Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail F* 20% Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass O/LF* 5% Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass LA/O 4% Bellis perennis Daisy VLF <1% Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower O <1% Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed O 1% Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear O/LF 1% Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle O <1% Conopodium majus Pignut O/VLF <1% Cynosurus cristatus Crested Dog's-tail R <1% Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot O/LF 1% Dipsacus fullonum Wild Teasel O 1% Epilobium hirsutum Great Willowherb VLA 1% Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail VLF <1% Festuca rubra Red Fescue F 5% Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed VLF <1% Hieracium sp. Hawkweed species R <1% Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog O/LF 10% Impatiens glandulifera Indian Balsam LA/O 5% Juncus effusus Soft-rush R <1% Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass F* 30% Luzula campestris Field Wood-rush R <1% Luzula pilosa Hairy Wood-rush LF/R <1% Phleum pratense Timothy O 1% Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain F* 5% Plantago major Greater Plantain R <1% Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass O/LF 1%

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 29

Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Polygonum aviculare Knotgrass R <1% Potentilla anserina Silverweed LA/O 4% Prunella vulgaris Selfheal O 1% Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup F* 5% Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup F* 10% Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble O/LA 10% Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel O/LF 5% Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock O/LF 5% Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort O <1% Stellaria media Common Chickweed O 1% Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion R <1% Trifolium dubium Lesser Trefoil VLF <1% Trifolium pratense Red Clover O <1% Trifolium repens White Clover F 5% Urtica dioica Common Nettle LA/O 10% Veronica persica Common Field-speedwell O/VLF <1% Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch O 1% 1Key to DAFOR: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare, V=Very, L=Local and *denotes a constant species

Table 8.2: Plant Species List for Fields 3, 4 and 5 Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Woody Species Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore R <1% Fraxinus excelsior Ash R <1% Herb Species Alopecurus geniculatus Marsh Foxtail O <1% Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail O/LF* 10% Anisantha sterilis Barren Brome VLF <1% Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass LF <1% Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley VLF <1% Bromus hordeaceus Common Soft-brome VLF <1% Cardamine flexuosa Wavy Bitter-cress R <1% Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower O <1% Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear O/LF* 1% Galium aparine Cleavers VLF <1% Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog F* 20% Juncus effusus Soft-rush VLA 1% Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass A* 70% Myosotis arvensis Field Forget-me-not R <1% Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain VLF <1% Poa pratensis Smooth Meadow-grass O/LF* 10% Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup O/VLF 5% Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel VLF <1% Rumex crispus Curled Dock R <1% Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock VLF <1% Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort R <1% Stellaria media Common Chickweed O <1% Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O <1% Trifolium repens White Clover VLF <1% Urtica dioica Common Nettle VLF <1% Veronica persica Common Field-speedwell R <1% 1Key to DAFOR: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare, V=Very, L=Local and *denotes a constant species

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 30

Table 8.3: Plant Species List for Field 6 Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Agrostis capillaris Common Bent O/VLF 10% Agrostis stolonifera Creeping Bent O/LF 10% Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail F 10% Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal-grass F* 20% Bellis perennis Daisy O/LF 1% Cardamine pratensis Cuckooflower O 1% Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear O/LF 1% Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle O/LVLF <1% Conopodium majus Pignut VLF <1% Cynosurus cristatus Crested Dog's-tail F* 30% Dryopteris dilatata Broad Buckler-fern R <1% Epilobium montanum Broad-leaved Willowherb VLF <1% Hieracium sp. Hawkweed species O <1% Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog F* 20% Juncus effusus Soft-rush O/LF 20% Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass F* 30% Luzula campestris Field Wood-rush LF <1% Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain O/LF 1% Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup F 5% Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble VLF <1% Rumex acetosa Common Sorrel O/VLF <1% Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock O/LF 1% Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort O/LF <1% Stellaria media Common Chickweed O/LF <1% Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O <1% Trifolium pratense Red Clover O <1% Trifolium repens White Clover O 1% Urtica dioica Common Nettle VLF 1% 1Key to DAFOR: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare, V=Very, L=Local and *denotes a constant species

Table 8.4: Plant Species List for Hedgerow 1 Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Woody Species Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore LA 10% Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn F* 60% Quercus robur Pedunculate Oak VLF 1% Sambucus nigra Elder O 5% Herb Species Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass LA <1% Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot O <1% Galium aparine Cleavers F* 5% Impatiens glandulifera Indian Balsam LD/F 10% Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass F* 1% Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble F/LA* 5% Urtica dioica Common Nettle F* 20% 1Key to DAFOR: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare, V=Very, L=Local and *denotes a constant species

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 31

Table 8.5: Plant Species List for Hedgerow 2 Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Woody Species Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore O/VLF 1% Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn A* 100% Sambucus nigra Elder O/VLF 1% Herb Species Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard VLF <1% Alopecurus pratensis Meadow Foxtail F* 10% Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley O/LF <1% Galium aparine Cleavers F* 10% Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog F* 10% Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup O <1% Urtica dioica Common Nettle F* 20% 1Key to DAFOR: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare, V=Very, L=Local and *denotes a constant species

