Planning Application 13/00952/FULLS at Ampfield Hill, Romsey, Test Valley: Great Crested Newt Survey Following on From Ecological Assessment

Transcription

1 10 June 2014 Mr Allan Clark esq Ampfield Parish Council Blue Haze Ampfield Hill Ampfield Romsey SO51 9BD By only Our Ref: P13/46 Dear Mr Clark Planning Application 13/00952/FULLS at Ampfield Hill, Romsey, Test Valley: Great Crested Newt Survey Following on From Ecological Assessment Introduction Thank you for instructing EPR to undertake survey to establish the presence/ or likely absence of Great Crested Newt (GCN) in two ponds within 500m of the above mentioned site. I understand that a planning application has been made at the above site, the approximate location of which is shown on Map 4, for the use of land for stationing caravans for residential purposes, together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/dayrooms ancillary to that use. I understand that the Parish Council is concerned about the potential effects of the proposals upon wildlife and features of nature conservation importance, particularly as no ecological information has been submitted with the application, and would like me to provide advice accordingly to enable them to make representations to Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) as the determining authority. This letter sets out the results of a GCN Survey that Ampfield Parish Council requested following the receipt of an earlier Ecological Assessment carried out by my colleague Ben Kite and reported upon in his letter to you dated 3 August The locations of the two ponds that were subject to this survey are shown on Map 4.

2 Relevant Legislation and Policy The following section of my letter summarises the legislation and policy that is particularly relevant in respect of the weight to be afforded to GCN in planning decisions. Further detail can be found in the Ecological Assessment Letter (EPR, 2013). Legislation The following legislation underpins the requirement for undertaking further surveys to identify the presence or likely absence of GCN: The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended); and, The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). National Planning Policy National Planning Policy in respect of nature conservation is provided by Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: 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; Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats. Unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss [My emphasis] Further to the above, paragraph 165 of the NPPF states: Planning policies and decisions should be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment.. [My emphasis] Local Planning Policy

3 Local Planning Policy for the area is currently set by those Policies of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006) that have been saved by the Secretary of State, although there is an emerging Revised Test Valley Borough Local Plan Development Plan Document (DPD) (2013) due for pre-submission consultation in Sep/Oct of this year that will be part of the new Local Development Framework. Policies that are of potential relevance to the proposals are the following: Policy ENV01: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; Policy ENV05: Protected Species Guidance I would like to draw the Parish Council s attention to paragraphs 98 and 99 of Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, which collectively advise that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration, and that where there is the potential for them to be present, surveys to determine their presence or likely absence, and status, should be undertaken prior to a planning application being determined. Methodology Desktop Study A search of records from Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) within a 2km radius of the approximate centre of the site was commissioned for the Ecological Assessment (EPR, 2013). This data returned two records of GCN within 500m of the site, one to the south west and the other to the north east. Furthermore, the potential for GCN to be present at the site has been highlighted by Hampshire County Council s Ecologist in his response to the planning application. Survey Methodology Two ponds within 500m of the application site were identified as having potential to support GCN and were therefore subject to survey in accordance with English Nature s (now Natural England s) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001). If a breeding population of GCN were using these ponds, then they would be likely to be using terrestrial habitat within m of the pond and could therefore be killed or injured if works were to take place in the absence of mitigation. The terrestrial habitats that are present across the application site are likely to be ideally suited to GCN, should they be present, meaning that the loss of this area could have a negative impact on any population of GCN in the absence of suitable mitigation or compensation. A survey for GCN is normally comprised of an initial visit to assess the likely suitability of potentially affected ponds using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) system, followed afterward if necessary by between 4 and 6 further visits between April and June using a range of further survey techniques such as bottle-trapping, torching, egg searches and netting. In addition to GCN, ponds and their surrounding habitat could also support Common Toad, which is a 2006 NERC Act Section 41 Species of Principal Importance.

4 Results Great Crested Newts Each of the two ponds was subject to an initial survey following the HSI methodology by an experienced Ecologist who is also licensed for surveying GCN. The pond immediately to the east of the site was classified as excellent and the pond approximately 300m southwest of the site was classified as good. Therefore, both ponds were considered to have potential to support a breeding population of GCN. Four further survey visits to establish presence/likely absence were carried out in accordance with the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001) by a licensed GCN surveyor. Two number GCN eggs were identified on an artificial egg strip which EPR placed within the pond immediately to the east of the site on 6 th May 2014, providing conclusive evidence that this species is in fact present. Once presence of the GCN eggs was confirmed, the artificial egg strips were returned to the pond immediately to prevent the eggs becoming damaged. Other Fauna The following species were also noted as present during the surveys: Smooth newt Palmate newt Common toad Barn Owl Pipistrelle bats Common frog Buzzard Muntjac deer Roe deer Conclusions and Discussion It is evident that GCN are present within the pond immediately adjacent to the site on the eastern boundary and it is therefore likely that GCN are using the terrestrial habitat within the application boundary which is considered to be of good value for foraging, shelter and hibernation. Before a planning application can be consented where it is reasonably likely to affect a European Protected Species such as GCN, Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) as the planning authority must apply the tests of derogation set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). These tests of derogation require TVBC, in the first instance, to be able to conclude that the proposals would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of GCN at a favourable conservation status within their natural range. In my view, it is not possible to make this judgement without the applicant having robust survey data, as one must understand the extent to which a proposal might affect a population of GCN in order for suitable mitigation or compensation to be

5 calibrated and designed into any proposal. This must be done prior to being able to conclude that the conservation status of the species concerned will not be negatively affected. In my view, as the presence of GCN has been confirmed, the survey information provided with the application should include data from a full 6 survey visits carried out during the GCN survey season (mid March to mid June, with 50% of visits before mid May) in accordance with Natural England s Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001). Without this information, the class size of the affected GCN cannot be known, and it cannot therefore be demonstrated that adequate mitigation or compensation has been put forward with the scheme. Further to the above, TVBC must also be able to conclude that there is no satisfactory alternative to the proposal, and that 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. This last test that I mention can be paraphrased by saying that there needs to be a real and demonstrable public need for a project to be permitted, prior to interference with a European Protected Species being justified. I would recommend that the applicant carries out surveys in accordance with Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001) for all ponds within 500m of the site due to historical records and recent survey data indicating the site is used by GCN. In addition, the presence of Barn Owls and bats at the site would suggest the need for further surveys of these species to ensure the impacts of the proposals are adequately addressed, as well as any mitigation (if required). I trust that the above is clear and useful, but please do not hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any queries. Yours sincerely, Katie Rogerson BSc (Hons) CEnv MCIEEM Ecologist, EPR Ltd katierogerson@epr.uk.com Report Approved for issue by: Ben Kite BSc (Hons) MSc CEcol AIEMA MCIEEM Principal Ecological Consultant, EPR Ltd