Weldon Composting Project Ecology Report

Revision 2

March 2016

BLANK PAGE

Issuing office

Client The Green Composting Company

Job Weldon Composting Project

Report title Ecology Report

Draft version/final FINAL

File reference 8001.02_R_APPR_020316.docx

Name Position Date

Originated Liz Rose-Jeffreys Senior Ecologist 04 February 2015

Reviewed Philippa Harvey Principal Ecologist 09 February 2015

Approved for Philippa Harvey Principal Ecologist 10 February 2015 issue to client

Revised Liz Rose-Jeffreys Senior Ecologist 01 March 2016

Approved for Philippa Harvey Principal Ecologist 02 March 2016 issue to client

Issued to client Liz Rose-Jeffreys Senior Ecologist 02 March 2016

Disclaimer

This report is issued to the client for their sole use and for the intended purpose as stated in the agreement between the client and BSG Ecology under which this work was completed, or else as set out within this report. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written agreement of BSG Ecology. The use of this report by unauthorised third parties is at their own risk and BSG Ecology accepts no duty of care to any such third party.

BSG Ecology has exercised due care in preparing this report. It has not, unless specifically stated, independently verified information provided by others. No other warranty, express or implied, is made in relation to the content of this report and BSG Ecology assumes no liability for any loss resulting from errors, omissions or misrepresentation made by others.

Any recommendation, opinion or finding stated in this report is based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time that BSG Ecology performed the work.

Nothing in this report constitutes legal opinion. If legal opinion is required the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured.

Derbyshire Oxford Newcastle-upon-Tyne Monmouth Swansea Cork | BSG Ecology is a trading name of Baker Shepherd Gillespie LLP Registered in: England and Wales | No. OC328772 | Registered address: Wyastone Business Park, Monmouth, NP25 3SR

Weldon Composting Project

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Methods ...... 4 3 Results and Interpretation ...... 14 4 Potential Impacts and Recommendations ...... 25 5 References ...... 31 6 Site Location Plan...... 33 Appendix 1: Figures ...... 34 Appendix 2: Invertebrate Survey Methods ...... 35 Appendix 3: Photographs ...... 37 Appendix 4: NVC Survey Results ...... 38 Appendix 5: Pond Survey Results ...... 42 Appendix 6: Dormouse Survey Results ...... 43 Appendix 7: Notable Breeding Bird Species within the Site ...... 44 Appendix 8: Invertebrate Species Lists (from wider survey area) ...... 46 Appendix 9: Summaries of Relevant Policy, Legislation and Other Instruments ...... 50

1 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

1 Introduction

Site Description

1.1 The Site is a parcel of land located to the east of the town of Corby, north Northamptonshire, centred at OS grid reference SP 918 882. The Site consists of three sections of arable fields which are bounded by species-poor hedgerows. The eastern part of the site is defined by two former arable fields, which have developed a mosaic of tall ruderal vegetation, neutral grassland, and ephemeral/short perennial vegetation, and the western part is defined by an arable ley field. A pond is located 50m to the north of the site. The whole site falls within a potential Local Wildlife Site.

Proposed Works

1.2 The Green Composting Company proposes to develop the Site to create a composting facility, focussed solely on clean garden/green waste for the purpose of generating high quality composts for the retail and agricultural markets. The proposed work will utilise the existing access from Stamford Road. The proposals are set out in MEC’s Proposed Site Layout plan, reference 21301_01_230_02 (October 2015).

Background

1.3 BSG Ecology was commissioned to undertake ecological survey work for a wider 83ha parcel of land (referred to hereafter as ‘the wider survey area’), which included the proposed composting facility site. This included the following range of ecological work which was undertaken by BSG Ecology during spring and summer 2014:  Desk Study (May 2014)  Phase 1 Habitat Survey (May 2014)  Phase 2 Botanical Survey (July 2014)  Great Crested Newt Survey (May-June 2014)  Dormouse Habitat Assessment (May 2014)  Bat Roost Assessment and Habitat Assessment (May 2014)  Reptile Survey (June-July 2014)  Breeding Bird Survey (May-June 2014)  Invertebrates Survey (June-July 2014)  Badger Survey (May 2014)  Invasive Botanical Species Survey (May 2014)

1.4 The aims of the above surveys were to:  Identify the existing habitats within the wider site;

 Check for evidence of protected species within the wider survey area;

 Assess the potential for protected species to be present in the wider survey area.

1.5 BSG Ecology was commissioned by Landmark Planning Ltd on behalf of The Green Composting Company in December 2014 to prepare an Ecology Report for the proposed composting facility; the report was to be based on the results of the above ecological work undertaken during 2014. BSG Ecology made recommendations to undertake targeted dormouse surveys along a length of hedgerow which potentially required removal1. BSG Ecology was subsequently commissioned by Landmark Planning Ltd, on behalf of The Green Composting Company, in June 2015 to undertake the recommended dormouse survey work between June-November 2015.

1 Revisions to the proposals mean that hedgerow removal is no longer required.

2 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

1.6 Individual great crested newt were recorded within the pond located 50m to the north of the proposed composting facility site during the survey work in spring 2014, and BSG Ecology advised that a European Protected Species (EPS) licence would need to be secured from Natural England for the development to proceed. Internal consultation between the Senior Environmental Planner and the Principal Development Control Officer at Northamptonshire County Council dated 2 February 2016 requested further details with regards to the location and type of great crested newt mitigation, and the potential impacts of the mitigation measures on other ecological receptors.

Definitions  The Development Site is defined as the land within the red line boundary, as set out in Section 6: Site Location Plan, and occupies an area of 6.3ha.  The Receptor Site is defined as the land within the blue line boundary, as set out in Section 6 Site Location Plan, and occupies an area of 3.1ha. This area will provide compensatory habitat for the loss of terrestrial habitats within the Development Site that could be used by great crested newt.  The Site refers to all areas which fall within the Development Site and the Receptor Site.

Aims of Study

1.7 The aims of this report are to:  Identify the existing habitats within the Site.

 Identify protected/notable species recorded within the Site.

 Set out the potential for protected species to be present in the area.

 Identify potential ecological impacts relating to the proposed works.

 Identify any requirements for further survey.

 Propose measures to avoid or reduce ecological impacts based on currently available design information.

1.8 The survey methods, results, a preliminary impact assessment and recommendations in relation to the proposed composting facility are detailed in this report.

1.9 Further detail regarding great crested newt mitigation is set out in BSG Ecology’s Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy (BSG Ecology, 2016).

3 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

2 Methods

Desk Study

2.1 A desk study was carried out in May 2014 to determine the presence of any protected species records or designated statutory or non-statutory sites of conservation value (such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Local Wildlife Sites) within a 2km radius of the Site. Northamptonshire Biological Records Centre and Northamptonshire Bat Group were contacted to supply this information.

2.2 As part of the desk study the 1:25,000 OS map and on-line aerial photographs were also studied to search for the presence of any ponds within 250m of the Site and also to assess habitat connectivity between the Site and surrounding habitats.

Field Survey

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.3 Senior Ecologist Liz Rose-Jeffreys MCIEEM undertook the Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 14 May 2014 between 0800 and 1530 hours. The weather was clear, sunny and dry with a very light breeze. The site was walked over and the habitats were described using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC, 2010). This survey was “extended” to include checks for signs of protected species and also undertake an assessment of the site to support protected and notable species. These are discussed further below.

Phase 2 Botanical Survey

2.4 Following the Phase 1 Habitat Survey the arable set-aside field and margins within the eastern part of the Site were targeted for a detailed botanical survey.

2.5 Senior Ecologist Dr Tom Flynn MCIEEM carried out the Phase 2 botanical survey on 22 July 2014. The botanical survey involved the following:  Homogeneous areas of vegetation were mapped onto a 1:10,000 scale base map.  One or more 2m × 2m quadrats were placed in representative stands in each homogeneous area of vegetation, and all plant species within each quadrat were recorded. For each species the extent of coverage of the quadrat was estimated using the Domin scale (value 1 to 10; Rodwell et al., 1991). The location of each quadrat was recorded using a hand-held GPS receiver.  The remainder of each of the homogeneous areas of habitat were further inspected through a walk over survey, and a list was made of any additional plant species encountered.  Photographs were taken of each homogeneous area of vegetation.

2.6 Species cover data was tabulated using Microsoft Excel. Data tables were compared with NVC community data tables in Rodwell et al. (1991 et seq.) by inspection, and using the computer software Tablefit (Hill, 1996) which was used to calculate goodness-of-fit values, in order to identify similarities with recognised NVC communities.

2.7 Plant names here follow Stace (2010), although some conversion to synonyms was necessary to allow Tablefit analyses.

Great Crested Newt Survey

2.8 As part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 14 May 2014, the Site was assessed for its potential to support great crested newt and an assessment was also undertaken of the pond situated 50m to the north of the Site for its potential to support amphibians including great crested newt. For location of the pond, refer to Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan, in Appendix 1. One further pond, located 570m to the south of the Site, was also subject to assessment. As this pond is located more than 250m from the Site it is not considered further within this report.

4 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

2.9 The pond located 50m to the north of the Site was assessed using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI, Oldham et al., 2000) scoring method, which is a quantitative means of evaluating habitat quality for great crested newt measured over ten suitability indices. The HSI provides a numerical index between 0 and 1 where scores closer to 0 indicate poor habitat with minimal probability of great crested newt occurrence, and scores closer to 1 represent optimal habitat with a higher probability of occurrence (ARG UK, 2010). Table 1: Pond suitability to support great crested newts according to HSI score Pond suitability for great crested newts HSI score (ARG UK, 2010) <0.5 Poor 0.5-0.59 Below average 0.6-0.69 Average 0.7-0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent

2.10 The pond was assessed as having potential to support a breeding population of great crested newt and as such, further survey work of this pond was also undertaken, in May and June 2014.

2.11 The survey methodology followed the methods set out in the Natural England (formerly English Nature) Guidelines (2001) and included searches for great crested newt, smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris, palmate newt Lissotriton helveticus, common frog Rana temporaria and common toad Bufo bufo.

2.12 In order to determine presence/absence within ponds, four survey visits were undertaken using three methods per visit, including torch survey, bottle-trapping, terrestrial searches and egg searching. Since great crested newt was located within the pond, two further survey visits of the pond were also undertaken, in order to inform a population size class assessment. Table 2 below details the survey dates and weather conditions during each survey visit, and the survey methodologies used during each survey visit.

2.13 The surveys were conducted by Consultant Ecologist Grant Bramall ACIEEM, who holds a Natural England great crested newt scientific survey licence2. Field assistance was provided by Paul Knighton.

2.14 Each survey comprised an evening visit in which torch searches of aquatic habitats were conducted and a search for great crested newt eggs carried out. Eighteen bottle traps were set on each visit and the following morning the bottle traps were checked and removed.

2 Licence number: CLS00769.

5 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Table 2: Great crested newt survey dates and weather conditions Date Weather Methods Bottle trap Egg search Torch 08/05/14 Overcast, damp and still.    Air temperature: 10˚C Min. overnight temperature: 10˚C 11/05/14 Overcast, with intermittent rain and    a strong breeze. Air temperature: 10˚C Min. overnight temperature: 8˚C 18/05/14 Dry and clear.    Air temperature: 22˚C Min. overnight temperature: 14˚C 22/05/14 Overcast, and damp with    intermittent rain and a light breeze. Air temperature: 16˚C Min. overnight temperature: 12˚C 01/06/14 Overcast, humid and dry.    Air temperature: 19˚C Min. overnight temperature: 15˚C 10/06/14 Clear and dry with a light breeze.    Air temperature: 10˚C Min. overnight temperature: 10˚C

Dormouse

2.15 As part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 14 May 2014, the Site was assessed for its potential to support dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius. A desk-based assessment, based on a review of the 1:25,000 OS map and on-line aerial photographs, was also undertaken. This assessment considered the location of the Site, and any habitat connectivity between the Site and any nearby woodland habitats.

2.16 Since the hedgerows within the Site were assessed as having potential to support dormouse further targeted survey work was recommended and then subsequently undertaken along the lengths of hedgerow shown on Figure 2, in Appendix 1.

2.17 The field surveys were carried out by experienced ecologists in accordance with standard methodology (the Dormouse Conservation Handbook by Bright et al., 2006).

2.18 49 dormouse nest tubes were placed within suitable habitat (i.e. within the section of hedgerow previously proposed for removed, and within sections of hedgerow/woodland edge which adjoin this hedgerow) to ensure adequate coverage of the area to be affected. The nest tubes were set at intervals of approximately 15-20m and at a height between 0.8m and 1.8m. These tubes provide artificial nesting sites for dormice to allow them to be checked on subsequent occasions for the presence of dormice, and/or evidence such as characteristically woven nests.

2.19 The nest tubes were set out on 19 June 2015 and checked for dormice and evidence of dormice in July-November 2015. This ensured a suitable survey effort score (as recommended in Bright et al, (2006)) was achieved (see Table 3 below) to allow presence or likely absence of this species to be determined. The survey effort score is calculated using an index of probability of finding dormice in nest tubes in any one month, as set out in Bright et al. (2006). The calculations of survey effort are

6 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

based on using a minimum of 50 nest tubes (spaced approximately 15-20m apart) with each month associated with a different index of probability of dormice encounters, which are added up over the course of the survey. The total score for survey effort should be at least 20; this is considered sufficient to reliably detect the presence of dormice. For this survey, the total score for the survey effort is 20, thus effort is in line with guidance recommendations.

Table 3: Dormouse Nest Tube Index of Probability Scores

Survey Date Index of Probability / Survey Effort

1 July 2015 2 27 July 2015 2 18 August 2015 5 23 September 2015 7 20 October 2015 2 5 November 2015 2 Total = 20

2.20 The nest tube locations set out during the survey are shown in Figure 2, in Appendix 1. The nest tube survey dates, weather conditions and surveyors are presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Survey dates, personnel and weather conditions Survey Date Staff Weather Conditions 01/07/15 Merryl Gelling Mostly clear and dry with a light breeze. Temperature (Natural England approximately 23˚C. licence number: 2015-12911-CLS- CLS) 27/07/15 Peter Newbold Partially overcast and dry with a light breeze. Temperature (Natural England approximately 18˚C. licence number: 2015-9716-CLS- CLS) 18/08/15 Peter Newbold Mostly clear, dry and still. Temperature approximately 16˚C. 23/09/15 Peter Newbold Mostly overcast, dry and still. Temperature approximately 16˚C. 20/10/15 Peter Newbold Clear, dry and still. Temperature approximately 15˚C. 05/11/15 Peter Newbold Still and overcast with light drizzle. Temperature approximately 12˚C.

Bats

2.21 As part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 14 May 2014, the Site was assessed for its potential to support roosting bats. This included a ground-based inspection of any trees within the Site which were inspected, to assess their potential to support roosting bats and to search for signs of bat activity such as droppings, scratch marks and characteristic staining associated with entrance holes. The habitats within the Site were also assessed for their potential value to foraging and commuting bats.

Reptiles

2.22 As part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 14 May 2014, the Site was assessed for its potential to support reptiles. The uncultivated arable set-aside field within the eastern part of the Site was assessed as having potential to support reptiles therefore targeted survey work was subsequently undertaken.

7 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

2.23 The reptile surveys followed the Froglife guidelines (1999), which recommend the placement of suitable refugia, such as roofing felt tiles, in suitable locations to attract basking reptiles. A total of 60 tiles were placed within the arable set-aside fields.

2.24 The tiles were placed out on site on 11 June 2014 (one week prior to the first reptile survey) in areas considered most suitable for reptiles. The tiles were partially hidden in vegetation but still exposed to the sun.

2.25 The reptile survey area was surveyed a total of nine times between June and July 2014. The surveys were undertaken when weather conditions were suitable. Suitable weather conditions typically include an air temperature between 10°C and 20°C, and intermittent or hazy sunshine (National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme, 2007). Each survey comprised two main field methods: direct observation survey (DOS) and artificial refuge survey (ARS).

2.26 DOS involved walking slowly through the arable set-aside field searching for basking reptiles in the open or partial cover. ARS involved checking for reptiles on top and underneath each of the tiles and any other refuges present, as well as searching under tiles for reptile skins and/or faeces. The survey effort focussed predominantly on the southern half of this field (i.e. just outside the Site boundary) as part of the wider survey area. The surveys were undertaken by Senior Ecologist Liz Rose-Jeffreys MCIEEM and Consultant Ecologists Stuart Elsom ACIEEM and Grant Bramall ACIEEM. Table 5 below details the survey dates, surveyors and weather conditions during each survey visit. Table 5: Reptile survey conditions and timings

Date Surveyors Survey Times Weather Temperature 19/06/14 Stuart Elsom Mostly overcast, Start: 17°C 09:10 – 11:15 dry and still Finish: 18°C 23/06/14 Liz Rose-Jeffreys Still and dry with Start: 17°C 08:30 – 12:00 intermittent Finish: 20°C cloud 26/06/14 Liz Rose-Jeffreys Partially Start: 13°C overcast and dry 08:00 – 11:40 Finish: 19°C with a light breeze 30/06/14 Stuart Elsom Slightly Start: 17°C 10:30 – 13:15 overcast, still Finish: 21°C and dry 01/07/14 Stuart Elsom Slightly Start: 20°C 10:50 – 12:30 overcast, still Finish: 21°C and dry 03/07/14 Stuart Elsom Mostly overcast Start: 13°C and dry with a 07:00 – 10:00 Finish: 18°C light breeze and moderate gusts 09/07/14 Stuart Elsom Clear and dry Start: 12°C 07:15 – 09:30 with a light Finish: 17°C breeze 10/07/14 Stuart Elsom Clear and dry Start: 12°C 07:00 – 11:00 with a light Finish: 14°C breeze 17/07/14 Grant Bramall Mostly clear and Between 21-24°C 09:00-17:303 dry with a very throughout survey light breeze

3 The reptile survey was undertaken at 20-30 minute intervals throughout the day.

8 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Breeding Bird Survey

2.27 Breeding bird surveys were undertaken by Stuart Elsom ACIEEM who has approximately 30 years’ professional experience of surveying birds, which has included carrying out British Trust of Ornithology (BTO) Atlas surveys, Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), Common Bird Census (CBC) work, Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS), and species specific ornithological surveys.

2.28 Three visits to the wider survey area, which included the Site, were undertaken between May and June 2014. The surveys were conducted early in the morning (i.e. starting between 5:30-6:30am) and typically lasted 3.5-4 hours. Dates of survey visits and weather conditions recorded during the surveys are summarised in Table 6.

Table 6: Breeding bird survey conditions and timings

Visit Date Duration Wind Cloud Precipitation Temperature of Direction Cover Survey & Speed (Octas) (Beaufort Scale)

BBS 1 21/05/2014 3.45hrs 1SE 2/8 Dry 10°C

BBS 2 05/06/2014 3.40hrs 2SW 7/8 Light 10°C Showers

BBS 3 18/06/2014 3:55hrs 1SE 7/8 Drizzle 14°C

2.29 During each visit the wider survey area was walked at a slow pace to enable all birds detected to be identified and located. Frequent stops were made to scan suitable habitats and to listen for singing and calling birds. All areas of suitable breeding habitat within the wider survey area and immediately adjacent areas were approached to within 50m.

2.30 During the survey the location and activity of each bird detected (including those seen or heard) was recorded and mapped using standard two-letter BTO species codes combined with activity symbols.