Table 8.6: Plant Species List for Hedgerow 3 Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Woody Species Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore O/LA 1% Alnus glutinosa Alder R <1% Betula pendula Silver Birch VLF <1% Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn A* 90% Fraxinus excelsior Ash O/LA 1% Ilex aquifolium Holly LA 1% Lonicera periclymenum Honeysuckle R <1% Quercus robur Pedunculate Oak VLF <1% Sambucus nigra Elder O/LF 1% Herb Species Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard LF/O 1% Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley O 1% Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass VLF 2% Calystegia sepium Hedge Bindweed LF/O 1% Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle O 1% Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot O/LF 2% Dryopteris dilatata Broad Buckler-fern O 1% Dryopteris filix-mas Male-fern R <1% Epilobium hirsutum Great Willowherb VLF 1% Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail F* 2% Festuca rubra Red Fescue F 2% Galium aparine Cleavers LA 1% Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert R <1% Hedera helix Ivy VLA 1% Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed R <1% Hyacinthoides sp. Non-native Bluebell species R <1% Impatiens glandulifera Indian Balsam LD/O 5% Lapsana communis Nipplewort R <1% Meconopsis cambrica Welsh Poppy VLF <1% Myosotis arvensis Field Forget-me-not O/LF <1% Persicaria maculosa Redshank R <1% Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain R <1% Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup O 1% Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble VLF <1%

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 32

Scientific Name Common Name DAFOR % Cover Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock R <1% Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort O 1% Senecio vulgaris Groundsel O 1% Silene dioica Red Campion VLF <1% Sonchus asper Prickly Sow-thistle R <1% Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion O 1% Urtica dioica Common Nettle LA 2% Vinca minor Lesser Periwinkle VLF 2% 1Key to DAFOR: D=Dominant, A=Abundant, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare, V=Very, L=Local and *denotes a constant species

Table 8.7: Hedgerow Description and Assessment in Accordance with The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 Hedgerow name Hedgerow 1 Hedgerow 2 Hedgerow 3

Height x width (metres) 4 x 2 2 x 1.5 2 x 1.5

Length (metres) 100 125 310 Continuity 80% 100% 90%

Description Management Unmanaged Trimmed all sides Trimmed southern face 1

Section number 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Qualifying woody species 2 2 - 2 1 - 3 4 1 Woody Species Average number 2 2 3 (a) Bank or wall along at least ½ length No Yes Yes (b) Gaps which in agg. do not exceed No Yes Yes 10%

(c)-(e) 1 standard tree per 50m Yes No No (f) At least 3 woodland species within 1m No No No

(g) Ditch along at least ½ its length No No No Present (h) Connections scoring 4 points or more No No No

Numberof Features (i) Parallel hedge within 15m No No No Total Features 1 2 2

Criteria for Hedgerow Importance 1 No No No

Criteria for Hedgerow Importance 2: No No No

Hedgerow Criteria for Hedgerow Importance 3: No No No Importance

Criteria for Hedgerow Importance 1:

Hedgerow contains species listed as:

(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1, Schedule 5 or Schedule 8 of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended); (2) Declining breeders in ‘Red Data Birds of Britain’; and / or

Criteria (3) Categorised as ‘endangered’, ‘extinct’ or ’vulnerable’ Criteria for Hedgerow Importance 2: Hedgerow includes (Number of woody species required reduced by one in Lancashire): (i) At least 7 woody species (on average); (ii) At least 6 woody species (on average) and at least 3 features; (iii) At least 6 woody species (on average), including one of: Black Poplar, Large-leaved Lime, Small-leaved Lime or Wild Service Tree; and / or; (iv) (iv)At least 5 woody species (on average), and has 4 features

Hedgerow Important Criteria for Hedgerow Importance 3: Is adjacent to is adjacent to a bridleway, footpath or byway and includes at least 4 woody species on average and 2 features from (a) to (g).

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 33

8.2 Photographs

Photo 1: Field 1 Photo 2: Field 2

Photo 3: Former paddock at south-eastern corner of Field Photo 4: Field 3 2

Photo 5: Field 5 Photo 6: Field 6 (south eastern end)

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 34

Photo 7: Field 6 (south western end) Photo 8: Mature Sycamore at southern end of Field 3

Photo 9: Mature Sycamore at south-eastern corner of Photo 10: Scrub at southern end of Field 1 Field 3

Photo 11: Hedgerow 1 Photo 12: Hedgerow 2

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 35

Photo 13: Hedgerow 3 (western end) Photo 14: Hedgerow 3 (eastern end)

Photo 15: Ditch 1 Photo 16: Ditch 2

Photo 17: River Lostock Photo 18: River Lostock

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 36

Photo 19: Pond A1, dry Photo 20: Pond B1, dry

Photo 22: Pond C1, dry Photo 21: Pond B2, dry

Photo 23: Broad-leaved woodland at the northern end of Photo 23: Pond C4 the site

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 37

8.3 Figures

Figure 8.1: Aerial Image of the Site and its Surrounding Habitats

C5, C6 & C7

C3

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 38

Figure 8.2: Phase 1 Habitat and Vegetation Plan

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 39

Figure 8.3: Opportunities and Constraints Plan

ERAP Ltd. 2019-140b Land off Town Lane, Whittle-le-Woods, Lancashire PR6 7DJ:: Ecological Survey and Assessment October 2020 40