Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Survey Octagon Developments Ltd, Totteridge Green, London, N20 8PE Octagon Development Ltd Status Issue Name Date Draft 1 Fay Brotherhood BSc Hons MSc Consultant Ecologist 11/08/2020 Reviewed 1.1 Mel Reid BSc (Hons) MRes, Consultant 13/08/2020 Final 2 Fay Brotherhood BSc Hons MSc Consultant Ecologist 13/08/2020 Final (plans added_ 3 Fay Brotherhood BSc Hons MSc Consultant Ecologist 30/02/2021 Arbtech Consultant’s Contact details: Fay Brotherhood BSc (Hons) MSc Consultant Ecologist Tel: 07936932337 Email: [email protected] Arbtech Consulting Ltd https://arbtech.co.uk Octagon Developments Ltd Dolphins Limitations and Copyright Arbtech Consulting Limited has prepared this report for the sole use of the above-named client or their agents in accordance with our General Terms and Conditions, under which our services are performed. It is expressly stated that no other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report or any other services provided by us. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of Arbtech Consulting Limited. The assessments made assume that the sites and facilities will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant change. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided by third parties. Information obtained from third parties has not been independently verified by Arbtech Consulting Limited. © This report is the copyright of Arbtech Consulting Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Guidelines This assessment has been designed to meet: Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management ‘Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Second Edition, December 2017’; and British Standard 42020 (2013) ‘Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development’. Proportionality The work involved in preparing and implementing all ecological surveys, impact assessments and measures for avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement should be proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to biodiversity and to the nature and scale of the proposed development. Consequently, the decision-maker should only request supporting information and conservation measures that are relevant, necessary and material to the application in question. Similarly, the decision-maker and their consultees should ensure that any comments and advice made over an application are also proportionate. This approach is enshrined in Government planning guidance, for example, paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework for England. The desk studies and field surveys undertaken to provide a preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) might in some cases be all that is necessary. (BS 42020, 2013) In consequence of the scale and intensity of the proposed development, the low impact on ecological receptors identified through both the site survey and search of local biological records, and the passive interface with the mitigation hierarchy, this plan-led report is considered adequate and proportionate. It communicates all relevant information necessary to determine a planning application, or support the recommendations for further surveys. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 2 Octagon Developments Ltd Dolphins Executive summary Arbtech Consulting Ltd was commissioned by Octagon Developments Ltd to undertake a combined preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) and preliminary roost assessment (PRA) at Dolphins. The survey was completed on 06/08/2020. The aim of the survey was to complete an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the survey area (all land that will be impacted by the proposals) and to consider the value and suitability of the structures for roosting bats. The surveyor also made note of any other ecological constraints observed within the building during the survey, notably the likelihood of presence or signs of breeding birds, and the suitability of the site for barn owls. The development proposals are for the replacement of the existing property with a like for like replacement around 20% larger than the current property. A planning application is being prepared for submission to the London Borough of Barnet. Recommendations - This is work you will need to commission (if any) to obtain planning permission or comply with legislation for other consent. Bats The building (B1) is a confirmed roost as droppings As the proposals include Three bat emergence/re-entry surveys are required To be confirmed following were found externally under hanging tiles. Bats could the demolition of this during the active bat season (May – September) to further surveys. also enter the void via a hole in the gable wall and building, the roost will be characterise the roosts present. At least two of the crevice dwellers could roost under lifted flashing and destroyed. This could result surveys should be completed during the optimal survey gaps underneath the fascia on the garage. in death/injury of bats. period mid-May to August inclusive. Sub-optimal: early May and September. There are excellent foraging and commuting resources If T3 is felled, any roost One of these surveys must be a dawn re-entry survey. within the study area and in close proximity, including present will be destroyed. Three surveyors are required to provide full coverage within the garden itself which increases the chances of This could result in of the building. bats locating the buildings potential and actual roost death/injury of bats. features. Commission a further survey of T3 to assess its potential roost value prior to any felling There are potential roosting features in two trees in the form of a small cavity (T1) and ivy (T3). These trees are deemed to have low habitat value. T2 may have a cavity due to the presence of decay. No potential roost features were visible from the ground but there may be potential roost features higher up. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 3 Octagon Developments Ltd Dolphins Invasive / Non-native invasive species recorded on site. The ability of either plant to a) In fitting with the London Invasive Species Replace the rhododendron Non- a) Rhododendron ponticum spread is limited in this Initiative, an invasive species management with native shrubs, or native context and on the site’s plan should be prepared for the site to ornamental garden species species b) A possible example of Himalayan local soils. control or eradicate Rhododendron. that provide habitat value Cotoneaster Cotoneaster simonsii. to wildlife. b) The cotoneaster could be safely left in situ. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 4 Octagon Developments Ltd Dolphins Contents 1.0 Introduction and Context ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Site Context ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3 Scope of the report ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Desk Study methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Site Survey methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.3 Suitability Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Limitations – evaluation of the methodology ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................