2.31 Birds exhibiting breeding behaviour were assigned to one of three categories: possible breeding, probable breeding or confirmed breeding. These are defined below (based on BTO criteria):  Possible breeding: birds heard singing or alarm calling or simply present in suitable breeding habitat on one of the survey visits;  Probable breeding: a pair of birds present in suitable breeding habitat; a repeat observation of territorial behaviour (song or alarm calling) on two or more different visits in the same location; courtship behaviour or display in suitable breeding habitat; birds apparently visiting a nest site; or, evidence of nest building (including excavation of a hole);  Confirmed breeding: one or more adults undertaking a distraction display; the presence of a used nest or eggshells; the presence of recently fledged or downy young (that are clearly of local origin); apparently incubating adults or adults commuting to and from a nest hole; adult birds carrying faecal sacs or food for young; or, a nest with eggs or young present.

2.32 To inform the assessment in this report, the numbers of potential territories identified, the abundance of species at the county and national level, the quality of the habitat present and the geographical range of the birds concerned have been considered, based on national and regional accounts.

2.33 Due to the relative abundance of ornithological data, it is often possible to derive population estimates within a defined geographical area (e.g. county). A 1% threshold can then be applied to indicate importance (e.g. 1% of the county population is equivalent to county importance).4

4 There is no fundamental biological basis for the 1% threshold, but it does follow the rationale for site selection set out within the Ramsar Convention 1971 (Criterion 6: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly

9 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Invertebrates Survey

2.34 The majority of the invertebrate survey and data analyses considered the wider survey area as a whole. With the exception of the butterfly transect, it is not, therefore, practical to precisely separate out the Site from the remainder of the wider survey area within the methodology, results or interpretation stages of this report.

Habitat Potential Assessment

2.35 On 18 June 2014, the wider survey area was assessed by Principal Ecologist Dr Jim Fairclough MCIEEM, an experienced entomologist, for its suitability to support important invertebrate communities.

2.36 Habitats were assessed for their potential to support important invertebrate communities. To enable a full characterisation of the Site for invertebrates this included observations of features that might limit invertebrate interest as well as those which might be of particular value for invertebrates. In particular, emphasis was placed on the following features (where present):  Mature open grown trees and veteran trees: especially those with large volumes of standing dead wood;  Woodland edge and scrub: especially where there is a diverse vegetation structure and species composition;  Species-rich grassland: especially that in association with scrub, with a high proportion of plants providing nectar and pollen, and with a varied vegetation structure;  Early successional habitat: (e.g. cliff faces, quarries, eroded banks, periodically disturbed bare or sparsely vegetated ground) especially on free-draining ground where there is a high proportion of exposed bare earth; and  Wetland: including watercourses (e.g. ditches, flushes and seepages), standing water or waterbodies (e.g. ponds, lakes and swamp) and associated terrestrial habitat (e.g. river shingle, wet heath and marshy grassland).

2.37 A number of habitats were identified during the survey with the potential to support important invertebrate communities (which are described further in the results section). Subsequent invertebrate surveys were designed, to target key indicator groups of invertebrates within the Site, namely Lepidoptera (butterflies only), Coleoptera (beetles) and Hemiptera (true bugs), associated with early successional forb-rich grassland, and grassland and scrub matrix assemblages. The results of these targeted surveys were used to assess the main groups of invertebrate present within the wider survey area, and to provide an indication of the relative species diversity within the targeted groups.

Targeted Survey - Coleoptera (Beetles) and Hemiptera (True Bugs)

2.38 Features within the wider survey area that provided the most suitable habitat for these taxonomic orders were selected for targeted survey. Across these, the following sampling methods were employed: pitfall traps, sweep netting, beating and grubbing. These methods are described in detail in Appendix 2. Whilst Coleoptera and Hemiptera formed the focus of the survey, incidental records of other invertebrate taxa were also recorded. Surveys were conducted on 24 June 2014 by Dr Jim Fairclough, and on 3 July 2014, by Dr Jim Fairclough and Don Stenhouse FRES, both experienced entomologists.

Weather Conditions

2.39 For both survey visits the weather had been warm and stable in the preceding weeks. On the day of the survey conducted on 18 June 2014 the weather was dry and very warm (maximum temperature of 23oC). In the morning there was patchy cloud, although this had more or less dissipated towards the end of the afternoon, leaving clear skies. There was a light wind. During the supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird), and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s SPA selection guidelines. It has also been adopted for the purposes of defining thresholds of importance of waterfowl at the European and UK level by the BTO in their Wetland Bird Survey reporting. The 1% threshold is therefore considered to provide a reasonable and defensible basis for the evaluation of bird populations.

10 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

survey visit undertaken on 3 July 2014 the weather was dry, fairly hot (maximum temperature of 24oC) and overcast with occasional sunny spells. There was a light wind. The weather conditions were optimal for both surveys.

Sample Sorting and Identification

2.40 Whilst some species could be identified in the field, the majority of specimens were stored in 70% methanol solution for later identification, using a stereoscopic microscope with the aid of identification literature. Experienced entomologist, Don Stenhouse FRES, assisted in the identification of terrestrial invertebrates collected from the field, whilst Senior Ecologist Dr Jessica Frame MCIEEM undertook identification of most of the aquatic invertebrates.

Survey for Butterflies

2.41 On 18 June 2014, Dr Jim Fairclough visited the wider survey area to conduct a walked butterfly transect survey. The survey coincided with the typical adult flight periods for key butterfly species such as grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae and dingy skipper Erynnis tages, which are both Species of Principal Importance (Section 41, NERC Act, 2006) that may be present at the Site.

2.42 A transect route was selected that broadly covered the whole of the Site (at least encompassing the most suitable areas for butterflies). The method used an adapted protocol for the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS). Thus:  Timed counts were made between 10:00 and 16:30 hours, and only carried out in warm, bright and dry weather, with no more than moderate winds.  A transect route was devised (refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 1), which was split into sections, each section being of similar length and covering habitat typical of the invertebrate survey area.  Each section was walked at a slow, steady pace counting all butterflies seen within a fixed distance, 2.5m either side of the transect line and 5m ahead.  Care was taken to maintain a steady pace and avoid waiting at favoured hotspots to improve the count and bias the results.  Butterfly numbers and % sunshine in each section were recorded using the standard UKBMS proforma. Wind speed was estimated using the Beaufort scale (0 - no wind, 6 - very strong wind).  During the survey the wind speed was measured as 2 (light wind) and the average temperature was 21°C.

Invertebrate Species-habitat Information System (ISIS)

2.43 ISIS is a computer application that was designed by Natural England to recognise assemblage types within a species list of invertebrates, and score each assemblage type according to its conservation value (Drake et al., 2007). The main aim of this is to guide Natural England on the conservation value of SSSIs for their invertebrate assemblages (especially for the purposes of Common Standards Monitoring), whereby an assemblage that returns a ‘fav’ (favourable) condition is deemed to be of sufficient condition to meet the threshold criteria for an assemblage of SSSI- level value. The application of ISIS in the present situation (which is not Common Standards Monitoring of a SSSI) is acceptable given that this provides the current best approach to sampling and analysis of invertebrate assemblage types in England.

2.44 The assemblage types are based on a suite of species occurring in the same piece of homogenous (or preferred) habitat. This preferred habitat may be split into a Broad Type and a Specific Type. There are 14 Broad Assemblage Types (BATs) and these can be further separated to cover 28 Specific Assemblage Types (SATs). The BATs differ from the SATs in that species allocated to the BATs are more generalist species found across a wide range of habitats. Conversely, SATs include only habitat specific species, faithful normally to a single habitat or microhabitat, which are typically most closely associated with sites of higher conservation value. Analysis of SATs is preferred to determine nature conservation value of a site for invertebrates, since it is sites with high-scoring SATs that have the most unique and often rarest invertebrate assemblages, which are most deserving of nature conservation efforts. However ISIS also generates Rarity Scores for BATs,

11 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

which can be useful in providing a widely accepted measure for the assessment of assemblage quality associated with sites where SATs do not feature.

2.45 An ISIS analysis was run using the data generated from the invertebrate survey. The primary objective of doing so was to understand whether the invertebrate survey area supported any BATs or SATs in favourable condition, which would be significant in terms of nature conservation value, especially for any SATs.

Badger

2.46 As part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 14 May 2014, the Site was assessed for its potential to support badger Meles meles and searches were undertaken for signs indicating the presence of badger, such as setts, latrines, dung pits, diggings, footprints and tracks.

Other Species

2.47 During the course of the above range of survey work, sightings or signs of any other notable species within the Site, such as brown hare Lepus europaeus, were also noted.

Invasive Species

2.48 As part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey on 14 May 2014, the Site was searched for the presence of invasive non-native plants such as Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica.

Limitations to Methods

Botanical Survey

2.49 The survey was carried out at a slightly after the optimal time of year for recording grassland species (i.e. the optimal time being late June/early July). Although the majority of grassland plant species present are likely to have been clearly visible at this time of year, it is possible that some early flowering species may not have been noticeable at the time of the survey. Therefore the species lists presented here are indicative of the main species composition of the vegetation, but do not represent comprehensive lists of all species present. This limitation is not considered to significantly affect the aims and value of this survey.

Dormouse Survey

2.50 49 nest tubes were deployed; 50 is the recommended minimum number used to sample a site (Bright et al., 2006). This is considered to be a very minor limitation, particularly as the positioning of the tubes allowed thorough and comprehensive survey of the section of hedgerow to be affected, and of the adjoining hedgerows/woodland edge. It is not considered to present a significant constraint to the findings of the survey.

Breeding Bird Survey

2.51 As with all breeding bird surveys following the technique described above, the process is open to some subjectivity in interpretation except where active nests are located. Therefore, these territories will be classed as putative and their mapped locations will indicate the ‘centre’ of a territory and not necessarily the breeding location.

2.52 The breeding bird survey was not commissioned until May 2014. As a result, survey visits were only carried out in May and June, whereas, ideally, breeding bird surveys should be undertaken in April, May and June. As a result, it is possible that some species that breed early in the season, or those whose territorial behaviour becomes less obvious once breeding has commenced, were not recorded during the breeding bird surveys. The lack of data from early survey visits is not considered to be a major constraint as it is unlikely that additional information from early surveys would have made a significant difference to the assessment made of the Site.

12 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Invertebrates Survey

2.53 Seasonal surveys such as that carried out at the Site are liable to be biased, to some extent, by the life histories of the invertebrate species themselves, a proportion of which may be found in spring, or in autumn, for example. The prevailing state of the vegetation will also play an important role. In the present case, much of the determination of interest depends on the quality of grassland, either specifically or as part of a wider mosaic, and the appearance and apparent value of grassland can vary over the course of a year, as different plant species grow and come into flower, and as the exact nature of management, and its consequences for invertebrates, become apparent. For example, it is unlikely that identical conclusions may have been drawn from a survey conducted in mid-spring, or late-summer.

2.54 Allied to this, two sample visits targeting two or three insect orders can only detect a proportion of the total species using a site. However, it does provide the opportunity to investigate the assemblage types present and to gauge where the most important parts of the Site for invertebrates are most likely to be found. Furthermore, the setting of pitfall traps, to some extent, helps negate restricted survey effort, since the traps are operational and collecting target groups over a prolonged period of time.

13 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

3 Results and Interpretation

Designated Sites

Statutory Designated Sites

3.1 One statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) is located within 2km of the centre of the Site. This site, Cowthick Quarry SSSI, is formed of two separate parcels of land and is designated for geological (rather than nature conservation) reasons, and is located 280m to the east of the Site at its nearest point.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites

3.2 Nineteen non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest are located within 2km of the centre of the Site. Table 7 below sets out details of the nearest five sites (i.e. those located within 500m of the Site). The remaining 14 sites are all located more than 500m from the Site. Table 7: Non-Statutory Designated Sites within 150m of the Site Site name Reason for designation Distance from the Site Unnamed potential Site has not been surveyed and Local Wildlife Site assessed against the pLWS criteria (pLWS) therefore no further information is The entire proposed Site falls available5. Site was identified by within this pLWS NBRC from a study of aerial photographs Weldon Old Site has not been recently surveyed 300m to the north Workings pLWS and assessed against the pLWS criteria. Previously designated as a County Wildlife Site (1992-2006) for its scrub habitats Unnamed potential Site has not been surveyed and Local Wildlife Site assessed against the pLWS criteria (pLWS) therefore no further information is 310m to the north available. Site was identified by NBRC from a study of aerial photographs Stanion Lane Woodland habitat containing 450m to the southwest Plantation LWS calcareous rides Cowthick Plantation Rich woodland flora containing six 500m to the south LWS ancient woodland indicator species, plus rides containing diverse calcareous grassland habitat

5 As part of the desk study consultation, BSG Ecology approached NBRC for any further information relating to this site on 15 May 2014, and NBRC provided the following information: “Potential Wildlife Sites ( PWS ) are sites that are either known, or thought, to be of higher biodiversity value than the average countryside, but have not been confirmed, through ecological survey effort, to be of full Local Wildlife Site ( LWS ) standard. “PWSs can belong to one of three categories : 1). Sites never fully surveyed and assessed against LWS criteria. 2). Sites surveyed and assessed against the LWS criteria, but not currently reaching the standard. 3). Sites previously recognised as LWS, but not currently meeting the latest LWS criteria. “The PWS in question here, PWS No. 1056, falls into Category 1), as above. “So, therefore, unfortunately, as a result, we are not, at the present time, able to provide you with any degree of detailed site information about this particular location.

14 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Habitat Survey Results

3.3 The Site was mapped during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey and the habitats within the Site are described below. The photographs referred to in the text below are presented in Appendix 3. The locations of the habitats are shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan (Figure 1 in Appendix 1).

3.4 The Site consists of three sections of fields which are bounded by species-poor hedgerows, one of which contains trees (Photograph 1). The hedgerows are generally dense and are dominated by hawthorn Crataegus monogyna. Other species occasionally present include ash Fraxinus excelsior, elder Sambucus nigra, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, rose Rosa sp., field maple Acer campestre and bramble Rubus fruticosus agg..

3.5 The eastern part of the Site consists of two areas of arable fields (Photographs 2-4). These have a range of ephemeral and ruderal plant species, and in some areas, appear to be succeeding to mesotrophic grassland dominated by creeping bent-grass Agrostis stolonifera and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus. Further details of the botanical communities present is set out in the paragraphs below.

3.6 The western part of the Site is formed by the northern part of a large arable ley field which has been sown with a rye-grass Lolium spp. mix (Photograph 5). Other occasional species within the sward include dandelion Taraxacum agg., sow-thistle Sonchus sp., creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and goat’s beard Tragopogon pratensis. The field margins tend to consist of neutral grassland with occasional ephemeral communities. The margins vary in width, and are generally no more than 5m wide (Photograph 6). Species present within the margins include perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne, cock’s-foot, crested dog’s-tail, brome Bromus sp., Yorskshire fog, red fescue, hawkbit Leontodon sp., dove’s-foot crane’s-bill Geranium molle, common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, common knapweed Centaurea nigra, greater plantain Plantago major, black meddick, red clover Trifolium pratense, bush vetch Viccia sativa, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, forget-me-not Myosotis sp. and common nettle Urtica dioica.

Phase 2 Botanical Survey Results

Descriptions of Plant Communities Present

3.7 The following paragraphs describe the plant communities present within the uncultivated arable fields in the eastern part of the Site and their margins. Species lists and quadrat data are included in Appendix 4. The extent of these plant communities and the location of quadrats are shown on Figure 4, in Appendix 1. The results include the survey data from the entire fields, rather than just from within the Site, as the fields were treated as a single unit as part of the survey.

3.8 The two arable fields in the eastern part of the Site were uncultivated at the time of the survey and showed extensive development of ephemeral and ruderal vegetation and grasses. Some area of the western field appear to have been ploughed in the current year, and had relatively sparse (though in places, relatively tall) vegetation dominated by ephemeral species. There is an extensive stand of parsnip Pastinaca sativa in the north, and bristly oxtongue Helminthotheca echioides and hoary ragwort Senecio erucifolius were abundant in some areas. The eastern field and a central part of the western field (at the southern edge of the Site boundary) has a denser cover of vegetation, with a closed grass sward in places, containing Agrostis species, Yorkshire fog, smooth meadow-grass Poa pratensis, creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans, and willowherb Epilobium species. In the eastern field grass vetchling Lathyrus nissolia is abundant in many areas, and scrub or woody species such as brambles and dogwood Cornus sanguinea were occasionally present, suggesting a later successional stage.

3.9 This vegetation does not closely match any of the recognized NVC communities. This is likely to reflect the restored nature of the soil and also the idiosyncratic mix of species represented in the soil seed bank of any particular agricultural field.

3.10 This vegetation has little intrinsic conservation value since (in variable forms) it is widely represented across the UK does not conform to any Habitat of Principal Importance/Priority Habitat

15 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

types6. No species of conservation importance (i.e. protected or red data book species) were recorded in this plant community.

3.11 The grass tracks located at the field margins contain relatively few plant species, all of which are widespread and common. This vegetation has little intrinsic conservation value and is not a Habitat of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006. No species of conservation importance (i.e., protected or red data book species) were recorded in this plant community.

Protected Species

Great Crested Newt

3.12 The data trawl did not provide any records of amphibians within 2km of the centre of the Site.

3.13 The pond located 50m to the north of the Site is described below and is mapped on Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan, in Appendix 1. The results of the surveys are set out below.

3.14 The pond is located at OS grid reference SP 920 884 (Photograph 7). The pond is approximately 20m x 15m, surrounded by willow Salix scrub. The pond is set at the periphery of a household waste recycling centre, and in the wider area, is surrounded by sparse grassland, ruderal vegetation, scrub and scattered trees. The pond is connected to the site by scrub and scattered trees.

3.15 The HSI score for the pond is 0.71, indicating that the pond contains features that are of good suitability to support a breeding population of great crested newts. The open water within the pond provides opportunities for great crested newts to undertake mating displays, and the marginal vegetation provides some opportunities for egg-laying. The surrounding habitat which separates the pond from the site is also considered to provide suitable terrestrial habitat for newts.

3.16 Appendix 5 sets out the full results of the six survey visits to the pond. In summary, individual great crested newts were recorded on two of the six survey visits, with one male and one female recorded on visits 4 and 5 respectively. Smooth newts were also recorded on each of the survey visits.

Summary

3.17 The great crested newt mitigation guidelines explain the difficulty of establishing the true size of a population of great crested newts due to a range of factors, notably the variable sampling efficiency attained, even by the best methods, and the complex (meta) population dynamics involved. Research suggests that surveys may reveal between 2% and 30% of a population, but there is likely to be even greater variation. Natural England (formerly English Nature) therefore recommends that, where development projects are concerned, an approximate indication of population size class is used in survey reports (Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, 2001). This is usually sufficient for licence applications, although should be considered a minimum requirement, as further interpretation may be required. Determining population size more accurately may only be achievable by ring-fencing/pitfall trapping or mark-recapture methods.

3.18 Natural England recommend that survey results should be expressed as the maximum adult count per pond per night gained through torch survey or bottle trapping and that population size should be estimated from the peak count per pond (Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, 2001). Populations can be classed as follows:  Small – maximum count up to 10

 Medium – maximum count between 11 and 100

 Large – maximum count over 100.

6 Habitats of Principal Importance are those habitats shown on the England Biodiversity List published by the Secretary of State under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, referred to as Priority Habitats within the NPPF.

16 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

3.19 Individual great crested newts were recorded within the pond within bottle traps that were set on 22 May 2014 and 1 June 2014. This equates to a small-sized population classification.

3.20 Natural England guidelines broadly classify terrestrial habitats into three categories according to distance from a great crested newt breeding pond:  Immediate – within 50m

 Intermediate – between 50m and 250m

 Distant – Between 250m and 500m

3.21 None of the Development Site falls within 50m of the great crested newt breeding pond (i.e. ‘immediate’ terrestrial habitat). Approximately 5.21ha of the Development Site falls within the ‘intermediate’ terrestrial habitat (i.e. between 50m and 250m of the pond), of which 4.73ha is considered to present optimal habitat. Approximately 1.09ha of the Development Site falls within the ‘distant’ terrestrial habitat (i.e. between 250m and 500m of the ponds), of which 0.03ha is considered to present optimal habitat. It is therefore possible that great crested newts could be present within the suitable terrestrial habitats within the Development Site.

3.22 Natural England guidelines (2001) state that suitable terrestrial habitat within 250m of a breeding pond is likely to be used most frequently, and more recent studies have shown that great crested newt densities are very low over 100m from a breeding pond (Natural England, 2007). As survey work found that the pond supports only a small population of great crested newts, and given the abundance of optimal terrestrial habitats in close proximity to the pond, it is considered unlikely that great crested newts will be present in the habitats more than 250m from the pond.

Dormouse

3.23 The data trawl provided two dormouse records dating from 1996, from locations 1.6km and 1.7km to the southeast of the Site (Middle Laundimer Wood and Nether Laundimer Wood respectively). In addition, dormouse is known to occur within Cowthick Plantation LWS7, which is located 500m to the south of the Site. A study of aerial photographs shows that more or less continuous dense hedgerow cover connects the location of these records/woodlands containing dormice to the Site.

3.24 The majority of the fields within the Site are bounded by dense hedgerows. The hedgerows are generally species-poor and tend to be hawthorn-dominated. Other occasional species present include bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., field maple Acer campestre, ash Fraxinus excelsior, blackthorn Prunus spinosa and elder Sambucus nigra. Hazel nuts form an important part of the dormouse diet and the general lack of hazel reduces the suitability of these hedgerows to support dormouse. However, dormice also forage on a range of other feeding materials throughout the spring, summer and autumn, which can include hawthorn flowers, and bramble fruits and flowers, which are present in the majority of the hedgerows.

3.25 No evidence indicating the presence of dormouse was recorded within the surveyed sections of hedgerow/woodland edge during the survey visits. Live wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus, and wood mice nests and food caches were widely recorded during the survey. The field data from the survey is included in Appendix 6. Given the range of suitable habitats within the Site and the immediate surrounding landscape, the possible presence of dormouse within other nearby hedgerows (which have not been subject to survey) cannot be ruled-out.

Bats

Existing Records

3.26 The data trawl provided 23 records for bats within 2km of the centre of the Site. Table 8 sets out details of the different bat species records and their proximity to the Site.

7 Pers. Comm. Alan Smith (Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust), 15 May 2014.

17 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Table 8: Bat records

Species Closest record Number of Date range of Approximate Date Record records records distance from type site8 Unknown 1992 pipistrelle 580m to the 10 1985-2008 Roost Pipistrellus north species Common 2008 pipistrelle 570m to the 2 2004-2008 Foraging Pipistrellus southwest pipistrellus Soprano 2004 pipistrelle 1.5km to the 1 2004 Foraging Pipistrellus west pygmaeus Brown long- 2008 eared bat 570m to the 2 2000-2008 Roost Plecotus southwest auritus Daubenton’s 2009 1.5km to the bat Myotis 2 2007-2009 Grounded north daubentonii Natterer’s 2008 570m to the bat Myotis 2 1997-2008 Roost southwest nattereri Noctule 2008 570m to the Nyctalus 2 2004-2008 Foraging southwest noctula Barbastelle - More than 2km Barbastella 2 2004-2006 Foraging from the Site barbastellus

Bat Roosts

3.27 During the survey all trees situated within the Site were assessed from the ground for any suitable bat roosting features. None of the trees were assessed as having potential to support roosting bats due to a lack of suitable features, such as rot holes, splits and cavities.

Bat Foraging/Commuting

3.28 The network of hedgerows forming the majority of the field boundaries could provide suitable foraging and commuting habitats for bats. In addition, the uncultivated arable fields within the eastern part of the Site are considered likely to provide suitable foraging habitat for a range of bats. These habitats within the Site connect to further suitable foraging habitat and roosting features beyond the boundaries of the Site (e.g. woodlands, damp grassland and further hedgerows). The Site is not currently subject to lighting, meaning that the Site could potentially provide suitable foraging and commuting habitat for a range of bat species, including the light-sensitive species brown long-eared bat and barbastelle, which are known to occur in the local area from the results of the desk study.

Reptiles

3.29 The data trawl provided four reptile records within 2km of the centre of the Site: three records of common lizard Zootoca vivipara and one record of grass snake Natrix natrix, details of which are set out in Table 9.

8 The OS grid references provided are only accurate to 1km therefore it is not possible to determine precisely where the records originate from.

18 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Table 9: Reptile records Species Distance from site Date of record

Grass snake 1.5km to the southwest 1992 Common lizard 1.7km to the southwest 2006 Common lizard 1.9km to the west 2004 Common lizard 2.0km to the southwest 2002

Habitat Potential Assessment

3.30 The most uniform habitat within the Site is the section of arable ley field within the western part of the site, which is dominated by grasses and of uniform structure, and is considered sub-optimal for reptiles. This area was discounted from further study, so falls outside the survey area studied for reptiles.

3.31 The reptile survey area included the uncultivated arable field within the eastern part of the Site which appears to have been managed as arable or improved grassland in the past. Under normal conditions, this field would be disregarded for reptiles on account of its uniform vegetation structure and intensive management regime. However, at the time of survey, it was covered in a mosaic of ruderal vegetation, grasses and bare ground, having been ‘set-aside’. The taller vegetation offers protective cover and refuge for reptiles whilst the exposed ground provides suitable basking spots for reptiles.

Targeted Survey

3.32 Common lizard was recorded in six locations within the uncultivated arable fields just outside the southern boundary of the Site. The reptile surveys did not record any reptiles within the Site itself; however, the survey effort focussed predominantly on the southern sections of these two fields. An additional incidental sighting of common lizard was made on 11 June 2014, located adjacent to the pond 50m to the north of the Site.

3.33 A maximum of two individual common lizards were recorded to the south of the Site, during one visit, which indicates the presence of a “low population” (Froglife, 1999). The spatial distribution of these sightings (i.e. sightings to the north and to the south of the Site) means that the presence of common lizard within the similar habitats within the Site cannot be ruled out. Details of all reptile sightings within the adjacent habitat are set out in Table 10.

Table 10: Common lizard sightings

Date Location Sex Comments 11/06/2014 Adjacent to pond 50m to north of site Unknown Incidental sighting close to pond 19/06/14 Eastern uncultivated arable field Male Basking on mat 19/06/14 Western uncultivated arable field Female Beneath mat 23/06/14 Eastern uncultivated arable field Male Beneath mat 09/07/14 Western uncultivated arable field Male Beneath mat 10/07/14 Western uncultivated arable field Male Beneath mat 10/07/14 Eastern uncultivated arable field Male Basking on mat

Nesting Birds

Existing Records

3.34 The data trawl provided 35 records for notable bird species within 2km of the centre of the Site. Table 11 below sets out details of the different bird species records, the nearest of which are records of red kite Milvus milvus and lapwing Vanellus vanellus adjacent to the northern boundary of the Site. None of these records relates to the Site itself.

19 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Table 11: Notable bird records

Species Date range of Number of records records Skylark Alauda arvensis 1 2002 Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus 5 2002 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus 1 2002 Cuckoo Cuculus canorus 2 2002 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 1 2002 Swallow Hirundo rustica 1 2005 Iceland gull Larus glaucoides 1 2002 Great black-backed gull Larus marinus 1 2002 Red kite Milvus milvus 11 2002-2010 Green woodpecker Picus viridis 6 1994-2006 Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula 2 2002 Mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus 1 2002 Barn owl Tyto alba 1 2012 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 1 2002

Breeding Bird Survey Results

3.35 A total of 16 bird species that could be breeding within or immediately adjacent to the Site were recorded during the three survey visits combined. These are summarised in Table 12 together with an estimated number of confirmed, probable or possible breeding territories/nest sites. The indicative central point of each territory or location of individual bird records is shown in Figure 5 in Appendix 1.

Table 12: Summary results of breeding bird survey

Breeding Status Common name Scientific name Total Pairs Confirmed Probably Possible Blackbird Turdus merula 2 2 Cyanistes Blue tit 1 1 2 caeruleus Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula 1 1 Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs 1 1 2 Carduelis Goldfinch 1 1 carduelis Great tit Parus major 1 1

Lesser whitethroat Sylvia curruca 1 1 Carduelis Linnet 2 2 cannabina Magpie Pica pica 1 1 Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis 6 6

Erithacus Robin 4 4 rubecula Skylark Alauda arvensis 4 3 7 Starling Sturnus vulgaris 1 1

Whitethroat Sylvia communis 1 1 2 4 Phylloscopus Willow warbler 2 2 trochilus

20 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Troglodytes Wren 1 2 3 troglodytes

3.36 Of the 16 species of bird that could be breeding within or adjacent to the Site, seven appear on one or more schedules or lists of species of conservation importance, as follows:  Species of Principal Importance for the Conservation of Biodiversity in England as listed in accordance with section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006 (S41);  Species of high conservation concern (red list species) included in Birds of Conservation Concern 3 (Eaton et al, 2009);  Species of medium conservation concern (amber list species) included in Birds of Conservation Concern 3 (Eaton et al, 2009).

3.37 These seven species, together with an indication of their relevant status are included in Table 13. The status of each species in Northamptonshire is also provided (Northants 2012). Further details of the species’ conservation status, national and local distribution, and occurrence within the Site are set out in Appendix 7.

Table 13: Status of Breeding Birds in Northamptonshire Scientific Red Amber Common name S41 Status in Northants. name List List Pyrrhula Bullfinch   Widespread resident pyrrhula Carduelis Linnet   Common but declining resident cannabina Anthus Meadow Pipit  Scarce breeder pratensis Alauda Skylark   Common but declining resident arvensis Sturnus Starling   Common resident vulgaris Sylvia Whitethroat  Common breeder communis Phylloscopus Willow warbler  Common breeder trochilus

Invertebrates

Existing Records

3.38 The data trawl provided 65 records of notable invertebrates species located within 2km of the centre of the Site. These records relate to 37 different invertebrate species, dating from 1907-2005. The majority of these records originate from “Laundimer Woods, Old Dry Hills/Harry’s Park Wood”, approximately 1.7km to the east of the Site. None of the records provided appears to relate to the Site itself.

Habitat Potential Assessment

3.39 The most uniform habitat within the Site is the section of arable ley field within the western part of the Site which is of uniform structure. This was discounted from further study, so falls outside the survey area studied for invertebrates.

3.40 The invertebrate survey area included the two uncultivated arable fields within the eastern part of the Site, the field margin along the hedgerow separating these fields from the arable ley field, and the margin along the hedgerow along the northern part of the Site, which was fairly wide in this location and included a variety of forbs. Features considered to be of potential value to invertebrates are summarised below.

21 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Uncultivated Arable Fields

3.41 The two fields appear to have been managed as arable or improved grassland in the past. Under normal conditions, these fields would be disregarded for invertebrates on account of their uniform vegetation structure and intensive management regime. However, at the time of survey, they were covered in ruderal vegetation, having been ‘set-aside’. This vegetation, which included various grasses (e.g. red fescue Festuca rubra, rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis, smooth meadow-grass Poa pratensis, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus), willowherbs Epilobium sp., thistles Cirsium sp., bristly ox-tongue Helminthotheca echioides, ragwort Senecio jacobaea, creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans, cut-leaved crane’s-bill Geranium dissectum and bramble Rubus fruticosus agg, includes sufficient flowering forbs to be of some interest to invertebrates, such as foliage feeding species feeding off the plants themselves, and species visiting the plants for nectar and pollen. Notwithstanding this, given the temporary nature of this vegetation type in these fields, it is considered that they are unlikely to be of any more than local value for invertebrates.

Boundary Features

3.42 As mentioned earlier, the hedgerows are of a uniform structure, species-poor and therefore lacking any defining character that would make them of significant value to invertebrates. The margins are generally species-poor, although the margin close to the hedgerow along the northern boundary of the Site is of slightly greater value, due to its south-facing aspect and greater variety of forbs. Hedgerows, especially more complex well-structured hedgerows (such as that to the north) provide a permanent feature for hibernating invertebrates. Furthermore, they break up the fields to add additional heterogeneity, and potentially warmth, at least close to the ground, which is likely to be of particular benefit to butterflies (Lepidoptera).

Targeted Survey

3.43 Of approximately 800 invertebrate specimens examined from the wider survey area, 145 species were identified. Coleoptera (beetles) made up approximately 70% of the records with the Carabidae (ground beetles) and Staphylinidae (rove beetles) the most dominant families. The next most recorded order was the Hemiptera (true bugs) with 16 species recorded. The full list of invertebrates recorded within the survey area set out in Appendix 8. The results of the survey were analysed by measuring the number of locally rare, nationally notable and IUCN red-list / RDB species.

3.44 Overall, the majority of the insects recorded are widely distributed and common, with 32 regarded as more local and seven of Notable status. These notable species are discussed further below.

Butterfly Survey

3.45 Five butterfly species and two day-flying moths were observed within the Site during the course of the transect survey (June 2014) and incidental records during the July 2014 visit. A summary of the transect survey results are shown in Table 14 below and the route of the transect surveys are shown in Figure 3, Appendix 1.

Table 14: Summary of Transect Survey Results

Common Name Scientific Name No. of sightings within the Site on 18 June 2014 Large Skipper Ochlodes venata 3 Meadow Brown Maniola jurtina 13 Ringlet Aphantopus hyperantus 2 Small Heath Coenonympha pamphilus 2 Speckled Wood Pararge aegeria 2 Day flying Moths 6-Spot Burnet Zygaena filipendulae 33 Cinnabar Tyria jacobaeae 1

22 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

3.46 The diversity of butterfly species is typical for a site of this type and location. The species recorded are generally considered to be common and widespread in the East Midlands.

3.47 Small heath butterfly Coenonympha pamphilus and cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae are the only noteworthy Lepidoptera recorded within the Site.

3.48 Small heath butterflies typically occur in well-drained grassland habitats where they lay their eggs on fine grasses such as fescues Festuca spp., meadow grasses Poa spp. and bents Agrostis spp. Despite being a fairly widespread species, the small heath is listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006, and is regarded by Butterfly Conservation (Fox et al., 2010) as being in the Near Threatened category, which reflects its decline in the British countryside over recent decades.

3.49 The cinnabar moth is also a common and widespread species, which has suffered rapid decline over recent decades. Its inclusion as a Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 is, however, in relation to the requirement for further research at this stage.

Value of Survey Area to Invertebrates

3.50 The entire combined species list derived from the targeted surveys of the wider survey area was entered into a specially designed ISIS data entry sheet (2013 version). The subsequent output is shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Summary of ISIS output for Broad Assemblage Types (BATs)

BAT code BAT name Representation Rarity score Condition BAT (1-100) species richness grassland & scrub F2 matrix 53 128 74 mineral marsh & open W2 water 12 153 fav 17 unshaded early F1 successional mosaic 11 169 fav 16 W3 permanent wet mire 5 7 A1 arboreal canopy 1 1

3.51 Two key assemblages within the invertebrate survey area are of particular note; the W2 ‘mineral marsh & open water’ assemblage and the F1 ‘unshaded early successional mosaic’ assemblage. Both these assemblages generated rarity scores that exceeded the thresholds for each assemblage to be of sufficient quality to qualify as being in favourable condition, as described by Natural England (Drake et al., 2007). The grassland & scrub matrix assemblage (F2) fell short of favourable condition, with a rarity score of 128, which is 32 below the threshold of 160 for this BAT.

3.52 Nine Specific Assemblage Types (SATs) were represented by the species list derived from the invertebrate survey area. However, none of these were in favourable condition.

3.53 In conclusion, it can be determined that the invertebrate assemblages of greatest nature conservation value within the invertebrate survey area are those associated with the “mineral marsh & open water” and the “unshaded early successional mosaic” BATs. Neither of these BATs falls within the Site and the results of the ISIS analysis suggest that the invertebrate assemblages within the Site are of limited invertebrate interest.

Badger

3.54 The data trawl provided four records for badger within 2km of the centre of the Site, the nearest of which is situated 660m from the Site; this record dates from 1996.

3.55 No badger setts were recorded within or adjacent to the Site. Two live badger were recorded crossing the eastern part of the Site on 18 May 2014, and entering the hedgerow which forms the

23 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

boundary between the two uncultivated arable fields. No further evidence of badger, such as dung pits, footprints or feeding remains, have been recorded in this area.

Brown Hare

3.56 The desk study provided two records of brown hare within 2km of the centre of the Site dating from 2002, the nearest of which is from a location 1.7km to the east of the Site.

3.57 Incidental sightings of brown hare were made during the course of the ecological survey work undertaken between May-July 2014. Brown hare were noted within the uncultivated arable fields and also along the eastern boundary of the arable ley field. A maximum of four brown hare were noted on 26 June 2014 within the western uncultivated arable field, which fled northwards towards the northern site boundary when approached. It was not possible to determine the age of these brown hare given their distance and it is possible that parts of the Site may be used by breeding hares and leverets.

24 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

4 Potential Impacts and Recommendations

4.1 Guidance on relevant legislation, policy and Species of Principal Importance can be found in Appendix 9.

4.2 The works will involve the following elements:  Construction of a composting facility within the western uncultivated arable field and part of the arable ley field, which will involve the establishment of large open compost piles, a leachate lagoon and cutoff ditch.  Establishment of the great crested newt receptor site within two sections of uncultivated arable fields. The vegetation will be left to colonise and mature via natural succession. Four hibernacula will be built within the receptor site, and approximately 650m of hedgerow will be planted at its boundaries.

4.3 No hedgerow removal will be required and no lighting is proposed, although it is possible that vehicular lights will be required during the winter months. The proposed work will utilise the existing access from Stamford Road.

Designated Sites

4.4 The Site boundary falls wholly within a potential Local Wildlife Site. The pLWS has not been surveyed and formally assessed against the LWS criteria therefore no further information is available (NBRC, 2014). The range of ecological survey work undertaken by BSG Ecology during 2014 is considered to provide a detailed baseline data set for the section of the pLWS that falls within the Site. Recommendations based on the findings of these surveys are made in the following sections in order to reduce the risk of an adverse impact on any features of ecological interest within the Site as a result of the proposals. Providing that the design of the scheme accommodates the recommended ecological measures set out below, a significant impact on features of ecological value within the section of the Site which falls within the pLWS are considered unlikely.

4.5 The remainder of the designated sites are all located at least 300m from the Site, are geographically separated from the proposed development area, and no adverse impacts on any other designated sites is anticipated as a result of the proposals.

Habitats

4.6 The majority of the works (including the establishment of the newt receptor site) will be sited within the uncultivated arable fields. The arable ley field and uncultivated arable field are considered to be of limited ecological value as they do not conform to any of the Priority Habitat types. These are widespread habitats containing common plant species, and are well represented nationally and locally. The partial loss of, and modification to, these habitats is, therefore, unlikely to be significant beyond the immediate context of the site. These habitats are, however, of potential value to a number of protected species which are discussed further in the paragraphs below.

4.7 Approximately 650m of native hedgerow will be planted at the boundaries of the great crested newt receptor site, which will enhance existing habitat connectivity between the Site and the surrounding landscape. The new hedgerow will be managed to enhance its value to wildlife. Hedgerows are listed as Habitats of Principal Importance9 under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 and are listed as a Northamptonshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) Priority Habitat, and the planting of 650m hedgerow could contribute to the LBAP target.

9 Habitats and Species of Principal Importance are referred to as Priority Habitats/Species in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

25 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Protected Species

Great Crested Newt

4.8 Great crested newts and their habitats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Great crested newt is also listed as priority species under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

4.9 Given the presence of a great crested newt pond 50m to the north of the Site, and the presence of optimal terrestrial habitat within the Site (and within 250m of this pond), the presence of this species within the suitable terrestrial habitats within the Site cannot be ruled out.

Construction Phase Impacts and Recommendations

4.10 The proposed development will not directly affect the great crested newt pond but, based on the current proposed layout, will result in a loss of a proportion of the intermediate (50-250m from the pond) terrestrial habitat. A detailed development plan has not been finalised however it is anticipated that the proposals could result in a loss of up to 4.73ha of optimal intermediate habitat. The development could, without mitigation, result in great crested newts being killed or injured, their resting places (i.e. terrestrial habitats) being damaged or destroyed, and any newts present could be disturbed or killed. This would constitute an offence under the above legislation.

4.11 Although the law provides strict protection to great crested newts, it also allows this protection to be set aside (derogation) under Section 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 through the issuing of licences. These licences in England are currently determined by Natural England (NE) for development works and are known as European Protected Species (EPS) licences.

4.12 Where a lawful operation is required to be carried out, which is likely to result in an offence under the legislation set out above, an EPS licence may be obtained from NE to allow the operation to proceed. However, in accordance with the requirements of Section 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, an EPS licence can only be issued where the following derogation requirements are satisfied:  The proposal is necessary ‘to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’;

 ‘There is no satisfactory alternative’;

 The proposal ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.’

4.13 Due to the clearance of suitable terrestrial habitats that could be used by great crested newt, it is considered that a European Protected Species licence will need to be secured for the development to proceed. A detailed mitigation strategy will need to be drawn up in the form of a Method Statement. The mitigation approach will be to avoid killing or injury to great crested newts and to minimise the impact on the great crested newt population.

4.14 Vertical amphibian fencing will be installed at the boundaries of the development area which will provide a barrier between the pond and the proposed development. Pitfall traps and carpet refuges will be placed on the internal (development) sides of the fence to trap any newts within the Site. Internal drift fencing will also be installed and pitfall traps and carpet refuges will also be placed alongside the drift fencing. The Receptor Site will need to be established prior to trapping out newts, in which to place any newts captured. The Receptor Site will consist of the sections of uncultivated eastern arable fields located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Development Site, and a 3m wide strip of land bordering the southern boundary of the Development Site. These areas total 3.1ha. This area will be protected from future development pressure.

4.15 As compensation for the loss of terrestrial habitat, it will be necessary to create high quality terrestrial habitats for great crested newts within the Receptor Site. The existing vegetation will be allowed to succeed to rough grassland via natural succession, and four purpose-built hibernacula

26 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

will be incorporated. Since the hedgerows will be retained this will facilitate the movement of newts between the existing pond and the proposed receptor site, and the proposed planting of 650m of native hedgerow will enhance connectivity in the local landscape.

Operational Phase Impacts and Recommendations

4.16 Without mitigation, the creation of large open compost piles has the potential to create further optimal great crested newt terrestrial habitat within the development site. In order to reduce the risk of great crested newt utilising the habitat features within the development site it is recommended that, once great crested newt is excluded from the development site (under EPS Licence) that permanent amphibian exclusion fencing is maintained around the perimeter of the core composting area of the development (including the leachate lagoon and cutoff ditch). The fencing would need to remain intact, and be subject to regular checks throughout the operational phase of the development to check for any breaches in the fencing. Please note that if the fencing is not maintained intact, then there is the risk that great crested newts will enter the Site and the suitable habitats such as compost piles and the leachate lagoon. In this instance works would need to stop and great crested newt would then need to be excluded from the site under a further EPS Licence to avoid committing an offence (i.e. disturbance, killing or injuring, or damage/destruction of a resting place). Further detail is set out in BSG Ecology’s Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy (BSG Ecology, 2016).

Dormouse

4.17 Dormouse is a European Protected Species (EPS) that is fully protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In summary this legislation means that dormouse is protected against disturbance, killing or injuring and their nests are protected against obstruction, damage or destruction.

4.18 No evidence to suggest the presence of dormouse was recorded within the survey area and the hedgerow within the Site will be retained and protected from harm during the course of the works. No adverse impacts on this species are anticipated.

Bats

4.19 Bats are European Protected Species (EPS) that are fully protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In summary this legislation means that bats are protected against disturbance, killing or injuring and their roosts are protected against obstruction, damage or destruction. A bat roost may be any structure a bat uses for breeding, resting, shelter or protection. It is important to note that since bats tend to re-use the same roost sites, bat roosts are protected whether or not the bats are present at the time.

Bat Roosts

4.20 No trees or any other features within the Site are assessed as having potential to support roosting bats, therefore no adverse impacts on roosting bats is anticipated.

Bat Foraging/Commuting

4.21 The majority of the development will be sited within part of the western uncultivated arable field, and will involve the establishment of large open compost piles within this area. No hedgerow removal is required and the proposed great crested newt Receptor Site, to be located adjacent to the Development Site, will include the planting of approximately 650m of native hedgerow at its boundaries, and will connect to existing hedgerows within and adjacent to the Development Site. The existing vegetation within the Receptor Site will be allowed to succeed to rough grassland via natural succession, and four purpose-built hibernacula will also be incorporated; combined, these measures could enhance the overall value of the Site for foraging bats. The additional hedgerow planting will increase the availability of bat commuting habitat in the Site and increase connectivity with the surrounding landscape.

27 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

4.22 Overall, because habitats will be retained and a new habitat features (open compost piles, rough grassland and 650m of hedgerow) will be created, the proposed development is unlikely to give rise to a significant adverse impact on bats from habitat loss, and could result in enhancement via strengthening of connectivity with the surrounding landscape.

4.23 Since the proposals will not involve any additional lighting, except vehicular lights during winter months (i.e. outside the bat active period), no indirect adverse impacts are expected to arise as a result of illuminating suitable bat foraging and commuting habitats. This also means that the proposed habitat enhancements are likely to be of benefit to light-sensitive species such as brown long-eared bat and barbastelle which are known to be present in to the local area.

Reptiles

4.24 All British reptiles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) against intentional killing or injury and against sale. In addition, all British reptiles are Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

Construction Phase Impacts and Recommendations

4.25 Common lizard has been recorded within the habitats adjoining the Site. Given the proximity of the Site to the areas in which most reptiles were recorded, and the suitability of the habitats within the uncultivated arable field, their presence within this part of the Site cannot be completely ruled out. Without mitigation, the proposed development, in particular any vegetation clearance within the uncultivated arable field, could result in the killing or injuring of common lizard and therefore a breach of legislation.

4.26 It is anticipated that the proposals could result in a loss of up to 4.76ha of optimal reptile habitat, i.e. the uncultivated arable field. In order to avoid an adverse impact on the common lizard population, the following measures are recommended:

Avoidance of Killing or Injuring

4.27 In order to reduce the risk of killing or injuring common lizard (and other reptiles) during site clearance work (i.e. committing an offence) it is recommended that prior to the installation of the great crested newt fencing under EPS Licence (refer to Paragraph 4.14 above) that the uncultivated arable field within the Development Site should be hand-searched for the presence of reptiles by a suitably qualified ecologist. This search should take place immediately prior to the start of the fence installation works. The ecologist would attempt to capture any reptiles found which would then be moved to the great crested newt Receptor Site , away from the development area. If the fence installation can take place during the winter months (i.e. when reptiles are less active) then this hand-search would not be required, given the lack of suitable hibernation sites within the Development Site.

Creation of New Habitat

4.28 The great crested newt receptor site will include four purpose-built hibernacula (i.e. piles of rubble and logs loosely-packed with topsoil). This will provide suitable sheltering habitat for common lizard and the establishment of rough grassland within the receptor site will increase the variety of habitat types within the Site.

Operational Phase Impacts and Recommendations

4.29 Without mitigation, the creation of large open compost piles has the potential to create optimal reptile habitat within the development site. In order to reduce the risk of reptiles utilising the habitat features within the development site it is recommended that permanent amphibian exclusion fencing is maintained around the perimeter of the development site, as set out in Paragraph 4.16 above. This measure would serve to reduce the risk of reptiles using the habitats within the development area, and therefore the risk of committing an offence (i.e. killing or injury).

28 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Nesting Birds

Potential Impacts

4.30 All nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or take, damage or destroy its nest whilst in use or being built, or take or destroy its eggs.

4.31 The main impact to breeding birds is likely to occur if the habitats in the Development Site including arable land are cleared during the breeding bird season. As a guide, the bird nesting season is between February and August inclusive; dates vary by species and can be affected by prevailing weather conditions. The majority of species do not start nesting until March and April. It is therefore recommended that the clearance of any habitats is undertaken between September and January, in order to avoid the bird breeding season. If any work has to take place during the bird breeding season, then it is recommended that the habitats to be affected are surveyed for active bird nests by a suitably qualified ecologist before the work is carried out. If active bird nests are present, then works affecting the area supporting the nests would need to be delayed until nesting activity has ceased.

4.32 Potential long-term impacts on breeding birds as a result of development within the site are most likely to occur in association with changes in habitat availability. For example, the loss or reduction of up to 6.3ha of arable land would result in a reduction in the amount of suitable nesting habitat available to ground-nesting birds such as meadow pipit and skylark. Meadow pipit is a species of medium conservation concern, and is considered a scarce breeder in Northamptonshire (Northants, 2012). Skylark is a species of high conservation concern; within Northamptonshire this species is considered common, but declining (Northants, 2012). Care should be taken to avoid destruction of skylark and meadow pipit breeding habitat during the main nesting season (September to February inclusive); their nests will be found within the open fields.

4.33 The remainder of the population of breeding birds within the Site is fairly standard for the habitat such as this within Northamptonshire. The Site is surrounded by extensive areas of similar arable farmland, therefore the loss of up to 6.3ha of arable farmland is considered unlikely to result in a significant reduction of nesting habitat for the majority of bird species in the local area. This loss of arable habitat is only likely to be significant within the immediate context of the Site.

4.34 During construction phase, areas of retained habitat should be protected from accidental damage through the use of fencing or hoarding with an adequate stand-off (normally considered to be greater than 6m). This approach would also help to limit any potential disturbance of nesting birds from works taking place during the breeding season.

4.35 The proposed great crested newt mitigation will include the planting of approximately 650m of native hedgerow at the boundary of the Receptor Site, and will connect to existing hedgerows within and adjacent to the Development Site. The existing vegetation within the Receptor Site will be allowed to succeed to rough grassland via natural succession. The additional planting will serve to strengthen and enhance the remaining hedgerow resource within the Site and the establishment of rough grassland will increase the variety of habitat types within the Site. The retention of these features and incorporation of new opportunities means that a range of bird species will continue to utilise the Site.

Invertebrates

4.36 None of the key invertebrate assemblages recorded falls within the Site. Small heath butterfly, a Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006, was recorded along the arable field margin, which is to be retained throughout the works. Overall the proposals are considered unlikely to result in an adverse impact on the notable invertebrate assemblages recorded within the wider survey area.

Badger

4.37 Badger is protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This makes it an offence to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so; or to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are

29 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it. A badger sett is defined in the legislation as “a structure or place, which displays signs indicating current use by a badger.”

4.38 No badger setts were recorded within or adjacent to the Site therefore no adverse impact on badger setts is anticipated. Since two badgers were recorded within the Site, it is recommended that a precautionary pre-construction badger survey is undertaken, to re-confirm the status of badger setts within the Site prior to construction.

4.39 It is also recommended that any open trenches are covered overnight during construction to reduce the risk of badger becoming trapped. If any excavations need to be left open then a ramp should be installed, to allow badger to escape should they become trapped.

Brown Hare

4.40 Brown hare was recorded within the Site. Although not protected, brown hare is a priority species (i.e. listed as Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006).

4.41 The proposals involve the loss of up to 6.3ha of arable farmland. Since the Site is surrounded by extensive areas of similar arable farmland, the proposals are considered unlikely to result in a significant reduction of habitat for brown hare in the local area.

30 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

5 References ARG UK (2010) Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index

BRIG (ed. Ant Maddock) 2008. (Updated July 2010) UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions

Bright, P, Morris, P and Mitchell-Jones, T (2006) The dormouse conservation handbook. Second Edition. English Nature.

British Bugs (2014). http://www.britishbugs.org.uk/index.html

Brown A. and Grice P. (2005). Birds in England. English Nature.

BTO (2014) Bird Facts. http://www.bto.org/about-birds/birdfacts

Butterfly Conservation (2006) UKBMS Methodology. Accessed 13th January 2013: http://www.ukbms.org/Methods.aspx.

Drake, C. M., Lott, D. A., Alexander, K. N. A. & Webb, J. (2007) Natural England Research Report NERR005: Surveying terrestrial and freshwater Invertebrates for conservation evaluation. Natural England.

Eaton, M. A. et al (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, Peterborough

English Nature (2004). Reptiles: guidelines for developers. English Nature, Peterborough

Foster, G. (2000) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. Part 3 Aquatic Coleoptera. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Fox, R., Warren, M.S., and Brereton, T.M. (2010) The Butterfly Red List for Great Britain No. 12. Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Butterfly Conservation.

Froglife (1999). Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.

Hill, M. O. (1996) TABLEFIT version 1.0, for identification of vegetation types. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon.

Hyman, P.S. and Parsons, M.S. (1992) A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of Great Britain. Part 1. UK Nature Conservation: 3. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Peterborough

Luff, M.L. (2007) The Carabidae (ground beetles) of Britain and Ireland. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, Vol 4, Part 2 (2nd edition).

National Amphibian and Reptile Recording Scheme – NARRS (2007) Reptile Surveys.

Natural England (2007) Interim Guidance: Advice for Land Managers

Northants (2012). Northamptonshire Bird Report.

31 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Oldham, R.S. et al (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). The Herpetological Journal, Vol 10

Rodwell, J. (ed.) (1991 et seq). British Plant Communities: Volumes 1 to 5. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

RSPB (2013) RSPB website. www.rspb.org.uk

Shepherd, P. British Urban Plant Communities in the European Context – filling the gaps in the NVC? Unpublished.

Stace, C.. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles. Ed. 3. Cambridge University Press.

Snow, D.W. and Perrins C.M. (1998). The Birds of the Western Palearctic (Concise Edition). Oxford University Press.

Thornton, P.S. (1988) Density and distribution of badgers in south-west England - a predictive model. Mammal Review, 18, 11-23

32 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

6 Site Location Plan

(overleaf)

33 02/03/2016 N:\Common\Contracts\Live Contracts\8001 - 8050\8001 Weldon Composting Project\8001.02 GCN Mitigation Strategy\Work in Progress\Mapping\Projects\8001.02_Site Location Plan_rh_010316.mxd S e r v i 0 c e

L a y e r

C r e d i t s :

S o u r c e :

E s r i ,

D i g i t a l G l o b e ,

G e o E y e ,

E a r t h s t a r

G e o g r a p h i c s ,

C N E S / A i r b 2 u s 2

D m 5 S ,

U S D A ,

U S G S ,

A E X ,

G e t m a p p i n g ,

A e r o g r i d ,

I G N ,

I G P , s w i s s t o p o , a n d t h e

G I S

U s e r

C o m m u n i t y ¯ L D D F D W P S O R o T A A N C T O E f h o r l e o o S

R l R A R e i : t

i u f p s h d g

F G a e d e O r T 0 y

O e i A A c

r i d m F r m m u e p

E 1 l e E i r C W W g J n e d e a I s e e 4 r h N o C c n : n w : E n a o t e e n s 3

N I 0 B

s s i d D n E N © C

i t i u o S n r 3 1 a o n

g : o

r n u : G 1 t n G B T

e . l a R m s m l

6 s 0 e S D m

C : E

c e r y e o

r S e 1 n C I

. o e o

I r f E r T 2 c

T : l

r 8 t s H b o

o t c o i o 1 m 0 o L

R D g L o t n 6 e f

y w 0

o b 1 e y l E t b r 0 E o 9 s a n r e

e p M 6 s 4

g e e i

h i n

c u n c 8 y s L a o : o h i r d 9

c c v r j v O p e e i a 8 o e c s e y c s e e r l 0 a y e r d k t c t i t y

d g n e i d i p l v ’

s a h n a d o a f e

r t n

t S t

o o a t g p a c p o m t n i e u n a o

d t s m r S t i P p A C o

i h n t d o

u e n i P s H a s S r r . e

e v

e t d o P r a P e E s y r b i y n

j R t o O C a l

e w m a e n s t f O i K f e l a n c

y i n c

. t g S r V E e e t b i . g r

l D

: 2 e b u L r 0 y : o R

P n w p 6 b e n H J

d r |

o m C A a o i e s u p r s i r y a i n o r l y

i n g P d

h o h t f o

2 O t o 0 S S J r r g 1 d O r y 6 T C n a . a p A

B A A n h T l c

y l L

R e

r U © E i

g S E

S h E : u t F 1 s r s : v r

: : F i r e 2 e y I s , 8

N o 6 e 0 n r A 3 v

0 b e 8 L e d 1 h . . a 0 l f 2

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 1: Figures

(overleaf)

34 02/03/2016 LEGEND

Key text 01 (Arial 7 pnt)

LEGEND

A Arable field Key text 02 (Arial 7 pnt)

Tall ruderal vegetation (uncultivated arable field) Key text 03 (Arial 7 pnt) Neutral grassland

Calcareous grassland/ marshy grassland mosaic Key text 04 (Arial 7 pnt) Plantation mixed woodland

Ephemeral/ short perennial Key text 05 (Arial 7 pnt) Swamp

Pond Key text 06 (Aria 7 pnt)

Scattered scrub

Defunct species-poor hedgerow Key text 01 (Arial 7 pnt)

Intact species-poor hedgerow

Intact species-poor hedgerow with trees Key text 02 (Arial 7 pnt)

Fence

Survey boundary Key text 03 (Arial 7 pnt)

A Key text 04 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 05 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 06 (Arial 7 pnt)

OFFICE: Derbyshire T: 01433 651869 JOB REF: 8001

PROJECT TITLE WELDON COMPOSTING PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan A DATE: 04.02.2015 CHECKED: LRJ SCALE: NTS

DRAWN: RH APPROVED: PH STATUS: FINAL

No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only. N This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. Reference number: 100048980 OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2015 | Aerial Photography © Bing Maps Sources: BSG Ecology Survey Data

Pond 1

Cowthick Plantation LWS JOB REF: 0000.00

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TITLE - LINE 1 PROJECT TITLE - LINE 2

DRAWING TITLE Drawing Title - Line 1 Drawing Title - Line 2

DATE: 01.01.2012 CHECKED:XX SCALE: 1:6,000

DRAWN: XX APPROVED:XX STATUS: DRAFT

No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only.

This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2012. All rights reserved. Reference number: 10048980 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2012 | Aerial Photography © Bing Maps User Community Sources:xxxx LEGEND

Key text 01 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 02 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 03 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 04 (Arial 7 pnt) LEGEND

1 Dormouse nest tube location Key text 05 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 06 (Aria 7 pnt)

Key text 01 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 02 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 03 (Arial 7 pnt) 49 45 44 48 43 42 41 46 47 1 2 Key text 04 (Arial 7 pnt) 3 4 5 6 Key text 05 (Arial 7 pnt)

7 8 9 Key text 06 (Arial 7 pnt)

11 12

20 OFFICE: Derbyshire 21 T: 01433 651869 JOB REF: 8001.01

22 PROJECT TITLE

23 WELDON COMPOSTING PROJECT 40 24 39 38 37 36 DRAWING TITLE 25 Figure 2: Dormouse Nest Tube Location Plan 26

27 DATE: 16.11.2015 CHECKED: LRJ SCALE: NTS

28 DRAWN: LRJ APPROVED: GM STATUS: FINAL

Copyright © BSG Ecology 30 No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. 31 All dimensions are to be checked on site. 32 Area measurements for indicative purposes only. 33 N This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. 34 Reference number: 100048980 35 OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2015 | Aerial Photography © Bing Maps Sources: BSG Ecology Survey Data

Cowthick Plantation LWS JOB REF: 0000.00

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TITLE - LINE 1 PROJECT TITLE - LINE 2

DRAWING TITLE Drawing Title - Line 1 Drawing Title - Line 2

DATE: 01.01.2012 CHECKED:XX SCALE: 1:6,000

DRAWN: XX APPROVED:XX STATUS: DRAFT

No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only.

(! Pitfall trap location B1 Butterfly transect route G and reference . B 1 Survey areas

B 8

B 3

B 2 Pool 1 (! G

OFFICE: Derbyshire T: 01433 651869 JOB REF: 8001

B 4 PROJECT TITLE B 7 WELDON COMPOSTING PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE Figure 3: Invertebrate survey area

Pool 2 DATE: 04.02.2015 CHECKED:LRJ SCALE: NTS (! DRAWN: RH APPROVED:PH STATUS: FINAL G B 5 B 6 Copyright © BSG Ecology Service Layer Credits: No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only.

This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. Reference number: 10048980 OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2014 | Aerial Photography © Esri

N:\Common\Contracts\LiveContracts\8001 - 8050\8001 Weldon Composting Project\Work Progress\Mapping\8001_inverts.mxdin Sources: BSG Ecology survey data LEGEND

P! Survey quadrat location

MG6 - Grassland tracks

Uncultivated arable field

Q6 P!

P! Q2 Q7 P! P! Q1

P! Q10 Q3 P!

Q8 Q9 P! P! Q5 P!

OFFICE: Derbyshire Q4 T: 01433 651869 JOB REF: 8001 P! PROJECT TITLE WELDON COMPOSTING PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE Figure 4: NVC survey results

DATE: 04.02.2015 CHECKED:LRJ SCALE: NTS

DRAWN: RH APPROVED:PH STATUS: FINAL

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Copyright © BSG Ecology No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, All dimensions are to be checked on site. CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Area measurements for indicative purposes only. This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. and the GIS User Community Reference number: 10048980 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2014 | Aerial Photography © Esri IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community N:\Common\Contracts\LiveContracts\8001 - 8050\8001 Weldon Composting Project\Work Progress\Mapping\8001_nvc.mxdin Sources: BSG Ecology survey data LEGEND

Survey boundary

Bird Breeding Status (! Confirmed breeding

(! Probable breeding

(! Possible breeding

Bird Species BTO Code Species Scientific Name B. Blackbird Turdus merula BT Blue Tit Parus caeruleus WW BF Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula R. CH Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs CH GO Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis GTLesser Great Tit Parus major WH MP WH GO LW Whitethroat Sylvia curruca WR WR WW R. LW LI Linnet Carduelis cannabina S. MG Magpie Pica pica GT BF S. MP Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis R. R. Robin Erithacus rubecula S. MP S. Skylark Alauda arvensis WH R. SG Starling Sturnus vulgaris BT WH Whitethroat Sylvia communis CH MP WH BT WW Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus WR Wren Troglodytes troglodytes B. MG WR LI S. MP MP

B. SG S.

S. OFFICE: Derbyshire T: 01433 651869 JOB REF: 8001

LI PROJECT TITLE WELDON COMPOSTING PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE Figure 5: Breeding bird survey results

DATE: 04.02.2015 CHECKED:LRJ SCALE: NTS

DRAWN: RH APPROVED:PH STATUS: FINAL

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, Area measurements for indicative purposes only. CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, Reference number: 10048980 and the GIS User Community OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2014 | Aerial Photography © Esri

N:\Common\Contracts\LiveContracts\8001 - 8050\8001 Weldon Composting Project\Work Progress\Mapping\8001_bbs_v3.mxdin Sources: BSG Ecology survey data

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 2: Invertebrate Survey Methods

Pitfall Traps

6.1 Pitfall traps were set out in clusters of 3, at three locations within the invertebrate survey area (shown on Figure 3, in Appendix 1). The positioning of pitfall traps was such that they might capture a range of invertebrates from the range of vegetation structures within the invertebrate survey area, including: damp and tussocky patches of grassland; more open and shorter species- rich grassland with patches of bare earth and invading scrub; and transitional habitat along a well- established field margin close to a hedgerow. Pitfall trapping involved the use of circular plant pot trays (24 cm diameter x 5 cm depth) that were sunk into a circular hole that was excavated using a spade. The trays were installed such that the tray rims were flush with the surrounding ground level. Preserving fluid, comprising 1 part ethylene glycol (antifreeze) to 3 parts water, was poured into the trays until they were half full. A drop of detergent was added to the fluid to break the surface tension and lastly, a layer of mesh (aperture size 2 cm x 1 cm) was balanced over the tray to prevent capture of small mammals, amphibians and reptiles. The traps were operational during the period from 18 June 2014 to 3 July 2014. Pitfall trapping is considered to be an effective method for the sampling of ground dwelling beetles, particularly those belonging to the family Carabidae (ground beetles).

Sweep Netting

6.2 Sweep netting was conducted on 18 June 2014 and 3 July 2014, primarily focussing on habitat edges, for example, where grassland meets scrub or tall wetland vegetation. This involved walking at a steady pace through the vegetation and passing an entomologist’s sweep net back and forth through vegetation in a figure of eight motion. This method is particularly suitable for capturing phytophagous (foliage-feeding) families such as Curculionidae (weevils), Chrysomelidae (leaf or flea beetles), Nitidulidae (pollen beetles) and Cantharidae (soldier beetles). Sweep netting is also an effective method for collecting many families of bugs, although the Miridae (capsid bugs) can often be the most numerous both in number of individuals and number of species.

Pond Netting

6.3 Two of the seasonally wet depressions within the eastern part of the Site (Pool 1 and 2) were surveyed (refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 1 for locations). Both of these were still holding water at the time of survey, although the water depth was merely a few cm deep. To survey these, the bed of the pool was trampled in the deeper spots to create small pooled areas of water, which could then be sampled using a 1 mm mesh hand net. A range of invertebrates may be obtained using this method, but in particular, beetles belonging to the Dytiscidae (diving beetle) and Hydrophilidae (water beetle) families.

Beating

6.4 Beating was carried out on 18 June 2014 and 3 July 2014, along scrub edge habitat which is the most suitable habitat to target in the application of this method. Beating is a useful technique for extracting beetles from overhanging branches. This method involves placing a beating tray beneath a branch before delivering several sharp blows to the branch and sending any dislodged invertebrates into the beating tray for inspection. This method may uncover a diverse array of beetle families (similar to those found during the sweeping), and occasionally producing a Cerambycid (longhorn beetle) or Elaterid (click beetle). The Pentatomidae and Acanthosomatidae (shield bugs) are two of many Hemipteran families recorded using this method.

Grubbing

6.5 Grubbing was carried out on 18 June 2014 and 3 July 2014 amongst stones in the area of bare ground to the south east of the invertebrate survey area; in damp areas, where mosses are abundant, and within the denser grass tussocks, where a thatch has developed, often with patches of pleurocarpous (spreading and branched) mosses. Grubbing is the name generally applied to the extraction of invertebrates by hand from a variety of mediums. To assist in the detection of small

35 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project beetles (e.g. Staphylinidae (rove beetles)), moss and leaf litter were sieved or placed in a bucket of water to capture invertebrates struggling to the surface.

36 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 3: Photographs

(overleaf)

37 02/03/2016

Photograph 1: View southwest along hedgerow Photograph 2: View east across uncultivated with trees along northwestern Site boundary arable field, with dense hedgerow in distance

Photograph 3: Western uncultivated arable Photograph 4: Eastern uncultivated arable field field

Photograph 5: View southwest across arable Photograph 6: View north along eastern ley field margin of arable ley field

Photograph 7: Pond 50m to north of the Site

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 4: NVC Survey Results West Field East Field Uncultivated Arable Fields Q3 Q4 Q5 Total Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Total Species: Agrimonia eupatoria y Agrostis stolonifera 4 5 4 4 y Alopecurus myosuroides 4 6 y Brachythecium rutabulum 6 y Bromus hordeaceus y Bromus sterilis y Calamagrostis epigegos y Calliergonella cuspidata 2 y Centauria nigra y Centaurium erythraea y Cirsium arvense y y Cirsium vulgare 2 y Cornus sanguinea 1 1 y y Crataegus monogyna 1 y Cynosurus cristatus 2 y Daucus carota y Epilobium parviflorum 4 4 y 3 3 y Epilobium tetragonum 2 y 3 1 2 y Festuca rubra 4 4 y Fragaria vesca y Geranium dissectum 2 2 y 5 2 2 3 y Gernaium molle 3 y Helminthotheca echioides 2 6 y 2 8 y Holcus lanatus y 4 4 4 5 y Juncus articulatus y Juncus inflexus y Lathyrus nissolia 5 Y Lathyrus pratensis y Lolium perenne 1 2 y Lotus corniculatus y Pastinaca sativa y Plantago lanceolata 1 1 y 2 y Poa annua 4 6 y Poa pratensis 4 y 4 2 y Potentilla reptans y 5 y Prunella vulgaris y 2 y Pulicaria dysenterica 2 y Ranunculus repens y Rosa canina y Rubus fruticosis y 2 Y Rumex crispus 2 2 y y Rumex obtusifolius y

38 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

West Field East Field Uncultivated Arable Fields Q3 Q4 Q5 Total Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Total Salix caprea y 1 y Senecio jacobaea 1 5 y 2 y Senecio erucifolius 5 y 3 3 3 1 y Taraxacum officinale 5 y 2 4 y Torilis japonica y Trifolium dubium 2 y Trifolium repens 2 2 y Tripleurospermum inodorum y Vicia hirsuta y 4 3 y Vicia sativa y y

Mesotrophic Grassland Grass Tracks at North Grass Track at East Q1 Q2 Total Q10 Total Species: Agrimonia eupatoria Agrostis stolonifera 4 y 4 y Bromus hordeaceus 1 y Bromus sterilis y Calamagrostis epigegos 5 y y Calliergonella cuspidata 3 y Centauria nigra Centaurium erythraea y Cirsium arvense 1 y Cirsium vulgare Cynosurus cristatus y 5 y Daucus carota y Epilobium tetragonum Festuca rubra Helminthotheca echioides 5 y y Holcus lanatus 3 y 4 y Juncus inflexus y Lathyrus pratensis Lolium perenne 6 y Lotus corniculatus y 2 y Pastinaca sativa 2 y Plantago lanceolata 6 5 y 3 y Poa annua Poa pratensis Potentilla reptans 5 y Prunella vulgaris 3 y Pulicaria dysenterica Ranunculus repens Rosa canina y Rubus fruticosis y y Senecio jacobaea 4 y

39 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Mesotrophic Grassland Grass Tracks at North Grass Track at East Q1 Q2 Total Q10 Total Senecio erucifolius Taraxacum officinale 2 y Torilis japonica y Trifolium dubium 2 y Trifolium repens 6 y 3 y Vicia sativa

40 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Results of Tablefit Analysis

NVC Communities with five highest overall goodness-of-fit scores Area Quadrat (scores* are shown in brackets)

1 2 3 4 5 Mesotrophic 1 OV23 (26) OC23a (24) MG7e (23) MG7f (23) OV23c (21) Grassland (tracks at 2 OV23a (19) OV23 (13) MG1 (13) MG1d (13) MG1a (13) north) 3 MG7f (22) OV23 (18) OV23c (15) OV10d (14) OV10 (14) 4 MG7f (18) OV23 (18) OV23c (15) OV10d (14) OV10 (14) 5 OV23c (10) OV10d (10) SD1b (9) OV10 (9) OV10c (8) Uncultivated 6 W24a (22) MC9 (22) SD16c (21) SD17b (20) SD17 (20) Arable Fields 7 MG11 (24) MG11a (21) MG12a (20) MG12 (20) SD16b (20) 8 MG11 (24) MG11a (21) MG12a (20) MG12 (20) SD16b (20) 9 MG6a (20) MG6 (17) MG6b (12) MG8 (11) SD17c (11) Mesotrophic Grassland 10 MC9a (26) MC9 (25) MG6a (24) SD17c (23) MG6 (23) (track at east)

*Overall goodness-of-fit scores have been classified by Hill (1996) into the following ratings: 0-49: very poor; 50-59: poor; 60-69: fair; 70-79: good; 80-100: very good.

41 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 5: Pond Survey Results

Pond 2 survey results Method Species Survey visit 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 08/05/14 11/05/14 18/05/14 22/05/14 01/06/14 10/06/14 Bottle Great 0 0 0 1 male 1 female 0 trapping crested newt sub-adult Smooth 10 10 6 2 female 3 newt (2 male, 8 (2 male, 8 (2 male, 4 (1 male, 0 female) female) female) 2 female) Palmate 0 0 0 0 0 0 newt Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 frog Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 toad

Great 0 0 0 0 0 0 crested newt Smooth 14 2 female 10 2 22 31 newt (2 male, (3 male, 7 (1 male, 1 (4 male, (8 male, 12 female) female) 18 23 female) female) female) Torch count Palmate 0 0 0 0 0 0 newt Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 frog Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 toad

Great 0 0 0 0 0 0 crested newt Smooth Present Present Present 0 0 Present newt Palmate 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 search newt Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 frog Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 toad

42 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 6: Dormouse Survey Results

(overleaf)

43 02/03/2016 Job Number 8001.01 Job Name Weldon Date 01.07.15 Visit number 1 Licenced Surveyor M. Gelling Air Temp (oC) 23 Rain No Other Surveyors

Wind speed (Beaufort) 2 Cloud (oktas) 2

Comments on survey Nothing found in any tubes

Tube/ Box number Tree Species Dormouse Present Sex Weight Age Other species Comments Job Number 8001.01 Job Name Weldon Date 27.7.15 Visit number 2 Licenced Surveyor PN Air Temp (oC) 18 Rain None Other Surveyors

Wind speed (Beaufort) 2 Cloud (oktas) 5

Comments on survey Nothing found in any tube

Tube/ Box number Tree Species Dormouse Present Sex Weight Age Other species Comments Job Number 8001.01 Job Name Weldon Date 18.8.15 Visit number 3 Licenced Surveyor PN Air Temp (oC) 16 Rain None Other Surveyors

Wind speed (Beaufort) 1 Cloud (oktas) 2

Comments on survey Nothing found in any tubes

Tube/ Box number Tree Species Dormouse Present Sex Weight Age Other species Comments Job Number 8001.01 Job Name Weldon Date 23.9.15 Visit number 4 Licenced Surveyor P. Newbold Air Temp (oC) 16 Rain None Other Surveyors

Wind speed (Beaufort) 1 Cloud (oktas) 6

Comments on survey

Tube/ Box number Tree Species Dormouse Present Sex Weight Age Other species Comments

3 Woodmouse Nest and food 4 Woodmouse Food stash 5 Woodmouse Nest and food 7 Woodmouse Woodmouse droppings 8 Woodmouse Nest and food 12 Woodmouse Nest and food 14 Woodmouse Nest and food 15 Woodmouse Nest and food 16 Woodmouse Food stash 21 Woodmouse Food stash 37 Woodmouse Food stash 40 Woodmouse Adult in nest 41 Woodmouse Food stash 42 Woodmouse Nest and food 43 Woodmouse Nest and food 44 Woodmouse Nest and food 47 Woodmouse Nest and food Job Number 8001.01 Job Name Weldon Date 20.10.15 Visit number 5 Licenced Surveyor P. Newbold Air Temp (oC) 15 Rain None Other Surveyors

Wind speed (Beaufort) 1 Cloud (oktas) 0

Comments on survey

Tube/ Box number Tree Species Dormouse Present Sex Weight Age Other species Comments

1 Woodmouse Nest and food 2 Woodmouse Food stash 3 Woodmouse Nest and food 4 Woodmouse Woodmouse droppings 5 Woodmouse Nest and food 6 Woodmouse Nest and food 7 Woodmouse Nest and food 8 Woodmouse Nest and food 13 Woodmouse Food stash 14 Woodmouse Food stash 15 Woodmouse Food stash 16 Woodmouse Adult in nest 17 Woodmouse Food stash 18 Woodmouse Nest and food 19 Woodmouse Nest and food 20 Woodmouse Nest and food 21 Woodmouse Nest and food 22 Woodmouse Food stash 23 Woodmouse Food stash 26 Woodmouse Food stash 28 Woodmouse Food stash 29 Woodmouse Food stash 30 Woodmouse Adult in nest 31 Woodmouse Food stash 33 Woodmouse Food stash 34 Woodmouse Food stash 35 Woodmouse Food stash 36 Woodmouse Food stash 37 Woodmouse Adult in nest 38 Woodmouse Food stash 39 Woodmouse Nest and food 40 Woodmouse Nest and food 41 Woodmouse Nest and food 42 Woodmouse Nest and food Job Number 8001.01 Job Name Weldon Date 05.11.15 Visit number 6 Licenced Surveyor P. Newbold Air Temp (oC) 12 Rain Drizzle Other Surveyors

Wind speed (Beaufort) 1 Cloud (oktas) 8

Comments on survey

Tube/ Box number Tree Species Dormouse Present Sex Weight Age Other species Comments

1 Woodmouse Food stash 2 Woodmouse Food stash 3 Woodmouse Food stash 4 Woodmouse Woodmouse droppings 5 Woodmouse Food stash 6 Woodmouse Nest and food 7 Woodmouse Nest and food 8 Woodmouse Nest and food 9 Woodmouse Food stash 10 Woodmouse Food stash 11 Woodmouse Food stash 12 Woodmouse Food stash 13 Woodmouse Food stash 14 Woodmouse Nest and food 15 Woodmouse 2 Sub adults in nest 16 Woodmouse Nest and food 17 Woodmouse Nest and food 18 Woodmouse Food stash 19 Woodmouse Food stash 23 Woodmouse Food stash 27 Woodmouse Food stash 28 Woodmouse Food stash 29 Woodmouse Adult in nest 30 Woodmouse Food stash 31 Woodmouse Food stash 32 Woodmouse Food stash 33 Woodmouse Food stash 34 Woodmouse Food stash 35 Woodmouse Adult in nest 41 Woodmouse Food stash 42 Woodmouse Food stash 43 Woodmouse Nest and food 47 Woodmouse Food stash 48 Woodmouse Nest and food

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 7: Notable Breeding Bird Species within the Site

Bullfinch

6.6 This species is listed as a Species of Principle Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 and Amber under the Birds of Conservation Concern due to both a short (within 25 years) and long term (over 25 years) moderate (between 25-50%) decline in breeding populations within the UK. It is estimated that there are 158,000 territories within the UK (BTO 2014). Within Northamptonshire the species is a widespread resident. The Site had one possible breeding pair; this does not meet the 1% threshold for either county or national populations and is therefore not considered significant. The bullfinch is a generalist species that normally breeds within dense hedgerows (Snow and Perrins, 1998). The population using the Site is therefore considered to be of site value only.

Linnet

6.7 This species is listed as a Species of Principle Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 and Red under the Birds of Conservation Concern due to a long term major decline in breeding populations within the UK and also categorised as a Species of European Conservation Concern. It is estimated that there are 158,000 territories within the UK (BTO 2014). Within Northamptonshire this species is considered common, but declining. The Site had four possible breeding pairs; this does not meet the 1% threshold for either county or national populations and is therefore not considered significant. A generalist found where there are abundant sources of seed (typically associated with lowland farmland), linnets will nest in dense, thorny hedgerows or areas of scrub (Snow and Perrins, 1998). The population of linnet using the Site is considered to be of site value only.

Meadow Pipit

6.8 This species is listed as Amber under the Birds of Conservation Concern due to both a short and long term moderate decline in breeding populations within the UK. It is estimated that there are 1.9 million pairs within the UK (BTO 2014) making it still numerous and widespread. Within Northamptonshire this species is considered a scarce breeder. The site had three probable and ten possible breeding pairs; this does not meet the 1% threshold for national populations and is therefore not considered nationally significant. Meadow pipit is a ground nesting bird breeding in open country on moors, heaths, pastures and bogs (Snow & Perrins 1998). Their nests tend to be placed on the ground and concealed in vegetation (Brown and Grice 2005). The presence of grassland rather than open arable land is very important for this species to breed, and the presence of this habitat within the Eastern Area of the Site reflects the numbers observed during the breeding bird survey (Snow and Perrins, 1998). Due to their rarity in Northamptonshire and the numbers potentially breeding, this Site is considered to be of county level importance for meadow pipit.

Skylark

6.9 This species is listed as Red under the Birds of Conservation Concern and is listed as a Species of Principle Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 due to both a short-term moderate decline and long-term major decline in breeding populations within the UK. It is also categorised as a Species of European Conservation Concern. It is estimated that there are 1.7 million territories within the UK (BTO 2014). Within Northamptonshire this species is considered common, but declining. The Site had ten probable and seven possible breeding pairs; this does not meet the 1% threshold for either county or national populations and is therefore not considered significant. Skylarks are ground nesting birds preferring open surfaces of firm, level or unobstructed soils preferably well clothed in grasses or cereals (Snow & Perrins 1998). The population of skylark using the Site is considered to be of site value only.

Starling

6.10 This species is listed as Red under the Birds of Conservation Concern and Species of Principle Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 due to both a long and short term major

44 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

decline in breeding populations within the UK. It is estimated that there are 8.5 million birds within the UK (BTO 2014). Within Northamptonshire starlings are common. Starlings are a generalist species that will nest in any suitable crevices including trees and buildings (Snow and Perrins, 1998; RSPB, 2014; BTO, 2014). The Site had one confirmed and one possible breeding pair; this does not meet the 1% threshold for either county or national populations. The population using the Site is therefore considered to be of site value only.

Whitethroat

6.11 This species is listed as Amber under the Birds of Conservation Concern due to a long-term moderate decline in breeding populations within the UK. It is estimated that there are 931,000 territories within the UK (BTO 2014). Within Northamptonshire whitethroat are a common breeding visitor. The Site had one confirmed, one probable and three possible breeding pairs; this does not meet the 1% threshold for either county or national populations and is therefore not considered significant. Whitethroat are a generalist species that requires dense scrub or hedgerows for nesting (Snow and Perrins, 1998). The population of whitethroat using the site is considered to be of site value only.

Willow Warbler

6.12 Willow warbler’s favoured habitat is open scrubby woodland but it nests on the ground within dense vegetation. This species is listed as Amber under the Birds of Conservation Concern due to a long and short term moderate decline in breeding populations within the UK. It is estimated that there are 2 million territories within the UK (BTO 2014). Within Northamptonshire the willow warbler is considered a common breeding visitor. The Site had two possible breeding pairs; this does not meet the 1% threshold for either county or national populations. Willow warblers are a generalist species that require dense scrub or hedgerows for nesting (Snow and Perrins, 1998). The population using the Site is therefore considered to be of site value only.

45 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 8: Invertebrate Species Lists (from wider survey area)

Status Definitions and Criteria of Invertebrate Groups: for many invertebrate groups, species rarity has often been gauged by the number of national 10km grid squares in which they occur. The fewer the “spots on a map”, the rarer it is. This, however, does not exactly equate with how threatened a species is, since some species may be naturally confined to very few localities but are very abundant where they do occur and under no immediate threat of extinction. The matter of how threatened the “rarest” species are has been addressed in a series of Red Data Books (RDB), such as for insects (Shirt, 1987). Here, the listing as RDB1 (Endangered), RDB2 (Vulnerable) and RDB3 (Rare) is an assessment of how threatened or endangered the species is in Britain, rather than how scarce it is in terms of map spot counting.

Over the last decade the RDB categories are slowly being replaced by IUCN red-list categories (Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable), which use different criteria to those developed for the RDBs. However, this process is slow, and IUCN categories are not available for all groups. Accordingly, wherever IUCN categories have been allocated, these are also shown.

Below RDB status, less rare but still significant species can be defined as Nationally Scarce (formerly called Nationally Notable), which is often sub-divided into Na (scarce), Nb (less scarce). These sub-categories were originally devised by Ball (1986) and are based on 10 kilometre square spot counting for the Great Britain grid system. The Na sub-category represents scarce taxa that are thought to occur in 30 or fewer 10 km squares of the Great Britain grid system. The Nb sub-category represents less scarce taxa that occur in 31 to 100 10 km squares. Taxa in the N- sub-category are those listed as ‘Notable’ under the ISIS system, but not always distinguished into sub- category Na or Nb in the relevant Coleoptera review (Hyman & Parsons, 1994). These species are thought to occur in 16 to 100 10 km squares of the National Grid but are too poorly known for their status to be more precisely estimated.

The concept of ‘Local’ is less well defined, but comprises species of distinctly limited or restricted distribution, with such limitations being brought about by climate controls, dependency on a scarce habitat type, host (in the case of parasitic species) or similar ecological factor. In this present study, the Local status of species is as per the Recorder database package developed by JNCC.

Order Family Taxon Status Araneae Aranaeidae Hypsosinga pygmaea local Coleoptera Anthicidae Omonadus floralis common Coleoptera Apionidae Ischnopterapion loti common Coleoptera Apionidae Oxystoma pomonae common Coleoptera Apionidae Perapion violaceum common Coleoptera Apionidae Protapion ononidis local Coleoptera Byrrhidae Byrrhus pilula common Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis decipiens common Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis lateralis local Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis nigra common Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis nigricans common Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis pallida local Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis pellucida common Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis rufa common Coleoptera Cantharidae Cantharis thoracica local Coleoptera Cantharidae Rhagonycha fulva common Coleoptera Carabidae Agonum emarginatum local Coleoptera Carabidae Amara communis common Coleoptera Carabidae Amara lunicollis local Coleoptera Carabidae Amara montivaga local Coleoptera Carabidae Amara plebeja common Coleoptera Carabidae Bembidion lunulatum common

46 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Coleoptera Carabidae Bembidion obtusum common Coleoptera Carabidae Chlaenius nigricornis Nationally Scarce Coleoptera Carabidae Clivina fossor common Coleoptera Carabidae Dromius linearis common Coleoptera Carabidae Harpalus rufipes common Coleoptera Carabidae Loricera pilicornis common Coleoptera Carabidae Microlestes maurus common Coleoptera Carabidae Notiophilus germinyi local Coleoptera Carabidae Poecilus cupreus local Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus gracilis Nationally Scarce Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus madidus common Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus melanarius common Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus niger common Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus nigrita common Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus strenuus common Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus vernalis local Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Bruchidius villosus local Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Bruchus loti common Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Chaetocnema hortensis common Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Chrysolina hyperici local Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Cryptocephalus fulvus local Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Cryptocephalus moraei local Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Longitarsus parvulus local Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Longitarsus suturellus common Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Neocrepidodera transversa common Coleoptera Clambidae Clambus pubescens local Coleoptera Coccinellidae Coccidula rufa common Coleoptera Coccinellidae Coccinella septempunctata common Coleoptera Coccinellidae Scymnus femoralis Nationally Scarce Coleoptera Coccinellidae Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata local Coleoptera Curculionidae Anthonomus rubi common Coleoptera Curculionidae Grypus equiseti Nationally Scarce Coleoptera Curculionidae Hypera venusta common Coleoptera Curculionidae Mecinus pascuorum common Coleoptera Curculionidae Sitona suturalis common Coleoptera Curculionidae Tachyerges salicis local Coleoptera Curculionidae Trichosirocalus troglodytes common Coleoptera Curculionidae Tychius picirostris common Coleoptera Curculionidae Zacladus exiguus Nationally Scarce Coleoptera Dryopidae Dryops ernesti local Coleoptera Dytiscidae Agabus bipustulatus common Coleoptera Dytiscidae Graptodytes granularis common Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus palustris common Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus pubescens common Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hygrotus impressopunctatus common Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hygrotus inaequalis common Coleoptera Elateridae Agriotes lineatus local Coleoptera Elateridae Agriotes obscurus common Coleoptera Helophoridae Helophorus aequalis common Coleoptera Helophoridae Helophorus brevipalpis common Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Anacaena lutescens common Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Enochrus quadripunctatus Nationally Scarce Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius fuscipes common Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Megasternum obscurum common

47 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Coleoptera Malachiidae Axinotarsus marginalis common Coleoptera Malachiidae Cordylepherus viridis local Coleoptera Nitidulidae Epuraea aestiva common Coleoptera Nitidulidae Meligethes aeneus common Coleoptera Oedemeridae Oedemera lurida local Coleoptera Oedemeridae Oedemera nobilis common Coleoptera Scirtidae Cyphon coarctatus common Coleoptera Silphidae Silpha atrata common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Amischa analis common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Calodera aethiops local Coleoptera Staphylinidae Drusilla canaliculata common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Ischnosoma splendidum common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Lathrobium fulvipenne common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Ocypus olens common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Philonthus cognatus common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Philonthus tenuicornis local Coleoptera Staphylinidae Pselaphus heisei local Coleoptera Staphylinidae Quedius curtipennis common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Stenichnus scutellaris common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Stenus clavicornis common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Stenus juno common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Stenus providus common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Tachyporus nitidulus common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Tachyporus solutus common Coleoptera Staphylinidae Xantholinus longiventris common Diptera Asilidae Leptogaster cylindrica common Diptera Sarcophagidae Sarcophaga carnaria common Diptera Syrphidae Helophilus pendulus common Diptera Syrphidae Syritta pipiens common Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Lymnaea peregra common Gastropoda Planorbidae Planorbis crista common Glomerida Armadillidiidae Armadillidium vulgare common Hemiptera Aphrophoridae Aphrophora alni common Hemiptera Cicadellidae Deltocephalus pulicaris common Hemiptera Cicadellidae Evacanthus interruptus common Hemiptera Lygaeidae Megalonotus antennatus Nationally Scarce Hemiptera Miridae Calocoris roseomaculatus common Hemiptera Miridae Capsus ater common Hemiptera Miridae Closterotomus norwegicus common Hemiptera Miridae Europiella artemisiae common Hemiptera Miridae Leptopterna dolabrata common Hemiptera Miridae Pithanus maerkelii common Hemiptera Miridae Stenotus binotatus common Hemiptera Nabidae Himacerus mirmicoides common Hemiptera Pentatomidae Podops inuncta common Hemiptera Scutellaridae Eurygaster testudinaria local Hemiptera Aphrophoridae Neophilaenus campestris common Hemiptera Pentatomidae Aelia acuminata local Hymenoptera Formicidae Myrmica scabrinodis common Hymenoptera Apidae Apis mellifera common Hymenoptera Formicidae Lasius niger common Lepidoptera Arctiidae Tyria jacobaeae common Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Erynnis tages local Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Pyrgus malvae local

48 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Ochlodes venata common Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Thymelicus sylvestris common Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Polyommatus icarus common Lepidoptera Noctuidae Euclidia glyphica common Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Aglais urticae common Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Coenonympha pamphilus common Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Maniola jurtina common Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Pararge aegeria common Lepidoptera Zygaenidae Zygaena trifolii local Mollusca Helicidae Cepaea nemoralis common Orthoptera Tetrigidae Tetrix subulata local Orthoptera Tetrigidae Tetrix undulata common Orthoptera Acrididae Chorthippus parallelus common Orthoptera Conocephalidae Conocephalus dorsalis common Polydesmida Polydesmidae Polydesmus coriaceus common

49 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 9: Summaries of Relevant Policy, Legislation and Other Instruments

This section briefly summarises the legislation, policy and related issues that are relevant to the main text of the report. The following text does not constitute legal or planning advice.

National Planning Policy Framework (England)

The Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27th March 2012. Text excerpts from the NPPF are shown where they may be relevant to planning applications and biodiversity including protected sites, habitats and species.

In conserving and enhancing the natural environment, the NPPF (Paragraph 109) states that ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment’ by: a. Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; b. Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, where possible contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; c. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.

In paragraph 111, the NPPF refers to brownfield land as follows: ‘planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.’

Paragraph 117 refers to how planning policies should aim to minimise impacts on biodiversity, to: ‘identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation;’ and to ‘promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan.’

Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises how, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the mitigation hierarchy. The mitigation hierarchy advises that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

Where proposals or activities require planning permission, the NPPF states that ‘…local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: d. Proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; e. Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted; f. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged; g. Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found

50 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and h. The following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: i. potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation ii. listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and iii. sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.’

In respect of protected sites, the NPPF requires local planning authorities to make ‘distinctions…between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.’

In paragraph 125 the NPPF states that ‘by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.’ This applies to protected species that are a material consideration in the planning process including bats and may also apply to other light sensitive species.

Government Circular ODPM 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (England only)

Paragraph 98 of Government Circular 06/2005 advises that “the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. Local authorities should consult Natural England before granting planning permission. They should consider attaching appropriate planning conditions or entering into planning obligations under which the developer would take steps to secure the long-term protection of the species. They should also advise developers that they must comply with any statutory species’ protection provisions affecting the site concerned...”

Paragraph 99 of Government Circular 06/200510 advises that “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted”.

Standing Advice from Natural England (England only)

Standing advice from Natural England11 provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides advice on survey and mitigation requirements. When determining an application for development that is covered by standing advice, in accordance with guidance in Government Circular 06/2005, Local planning authorities are required to take the standing advice into account. In paragraph 82 of the aforementioned Circular, it is stated that: ‘The standing advice will be a material consideration in the determination of the planning application in the same way as any advice received from a statutory consultee…it is up to the planning authority to decide the weight to be attached to the standing advice, in the same way as it would decide the weight to be attached to a response from a statutory consultee.’

10 ODPM Circular 06/2005. Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impacts within the Planning System (2005). HMSO Norwich. 11 https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals#standing-advice-for-protected-species

51 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 – Habitats and Species of Principal Importance (England and Wales)

6.13 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force on 1st October 2006. Sections 41 and 42 (S41 and S42) of the Act require the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales respectively. The list has been drawn up in consultation with Natural England and Countryside Council for Wales (now NRW), as required by the Act. In accordance with the Act the Secretary of State keeps this list under review and will publish a revised list if necessary, in consultation with Natural England and NRW.

6.14 The S41 and S42 lists are used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local authorities and utilities companies, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales, when carrying out their normal functions, including development control and planning. This is commonly referred to as the ‘Biodiversity Duty.’

6.15 Guidance for public authorities on implementing the Biodiversity Duty12 has been jointly published by Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government. One of the key messages in this document is that ‘conserving biodiversity includes restoring and enhancing species populations and habitats, as well as protecting them.’ In England and Wales, the administration of the planning system and licensing schemes are highlighted as having a ‘profound influence on biodiversity conservation.’ Local authorities are required to take measures to “promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species. The guidance states that ‘the duty aims to raise the profile and visibility of biodiversity, clarify existing commitments with regard to biodiversity, and to make it a natural and integral part of policy and decision making.’

6.16 In 2007, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Partnership published an updated list of priority UK species and habitats covering terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity to focus conservation action for rarer species and habitats in the UK. The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework13, which covers the period from 2011 to 2020, now succeeds the UK BAP. The UK priority list contained 1150 species and 65 habitats requiring special protection and has been used as a reference to draw up the lists of species and habitats of principal importance in England and Wales.

6.17 In England, there are 56 habitats of principal importance and 943 species of principal importance on the S41 list. These are all the habitats and species found in England that were identified as requiring action in the UK BAP and which continue to be regarded as conservation priorities in the subsequent UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

6.18 In Wales, there are 54 habitats of principal importance and 557 species of principal importance on the S42 list. This includes three marine habitats and 53 species which were not on the list of UK BAP priorities, but which are recognised as of principal importance for Wales.

European Protected Species (Animals)

6.19 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) consolidates the various amendments that have been made to the original (1994) Regulations which transposed the EC Habitats Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) into national law.

6.20 “European protected species” (EPS) of animal are those which are present on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). They are subject to the provisions of Regulation 41 of those Regulations. All EPS are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Taken together, these pieces of legislation make it an offence to:

12 Defra, 2007. Guidance for Public Authorities on Implementing The Biodiversity Duty. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb12585-pa-guid-english-070516.pdf) 13 JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries' Biodiversity Group). 2012. UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. July 2012. (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189)

52 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

a. Intentionally or deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal included amongst these species b. Possess or control any live or dead specimens or any part of, or anything derived from a these species c. deliberately disturb wild animals of any such species d. deliberately take or destroy the eggs of such an animal, or e. intentionally, deliberately or recklessly damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or obstruct access to such a place

6.21 For the purposes of paragraph (c), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely— a. to impair their ability— i. to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or ii. in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or b. to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

6.22 Although the law provides strict protection to these species, it also allows this protection to be set aside (derogated) through the issuing of licences. The licences in England are currently determined by Natural England (NE) for development works and by Natural Resources Wales in Wales. In accordance with the requirements of the Regulations (2010), a licence can only be issued where the following requirements are satisfied: a. The proposal is necessary ‘to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’ b. ‘There is no satisfactory alternative’ c. The proposals ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Definition of breeding sites and resting places

6.23 Guidance for all European Protected Species of animal, including bats and great crested newt, regarding the definition of breeding and of breeding and resting places is provided by The European Council (EC) which has prepared specific guidance in respect of the interpretation of various Articles of the EC Habitats Directive.14 Section II.3.4.b) provides definitions and examples of both breeding and resting places at paragraphs 57 and 59 respectively. This guidance states that ‘The provision in Article 12(1)(d) [of the EC Habitats Directive] should therefore be understood as aiming to safeguard the ecological functionality of breeding sites and resting places.’ Further the guidance states: ‘It thus follows from Article 12(1)(d) that such breeding sites and resting places also need to be protected when they are not being used, but where there is a reasonably high probability that the species concerned will return to these sites and places. If for example a certain cave is used every year by a number of bats for hibernation (because the species has the habit of returning to the same winter roost every year), the functionality of this cave as a hibernating site should be protected in summer as well so that the bats can re-use it in winter. On the other hand, if a certain cave is used only occasionally for breeding or resting purposes, it is very likely that the site does not qualify as a breeding site or resting place.’

Birds

6.24 All nesting birds are protected under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or take, damage or destroy its nest whilst in use or being built, or take or destroy its eggs. In addition to this, for some rarer species (listed on Schedule 1 of the Act), it is an offence to disturb them whilst

14 Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. (February 2007), EC.

53 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

they are nest building or at or near a nest with eggs or young, or to disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

6.25 The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 has placed new duties on competent authorities (including Local Authorities and National Park Authorities) in relation to wild bird habitat. These provisions relate back to Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the EC Directive on the conservation of wild birds (2009/147/EC, ‘Birds Directive’15) (Regulation 9A(2) & (3) require that ‘in the exercise of their functions as they consider appropriate’ these authorities must take steps to contribute to the ‘preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for wild birds in the United Kingdom, including by means of upkeep, management and creation of such habitat…’

6.26 In relation to the duties placed on competent authorities under the 2012 amendment Regulation 9A (8) states: ’So far as lies within their powers, a competent authority in exercising any function [including in relation to town and country planning] in or in relation to the United Kingdom must use all reasonable endeavours to avoid any pollution or deterioration of habitats of wild birds (except habitats beyond the outer limits of the area to which the new Wild Birds Directive applies).’

Badger

6.27 Badger is protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. This makes it an offence to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or to attempt to do so; or to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett. Sett interference includes disturbing badgers whilst they are occupying a sett, as well as damaging or destroying a sett or obstructing access to it. A badger sett is defined in the legislation as “a structure or place, which displays signs indicating current use by a badger”.

6.28 ODPM Circular 06/200516 provides further guidance on statutory obligations towards badger within the planning system. Of particular note is paragraph 124, which states that “The likelihood of disturbing a badger sett, or adversely affecting badgers’ foraging territory, or links between them, or significantly increasing the likelihood of road or rail casualties amongst badger populations, are capable of being material considerations in planning decisions.”

6.29 Natural England provides Standing Advice17, which is capable of being a material consideration in planning decisions. Natural England recommends mitigation to avoid impacts on badger setts, which includes maintaining or creating new foraging areas and maintaining or creating access (commuting routes) between setts and foraging/watering areas.

Reptiles

6.30 All native reptile species receive legal protection in Great Britain under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Viviparous lizard, slow-worm, grass snake and adder are protected against killing, injuring and unlicensed trade only. Sand lizard and smooth snake receive additional protection as “European Protected species” under the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

6.31 All six native species of reptile are included as ‘species of principal importance’ for the purpose of conserving biodiversity under Sections 41 (England) and 42 (Wales) of the NERC Act 2006.

6.32 Current Natural England Guidelines for Developers18 states that ‘where it is predictable that reptiles are likely to be killed or injured by activities such as site clearance, this could legally constitute intentional killing or injuring.’ Further the guidance states: ‘Normally prohibited activities may not be illegal if ‘the act was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been

15 2009/147/EC Birds Directive (30 November 2009. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. 16 ODPM Circular 06/2005. Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impacts within the Planning System (2005). HMSO Norwich. 17 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningdevelopment/spatialplanning/standingadvice/specieslinks.aspx 18 English Nature, 2004. Reptiles: guidelines for developers. English Nature, Peterborough. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/76006?category=31018

54 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

avoided’. Natural England ‘would expect reasonable avoidance to include measures such as altering development layouts to avoid key areas, as well as capture and exclusion of reptiles.’

6.33 The Natural England Guidelines for Developers state that ‘planning must incorporate two aims where reptiles are present:  To protect reptiles from any harm that might arise during development work;

 To ensure that sufficient quality, quantity and connectivity of habitat is provided to accommodate the reptile population, either on-site or at an alternative site, with no net loss of local reptile conservation status.’

Wild Mammals in General

6.34 The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (as amended) makes provision for the protection of wild mammals from certain cruel acts, making it an offence for any person to intentionally cause suffering to any wild mammal. In the context of development sites, for example, this may apply to rabbits in their burrows.

Hedgerows

6.35 Article 10 of the Habitats Directive19 requires that ‘Member States shall endeavour…to encourage the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. Such features are those which, by virtue of their linear and continuous structure…or their function as stepping stones…are essential for the migration, dispersal and genetic exchange of wild species’. Examples given in the Directive include traditional field boundary systems (such as hedgerows).

6.36 The aim of the Hedgerow Regulations 199720, according to guidance produced by the Department of the Environment21, is “to protect important hedgerows in the countryside by controlling their removal through a system of notification. In summary, the guidance states that the system is concerned with the removal of hedgerows, either in whole or in part, and covers any act which results in the destruction of a hedgerow. The procedure in the Regulations is triggered only when land managers or utility operators want to remove a hedgerow. The system is in favour of protecting and retaining ‘important’ hedgerows.

6.37 The Hedgerow Regulations set out criteria that must be used by the local planning authority in determining which hedgerows are ‘important’. The criteria relate to the value of hedgerows from an archaeological, historical, wildlife and landscape perspective.

19 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 2i May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 20 Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1160 – The Hedgerow Regulations 1997. HMSO: London 21 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997: a guide to the law and good practice, HMSO: London

55 02/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy

March 2016

BLANK PAGE

Issuing office

Client The Green Composting Company

Project Weldon Composting Project

Report title Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy

Draft version/final FINAL

File reference 8001.02_GCNMS_APPR_070316.docx

Name Position Date

Originated Liz Rose-Jeffreys Senior Ecologist 01 March 2016

Reviewed Philippa Harvey Principal Ecologist 07 March 2016

Approved for Philippa Harvey Principal Ecologist 07 March 2016 issue to client

Issued to client Liz Rose-Jeffreys Senior Ecologist 07 March 2016

Disclaimer

Any recommendation, opinion or finding stated in this report is based on circumstances and facts as they existed at the time that BSG Ecology performed the work. The content of this report has been provided in accordance with the provisions of the CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct. BSG Ecology works where appropriate to the scope of our brief, to the principles and requirements of British Standard BS42020.

Nothing in this report constitutes legal opinion. If legal opinion is required the advice of a qualified legal professional should be secured.

Derbyshire Oxford Newcastle Monmouth Swansea Glasgow Cork | BSG Ecology is a trading name of Baker Shepherd Gillespie LLP Registered in: England and Wales | No. OC328772 | Registered address: Wyastone Business Park, Monmouth, NP25 3SR

Weldon Composting Project

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 2 2 Methods ...... 3 3 Results and Interpretation ...... 5 4 Mitigation and Compensatory Measures ...... 7 5 References ...... 10 6 Figures ...... 11 7 Photographs ...... 12 Appendix 1: Pond Survey Results ...... 13 Appendix 2: Great Crested Newt Work Schedule ...... 14 Appendix 3: Summaries of Relevant Policy, Legislation and Other Instruments ...... 15

1 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

1 Introduction

Site description

1.1 The Site is a 6.3ha parcel of land located to the east of the town of Corby, north Northamptonshire, centred at OS grid reference SP 918 882. The Site is set within a predominantly arable landscape, and located adjacent to an existing landfill and household waste recycling site.

1.2 The Site consists of sections of two adjacent arable fields which are bounded by species-poor hedgerows. The eastern part of the Site is defined by a former arable field, which has developed a mosaic of tall ruderal vegetation, neutral grassland, and ephemeral/short perennial vegetation, and the western part is defined by an arable ley field. A pond is located 50m to the north of the Site (See Figure 1).

Background

1.3 BSG Ecology was commissioned to undertake ecological survey work for a wider 83ha parcel of land, which included the proposed composting facility site (referred to hereafter as ‘the Site’). This included great crested newt survey work of the pond located 50m to the north of the Site during May-June 2014. BSG Ecology was commissioned by Landmark Planning Ltd on behalf of The Green Composting Company in December 2014 to prepare an Ecology Report for the proposed composting facility; the report was to be based on the results of the ecological work undertaken during 2014.

1.4 Individual great crested newt were recorded within the pond located 50m to the north of the Site during the survey work in spring 2014, and BSG Ecology advised that a European Protected Species (EPS) licence would need to be secured from Natural England for the development to proceed. Internal consultation between the Senior Environmental Planner and the Principal Development Control Officer at Northamptonshire County Council, dated 2 February 2016, sought clarity and certainty with regards to the great crested newt mitigation, and requested further details with regards to the location and type of great crested newt mitigation, in the form of a mitigation strategy.

Aims of study

1.5 BSG Ecology was commissioned by The Green Composting Company in February 2016 to prepare a Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy.

1.6 This Mitigation Strategy sets out the methodology and results of the survey work, an assessment of the likely impacts in relation to great crested newt and sets out proposed mitigation and compensatory measures.

2 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

2 Methods

Desk study

2.1 A desk study was carried out in May 2014 to determine the presence of any protected species records, including great crested newt, within a 2km radius of the Site. Northamptonshire Biological Records Centre was contacted to supply this information.

Field survey

2.3 As part of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey on 14 May 2014, the Site was assessed for its potential to support great crested newt and an assessment was also undertaken of the pond situated 50m to the north of the Site for its potential to support amphibians including great crested newt. For the location of the pond, refer to Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan, in Section 6. One further pond, located 570m to the south of the Site, was also subject to assessment. As this pond is located more than 250m from the Site it is not considered further within this report.

2.4 The pond located 50m to the north of the Site was assessed using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI, Oldham et al., 2000) scoring method, which is a quantitative means of evaluating habitat quality for great crested newt measured over ten suitability indices. The HSI provides a numerical index between 0 and 1 where scores closer to 0 indicate poor habitat with minimal probability of great crested newt occurrence, and scores closer to 1 represent optimal habitat with a higher probability of occurrence (ARG UK, 2010). Table 1: Pond suitability to support great crested newts according to HSI score Pond suitability for great crested newts HSI score (ARG UK, 2010) <0.5 Poor 0.5-0.59 Below average 0.6-0.69 Average 0.7-0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent

2.5 The pond was assessed as having suitability to support a breeding population of great crested newt and further survey work of this pond was undertaken, in May and June 2014, to determine the presence/absence of great crested newt.

2.6 The survey methodology followed the methods set out in the Natural England (formerly English Nature) Guidelines (2001) and included searches for great crested newt, smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris, palmate newt Lissotriton helveticus, common frog Rana temporaria and common toad Bufo bufo.

2.7 In order to determine presence/absence within ponds, four survey visits were undertaken using three methods per visit, including torch survey, bottle-trapping, terrestrial searches and egg searching. Since great crested newt was located within the pond, two further survey visits of the pond were also undertaken, in order to inform a population size class assessment. Table 2 below details the survey dates and weather conditions during each survey visit, and the survey methodologies used during each survey visit.

3 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

2.8 The surveys were conducted by Consultant Ecologist Grant Bramall ACIEEM, who holds a Natural England great crested newt scientific survey licence1. Field assistance was provided by Paul Knighton.

2.9 Each survey comprised an evening visit during which torch searches of aquatic habitats were conducted and a search for great crested newt eggs carried out. Eighteen bottle traps were set on each visit and the following morning the bottle traps were checked for great crested newt and removed.

Limitations to Methods

2.10 The surveys were undertaken at the optimal time of year during suitable weather conditions and there are not, therefore, considered to be any constraints to the survey.

1 Licence number: CLS00769.

4 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

3 Results and Interpretation

3.1 The data trawl did not provide any records of amphibians within 2km of the centre of the Site.

3.2 The pond located 50m to the north of the Site is described below and is mapped on Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan, in Section 6. The results of the surveys are set out below.

3.3 The pond is located at OS grid reference SP 920 884 (Photograph 1). The pond is approximately 20m x 15m, surrounded by willow Salix scrub. The pond is set at the periphery of a household waste recycling centre, and in the wider area, is surrounded by sparse grassland, ruderal vegetation, scrub and scattered trees. The pond is connected to the site by scrub and scattered trees.

3.4 The HSI score for the pond is 0.71, indicating that the pond contains features that are of good suitability to support a breeding population of great crested newt. The open water within the pond provides opportunities for great crested newts to undertake mating displays, and the marginal vegetation provides some opportunities for egg-laying. The surrounding habitat which separates the pond from the site is also considered to provide suitable terrestrial habitat for great crested newt.

3.5 Appendix 1 sets out the full results of the six survey visits to the pond. In summary, individual great crested newts were recorded on two of the six survey visits, with one male and one female recorded on visits 4 and 5 respectively. Smooth newts were also recorded on each of the survey visits.

Summary

3.6 The great crested newt mitigation guidelines explain the difficulty of establishing the true size of a population of great crested newts due to a range of factors, notably the variable sampling efficiency attained, even by the best methods, and the complex (meta) population dynamics involved. Research suggests that surveys may reveal between 2% and 30% of a population, but there is likely to be even greater variation. Natural England (formerly English Nature) therefore recommends that, where development projects are concerned, an approximate indication of population size class is used in survey reports (Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, 2001).

3.7 Natural England recommend that survey results should be expressed as the maximum adult count per pond per night gained through torch survey or bottle trapping and that population size should be estimated from the peak count per pond (Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, 2001). Populations can be classed as follows:  Small – maximum count up to 10

 Medium – maximum count between 11 and 100

 Large – maximum count over 100.

3.8 Individual great crested newts were recorded within the pond within bottle traps that were set on 22 May 2014 and 1 June 2014. This equates to a small-sized population classification.

3.9 Natural England guidelines broadly classify terrestrial habitats into three categories according to distance from a great crested newt breeding pond:  Immediate – within 50m

 Intermediate – between 50m and 250m

 Distant – Between 250m and 500m

5 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

3.10 None of the Site falls within 50m of the great crested newt breeding pond (i.e. ‘immediate’ terrestrial habitat). Approximately 5.21ha of the Site falls within the ‘intermediate’ terrestrial habitat (i.e. between 50m and 250m of the pond), of which 4.73ha is considered to present optimal great crested newt habitat. Approximately 1.09ha of the Site falls within the ‘distant’ terrestrial habitat (i.e. between 250m and 500m of the pond), of which 0.03ha is considered to present optimal great crested newt habitat. It is therefore possible that great crested newt could be present within the suitable terrestrial habitats within the Development Site.

3.11 Natural England guidelines (2001) state that suitable terrestrial habitat within 250m of a breeding pond is likely to be used most frequently, and more recent studies have shown that great crested newt densities are very low over 100m from a breeding pond (Natural England, 2007). As survey work found that the pond supports only a small population of great crested newt, and given the abundance of optimal terrestrial habitats in close proximity to the pond, it is considered unlikely that great crested newt will be present in the habitats more than 250m from the pond.

6 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

4 Mitigation and Compensatory Measures

4.1 Great crested newts and their habitats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Great crested newt is also listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

4.2 The works will involve the construction of a composting facility within the western uncultivated arable field, which will involve the establishment of large open compost piles (refer to Figure 2: Proposed Site Layout plan, in Section 6). The proposed development will not directly affect the great crested newt pond but, based on the current proposed layout, will result in a loss of a proportion of the intermediate (50-250m from the pond) terrestrial habitat. It is anticipated that the proposals could result in a loss of up to 4.73ha of optimal intermediate habitat. The development could, without mitigation, result in great crested newts being killed or injured, their resting places (i.e. terrestrial habitats) being damaged or destroyed, and any newts present could be disturbed or killed. This would constitute an offence under the above legislation.

4.3 Although the law provides strict protection to great crested newts, it also allows this protection to be set aside (derogation) under Section 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 through the issuing of licences. These licences in England are currently determined by Natural England (NE) for development works and are known as European Protected Species (EPS) licences.

4.4 Where a lawful operation is required to be carried out, which is likely to result in an offence under the legislation set out above, an EPS licence may be obtained from NE to allow the operation to proceed. However, in accordance with the requirements of Section 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, an EPS licence can only be issued where the following derogation requirements are satisfied:  The proposal is necessary ‘to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’;

 ‘There is no satisfactory alternative’;

 The proposal ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.’

4.5 Due to the clearance of suitable terrestrial habitats that could be used by great crested newt, it is considered that a European Protected Species licence will need to be secured for the development to proceed. Details regarding the mitigation and compensatory measures are set out below; the mitigation/compensation approach will aim to avoid killing or injury to great crested newts and to minimise the impact on the great crested newt population.

Mitigation Strategy

4.6 The mitigation strategy is summarised as follows and is set out in Figures 3 and 4:  The majority of land within 50m of the pond will remain unaffected by the proposed development, and the hedgerow bordering the northern edge of the Site (and separating the Site from the pond) will remain intact.  The section of uncultivated arable field bordering the development site, and extending to the east of the development site, will form the receptor site (see Figure 4).  Four new hibernacula will be created within the receptor site and 650m native hedgerow planting will be included at the edges of the receptor site (Figure 4).

7 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

 Killing/injury of great crested newt will be avoided by undertaking a programme of trapping and translocation from the development site in advance of site clearance and construction (excluding the existing access road which leads from Stamford Road to the turbine, at the northwestern corner of the Site). (See Figure 3).  Newts will be permanently excluded from the core composting area of the development (including the leachate lagoon and cutoff ditch), for the lifespan of the operational phase of the development. This is because the large open compost piles could provide great crested newt with suitable terrestrial habitat. Since the development will involve a mixture of periodic shredding, turning and screening of compost piles, this means that any newts present could be killed/injured throughout the lifespan of the development. The compost piles will require above-ground hydrological connection to the leachate lagoon and cutoff ditch, therefore these features will also need to be included within the permanent newt exclusion area.  Newts will be temporarily excluded from the western section of the development site (but not including the existing access road from Stamford Road) for the duration of construction.  The measures combined will maintain a small population size class at favourable conservation status across the locality. For anticipated timescales of delivery refer to the Great Crested Newt Work Schedule in Appendix 2.

Receptor Site Selection

4.7 The receptor site is a 3.1ha parcel of land located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the development site, and also forms a 3m wide strip along the southern edge of the development site, centred at OS grid reference SP 9207 8833 (refer to Figure 4 in Section 6). The receptor site is owned by the current site owner, and will be protected from future development pressure.

4.8 The receptor site currently consists of two sections of uncultivated arable field with a hedgerow separating the two fields (Photograph 2). There will be no barriers between the receptor site and the pond; therefore newts will be able to move freely between the receptor site, the pond, and habitats surrounding the pond.

Habitat Creation and Enhancement

4.9 The vegetation within the receptor site will be retained and will be allowed to develop into a rank grassland with scrub via natural colonisation and succession (i.e. non-intervention management). Four hibernacula (minimum size 2mx1mx1m) will be created within the receptor site. Approximately 650m native hedgerow will be planted at the edges of the receptor site (refer to Figure 4 for location). The additional hedgerow planting will connect to the retained hedgerows at the northern and western edges of the core composting area, which will facilitate the movement of newts between the existing pond and the local landscape.

Capture, Exclusion and Translocation

4.10 Refer to Figure 3, in Section 6.  Perimeter fencing will be positioned around the edge of the development site (excluding the existing access from Stamford Road), with internal drift fencing to compartmentalise. Two newt grids will be installed to allow future vehicular access across the site.  Pitfall traps and carpet refugia will be placed at intervals along perimeter and drift fencing.  There will be a minimum of 30 days trapping across the development site (five trapping nights with no great crested newt captures is required at the end of the trapping period).  Great crested newt (and any other amphibians) captured will be translocated to the receptor site, and will be placed in the pre-constructed hibernacula.

8 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

 Once trapping is completed the temporary amphibian fencing will be removed under supervision of the Named Ecologist (or their Accredited Agent)2. Temporary fencing includes the drift fencing, and the perimeter fencing around the western section of the development site.  Once trapping is completed the permanent amphibian fencing (which borders the composting area of the development site) will be modified on its interior (development) side via attaching close-board fencing (or similar) will reinforce the perimeter amphibian fencing and therefore reduce the risk of any breaches to the fence in the long-term. The modified fence will be a minimum of 80cm tall. The fencing will be subject to regular checks throughout the lifespan of the development, to ensure that there are no breaches. The newt grid located at the northwestern corner of this area will remain in place throughout the lifespan of the development.

Post-Development Population Monitoring

4.11 Following Natural England guidelines (English Nature, 2001) the anticipated scale of impact is considered to be low-moderate, and therefore, in accordance with Natural England guidelines, the pond may require monitoring post-development for up to two years. Natural England guidelines for population monitoring state that low impacts on a small newt population requires no monitoring and moderate impacts on a small population requires presence/absence surveys for two years. The level of monitoring, if required, will be determined through the Natural England licencing process.

Work Schedule

4.12 Refer to Appendix 2.

2 The ‘Named Ecologist’ will be named on the future European Protected Species licence, and has a responsibility for ensuring that the licence is complied with. The Named Ecologist is defined by Natural England as “a professional ecological consultant who has satisfied Natural England that they have the relevant skills, knowledge and experience of the species concerned and is responsible for undertaking and/or overseeing the work undertaken in respect of the licensed species. They are responsible for advising the licensee on the suitability and competence of any Accredited Agents or Assistants employed on site to undertake the required duties and may include the direct supervision of Assistants where appropriate.”

9 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

5 References

ARG UK (2010) Advice Note 5: Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index

English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, Peterborough

Oldham, R.S. et al (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). The Herpetological Journal, Vol 10

10 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

6 Figures

(overleaf)

11 07/03/2016

LEGEND

Key text 01 (Arial 7 pnt)

LEGEND

A Arable field Key text 02 (Arial 7 pnt)

Tall ruderal vegetation (uncultivated arable field) Key text 03 (Arial 7 pnt) Neutral grassland

Calcareous grassland/ marshy grassland mosaic Key text 04 (Arial 7 pnt) Plantation mixed woodland

Ephemeral/ short perennial Key text 05 (Arial 7 pnt) Swamp

Pond Key text 06 (Aria 7 pnt)

Scattered scrub

Defunct species-poor hedgerow Key text 01 (Arial 7 pnt)

Intact species-poor hedgerow

Intact species-poor hedgerow with trees Key text 02 (Arial 7 pnt)

Fence

Survey boundary Key text 03 (Arial 7 pnt)

A Key text 04 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 05 (Arial 7 pnt)

Key text 06 (Arial 7 pnt)

OFFICE: Derbyshire T: 01433 651869 JOB REF: 8001

PROJECT TITLE WELDON COMPOSTING PROJECT

DRAWING TITLE Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan A DATE: 04.02.2015 CHECKED: LRJ SCALE: NTS

DRAWN: RH APPROVED: PH STATUS: FINAL

Pond 1

Cowthick Plantation LWS JOB REF: 0000.00

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT TITLE - LINE 1 PROJECT TITLE - LINE 2

DRAWING TITLE Drawing Title - Line 1 Drawing Title - Line 2

DATE: 01.01.2012 CHECKED:XX SCALE: 1:6,000

DRAWN: XX APPROVED:XX STATUS: DRAFT

No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only.

95.34

95.50

95.59

S2 95.626

95.72

95.99

96.38

96.82

97.31

97.78

Stamford Rd

98.14

Existing hedgeline

98.33

98.51

S1 98.434

98.64

98.80

98.88

Turbine 1 E491588 N288307

S3 101.055

C Cut off ditch amended. Possible GCN area shown NH NO 18.12.15

B Added Earthworks and Bund to Proposed Layout NH NO 24.11.15

A Key amended NH NO 20.11.15 REV: AMENDMENTS: DRN: CHK: DATE: PROJECT: STAMFORD ROAD, WELDON GREEN COMPOSTING SITE

DRAWING TITLE:

PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT

CLIENT: LANDMARK PLANNING

DRAWING NUMBER: 21301_01_230_02

REVISION: SHEET SIZE: SCALE: C A1 1:1000

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: NH GP 01.10.15

STATUS: PRELIMINARY

Wellington House Leicester Road Ibstock Leicestershire LE67 6HP T: 01530 264 753 F: 01530 588 116 [email protected] www.m-ec.co.uk

LICENCE NUMBER 100022432. Printed:21.12.2015 File Location: T:\M-EC Job Book\21301\drawings\01 series-hydrology\230 series\21301_01_230_02c proposed layout.dwg N:\Common\Contracts\Live Contracts\8001 - 8050\8001 Weldon Composting Project\8001.02 GCN Mitigation Strategy\Work in Progress\Mapping\Projects\8001.02_Capture and exclusion activities_rh_010316.mxd Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community IGP,User IGN, GIS the and Getmapping, Aerogrid, USGS, AEX, USDA, swisstopo, DS, CNES/Airbus Geographics, Earthstar GeoEye, DigitalGlobe, Esri, Source: Credits: Layer Service 0 225 m ¯ LEGEND DRAWN: DATE: Figure 3 DRAWING TITLE Weldon Composting Project PROJECT TITLE PROJECT Sources: Esri © | Photography 2016 right Aerial database and copyright Crown © data Open OS number: Reference 2016. reserved. rights All Copyright Crown © Office Stationery Majesty’s Her of Controller of the behalf on Survey Ordnance of permission by material Survey Ordnance contain: may drawing This only. purposes indicative for measurements Area site. on checked to be are dimensions All drawing. this from scaled be to are dimensions No Ecology BSG © Copyright T: OFFICE: 01433 651869 01433 01.03.2016 BSG Ecology survey data survey Ecology BSG RH Derbyshire : Map to: showexclusion capture and methods 10048980 refugia carpet and traps pitfall with fencing, Temporarydrift and fence perimeter grid Newt facility composting of perimeter around fence exclusion Permanent pond newt crested great from radius 250m pond newt crested great from radius 50m pond newt crested Great boundary Site Development APPROVED: CHECKED: LRJ PH O E:8001.02 REF: JOB STATUS: SCALE: 1:2,600 FINAL LEGEND

Development Site boundary

Receptor Site boundary

Great crested newt pond

50m radius from great crested newt pond 250m radius from great crested newt pond Hedgerow in receptor site - management via non-intervention New native hedgerow planting (650m total)

D Proposed hibernacula

Area to colonise via natural succession Permanent newt fencing around composting facility

Newt grid

D D

OFFICE: Derbyshire D T: 01433 651869 JOB REF: 8001.02

PROJECT TITLE Weldon Composting Project

DRAWING TITLE Figure 4: Receptor Site Layout Plan

DATE: 01.03.2016 CHECKED:LRJ SCALE:1:2,638

DRAWN: RH APPROVED:PH STATUS: FINAL

No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. All dimensions are to be checked on site. Area measurements for indicative purposes only.

This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. Reference number: 10048980 0 225 OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 | Aerial Photography © Esri m Sources: BSG Ecology survey data

N:\Common\Contracts\LiveContracts\8001 - 8050\8001 Weldon Composting Project\8001.02GCN Mitigation Strategy\Workin Progress\Mapping\Projects\8001.02_Receotirsite layout plan_rh_010316.mxd ¯ Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Weldon Composting Project

7 Photographs Photograph 1: Pond located 50m to the Photograph 2: View northeast from north of the Site southeastern corner of proposed development site across western part of proposed receptor site

12 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 1: Pond Survey Results Method Species Survey visit 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 08/05/14 11/05/14 18/05/14 22/05/14 01/06/14 10/06/14 Great 0 0 0 1 male Bottle 1 female 0 trapping crested newt sub-adult Smooth 10 10 6 2 female 3 newt (2 male, 8 (2 male, 8 (2 male, 4 (1 male, 0 female) female) female) 2 female) Palmate 0 0 0 0 0 0 newt Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 frog Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 toad

Great 0 0 0 0 0 0 crested newt Smooth 14 2 female 10 2 22 31 newt (2 male, (3 male, 7 (1 male, 1 (4 male, (8 male, 12 female) female) 18 23 female) female) female) Torch Palmate 0 0 0 0 count 0 0 newt Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 frog Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 toad

Great 0 0 0 0 0 0 crested newt Smooth Present Present Present 0 0 Present newt Palmate 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 search newt Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 frog Common 0 0 0 0 0 0 toad

13 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 2: Great Crested Newt Work Schedule

14 07/03/2016

WML-A14-E6A&E6b – WORK SCHEDULE FOR GREAT CRESTED NEWT

ANNEXED LICENCES

Site name and address (as stated on the application form or licence granted): Stamford Road, Weldon

E6 Work schedule for all new applications from end of April 2013: Please ensure that this work schedule is S.M.A.R.T and appropriate timescales are provided for each activity, to fit with order of events.

Mandatory for all projects. Complete these schedules to show timings for all major categories of work (mitigation and compensation measures), and to show the main construction period. The most common activities are listed here, and you can add up to 6 more if needed. Leave blank if not applicable. Enter timing by stating start and end dates, to nearest month and year (see first line for example). Enter comments if you need to clarify timings. For very complex schemes (e.g. high impact or phased development schemes) if additional lines are needed please do add in. This work schedule will form part of any annexed licence.

PLEASE INCLUDE DATE OF SUBMISSION (e.g. 1 April 2013). This will be referenced in the licence 7 March 2016 A) Pre-development and mid-development Activity Timing Comments Example: Receptor site pond creation Nov-12 to Dec-12 Also plant pond up with native species in January 2013 Receptor site pond creation N/A - Receptor site pond enhancement or restoration N/A - Receptor site terrestrial hab works - general e.g. reseeding, hedge planting Since January 2016 Existing vegetation has been allowed to develop, and will continue to do so through natural succession within the receptor site Receptor site terrestrial hab works - features e.g. hibernacula, refuges April 2016 to November 2016 ~Four hibernacula to be created within receptor site between April- June 2016 in advance of trapping-

WML-A14a-E6A&E6B (vs. October 2013) Page 1

out great crested newt ~650m native hedgerow planting at edges of receptor site (November 2016) Construction of permanent fences/walls June 2016 to June 2017 The perimeter amphibian fencing will be modified on its internal (development) side to create a permanent newt fence around the perimeter of the core composting facility, which will remain in place throughout the lifespan of the development. Only when newts have been trapped-out from site under licence. Fencing to be modified under supervision of ECoW. Construction of underpass/tunnel/culvert (and installation of 'guide' fencing) N/A - Newt fence installation (to include drift or ring fencing if applicable – specify May 2016 to September 2016 Only when issued with licence. which) Fencing to be installed under supervision of ECoW. Includes fitting of pitfall traps and carpet tiles, installation of drift fence and exclusion fence. Newt capture (pitfall trapping etc - outside hibernation/dormancy periods only) May 2016 to October 2016 Once fencing has been errected. Site will have a minimum of 30 days trapping; all during suitable weather conditions. 5 days no capture rule applies. Pond draining and pond destruction (please indicate when each will occur) N/A - Hand searches N/A - Destructive searches (following completion of all other capture efforts) June 2016 to October 2016 On completion of trapping within the respective comparment Construction period (start and end dates) June 2016 to June 2017 Construction will commence once relevant compartments have been cleared of GCN Site checks & maintenance during construction June 2016 to June 2017 Includes checks and maintenance of GCN fencing from date of

WML-A14a-E6A&E6B (vs. October 2013) Page 2

installation: twice monthly checks June-October, and monthly checks November-February June 2016 to October 2016 On completion of trapping. Drift fencing will only be removed if night time temperatures above 5°C. Removal supervised by ECoW, and removed by hand as Drift fence removal (not to be undertaken during hibernation/dormancy periods) required Newt fence removal (not to be undertaken during hibernation/dormancy periods) June 2016 to October 2016 The perimeter amphibian fencing around the western section of the development site will be removed when night time temperatures above 5°C. Removal supervised by ECoW, and removed by hand as required. The permanent amphibian fencing around the core composting area of the development will not be removed - it will be modified to create a permanent newt fence around the perimeter of the core composting facility, which will remain in place throughout the lifespan of the development. Ring fence removal (not to be undertaken during the hibernation/dormancy N/A - periods) Habitat reinstatement (for temporary impact schemes only) N/A - Post construction mitigation/compensation on dev't site or other (provide details) N/A -

WML-A14a-E6A&E6B (vs. October 2013) Page 3

Weldon Composting Project

Appendix 3: Summaries of Relevant Policy, Legislation and Other Instruments

7.1 This section briefly summarises the legislation, policy and related issues that are relevant to the main text of the report. The following text does not constitute legal or planning advice.

National Planning Policy Framework (England)

7.2 The Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27th March 2012. Text excerpts from the NPPF are shown where they may be relevant to planning applications and biodiversity including protected sites, habitats and species.

7.3 In conserving and enhancing the natural environment, the NPPF (Paragraph 109) states that ‘the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment’ by: a. Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; b. Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, where possible contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; c. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.

7.4 In paragraph 111, the NPPF refers to brownfield land as follows: ‘planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.’

7.5 Paragraph 117 refers to how planning policies should aim to minimise impacts on biodiversity, to: ‘identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation;’ and to ‘promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan.’

7.6 Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises how, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the mitigation hierarchy. The mitigation hierarchy advises that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

7.7 Where proposals or activities require planning permission, the NPPF states that ‘…local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: d. Proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; e. Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted; f. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;

15 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

g. Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and h. The following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: i. potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation ii. listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and iii. sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.’

7.8 In respect of protected sites, the NPPF requires local planning authorities to make ‘distinctions…between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.’

7.9 In paragraph 125 the NPPF states that ‘by encouraging good design, planning policies and decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.’ This applies to protected species that are a material consideration in the planning process including bats and may also apply to other light sensitive species.

Government Circular ODPM 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (England only)

7.10 Paragraph 98 of Government Circular 06/2005 advises that “the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. Local authorities should consult Natural England before granting planning permission. They should consider attaching appropriate planning conditions or entering into planning obligations under which the developer would take steps to secure the long-term protection of the species. They should also advise developers that they must comply with any statutory species’ protection provisions affecting the site concerned...”

7.11 Paragraph 99 of Government Circular 06/20053 advises that “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted”.

Standing Advice (GOV.UK - England only)

7.12 The GOV.UK website provides information regarding protected species and sites in relation to development proposals: ‘Local planning authorities should take advice from Natural England or the Environment Agency about planning applications for developments that may affect protected species.’ GOV.UK advises that ‘some species have standing advice which you can use to help with planning decisions. For others you should contact Natural England or the Environment Agency for an individual response.’

3 ODPM Circular 06/2005. Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impacts within the Planning System (2005). HMSO Norwich.

16 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

7.13 The standing advice (originally from Natural England and now held and updated on GOV.UK4) provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. It also provides advice on survey and mitigation requirements.

7.14 When determining an application for development that is covered by standing advice, in accordance with guidance in Government Circular 06/2005, Local planning authorities are required to take the standing advice into account. In paragraph 82 of the aforementioned Circular, it is stated that: ‘The standing advice will be a material consideration in the determination of the planning application in the same way as any advice received from a statutory consultee…it is up to the planning authority to decide the weight to be attached to the standing advice, in the same way as it would decide the weight to be attached to a response from a statutory consultee.’

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 – Habitats and species of principal importance (England and Wales)

7.15 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force on 1st October 2006. Sections 41 and 42 (S41 and S42) of the Act require the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales respectively. The list has been drawn up in consultation with Natural England and Countryside Council for Wales (now NRW), as required by the Act. In accordance with the Act the Secretary of State keeps this list under review and will publish a revised list if necessary, in consultation with Natural England and NRW.

7.16 The S41 and S42 lists are used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local authorities and utilities companies, in implementing their duty under Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England and Wales, when carrying out their normal functions, including development control and planning. This is commonly referred to as the ‘Biodiversity Duty.’

7.17 Guidance for public authorities on implementing the Biodiversity Duty5 has been jointly published by Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government. One of the key messages in this document is that ‘conserving biodiversity includes restoring and enhancing species populations and habitats, as well as protecting them.’ In England and Wales, the administration of the planning system and licensing schemes are highlighted as having a ‘profound influence on biodiversity conservation.’ Local authorities are required to take measures to “promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species. The guidance states that ‘the duty aims to raise the profile and visibility of biodiversity, clarify existing commitments with regard to biodiversity, and to make it a natural and integral part of policy and decision making.’

7.18 In 2007, the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Partnership published an updated list of priority UK species and habitats covering terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity to focus conservation action for rarer species and habitats in the UK. The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework6, which covers the period from 2011 to 2020, now succeeds the UK BAP. The UK priority list contained 1150 species and 65 habitats requiring special protection and has been used as a reference to draw up the lists of species and habitats of principal importance in England and Wales.

7.19 In England, there are 56 habitats of principal importance and 943 species of principal importance on the S41 list. These are all the habitats and species found in England that were identified as requiring action in the UK BAP and which continue to be regarded as conservation priorities in the subsequent UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

7.20 In Wales, there are 54 habitats of principal importance and 557 species of principal importance on the S42 list. This includes three marine habitats and 53 species which were not on the list of UK BAP priorities, but which are recognised as of principal importance for Wales.

4 https://www.gov.uk/protected-species-and-sites-how-to-review-planning-proposals#standing-advice-for-protected-species 5 Defra, 2007. Guidance for Public Authorities on Implementing The Biodiversity Duty. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb12585-pa-guid-english-070516.pdf) 6 JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries' Biodiversity Group). 2012. UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. July 2012. (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189)

17 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project

European protected species (Animals)

7.21 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) consolidates the various amendments that have been made to the original (1994) Regulations which transposed the EC Habitats Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) into national law.

7.22 “European protected species” (EPS) of animal are those which are present on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). They are subject to the provisions of Regulation 41 of those Regulations. All EPS are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Taken together, these pieces of legislation make it an offence to: a. Intentionally or deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal included amongst these species b. Possess or control any live or dead specimens or any part of, or anything derived from a these species c. deliberately disturb wild animals of any such species d. deliberately take or destroy the eggs of such an animal, or e. intentionally, deliberately or recklessly damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal, or obstruct access to such a place

7.23 For the purposes of paragraph (c), disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely— a. to impair their ability— i. to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young, or ii. in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or b. to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.

7.24 Although the law provides strict protection to these species, it also allows this protection to be set aside (derogated) through the issuing of licences. The licences in England are currently determined by Natural England (NE) for development works and by Natural Resources Wales in Wales. In accordance with the requirements of the Regulations (2010), a licence can only be issued where the following requirements are satisfied: a. The proposal is necessary ‘to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’ b. ‘There is no satisfactory alternative’ c. The proposals ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Definition of breeding sites and resting places

7.25 Guidance for all European Protected Species of animal, including bats and great crested newt, regarding the definition of breeding and of breeding and resting places is provided by The European Council (EC) which has prepared specific guidance in respect of the interpretation of various Articles of the EC Habitats Directive.7 Section II.3.4.b) provides definitions and examples of both breeding and resting places at paragraphs 57 and 59 respectively. This guidance states that ‘The provision in Article 12(1)(d) [of the EC Habitats Directive] should therefore be understood as aiming to safeguard the ecological functionality of breeding sites and resting places.’ Further the guidance states: ‘It thus follows from Article 12(1)(d) that such breeding sites and resting places also need to be protected when they are not being used, but where there is a reasonably high

7 Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. (February 2007), EC.

18 07/03/2016

Weldon Composting Project probability that the species concerned will return to these sites and places. If for example a certain cave is used every year by a number of bats for hibernation (because the species has the habit of returning to the same winter roost every year), the functionality of this cave as a hibernating site should be protected in summer as well so that the bats can re-use it in winter. On the other hand, if a certain cave is used only occasionally for breeding or resting purposes, it is very likely that the site does not qualify as a breeding site or resting place.’

19 07/03/2016