15.0 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

Transcription

1 15.0 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION Introduction 15.1 This chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant effects of the Overall Development in terms of and is supported by Appendices 15.1 to The chapter describes the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions currently existing at the Assessment Site and surroundings; the likely significant environmental effects; the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects; and the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed. This chapter has been prepared by WSP Environment and Energy. Planning Policy Context 15.2 A summary of the planning policy, guidance, and legislation relevant to ecology and nature conservation is provided below. National Planning Policy Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9), Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) (Ref. 15.1) 15.3 This paper outlines the Government s vision for conserving and enhancing biological diversity in England. It includes the broad aim that planning, construction, development and regeneration should have minimal impact on biodiversity and enhance it wherever possible. In moving towards this vision, the Government has constructed the following set of objectives: To promote sustainable development by ensuring that the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity is an integral part of all types of development; To conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England s wildlife and geology; To contribute to an urban renaissance; and To contribute to rural renewal by ensuring that developments in rural areas take account of the role and value of biodiversity In PPS9 a five point approach is provided for consideration within the planning process to ensure negative adverse effects on biodiversity are fully considered. The five points are: information, avoidance, mitigation, compensation and new benefits [enhancements] /A5/ES January 2010

2 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Statutory Obligation and their Impact within the Planning System (Ref. 15.2) 15.5 The ODPM circular 06/2005 states that: The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal The Circular advises that local authorities should consult Natural England before granting planning permission if proposals could adversely affect a protected species. Regional Planning Policy Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (The South East Plan) (adopted May 2009) (Ref. 15.3) 15.7 The South East Plan contains policies directly relating to nature resource management and a number of cross-cutting policies, some of which are relevant to ecology and nature conservation. Policies considered to be potentially relevant to the Overall Development are described below Policy CC4: Sustainable design and construction, includes an obligation to consider opportunities for biodiversity gain, whilst policy CC8: Green infrastructure, promotes the establishment of substantial networks of multi-functional green space, to deliver biodiversity enhancement (including climate change resilience) amongst a number of other benefits Policy NRM5: Conservation and improvement of biodiversity states that local authorities will avoid a net loss of biodiversity and will actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net biodiversity gain across the region. Local Planning Policy Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) Local Plan ( ) (adopted 2006) (Ref. 15.4) Saved policy ENV 01 from the Local Plan is directly relevant to ecology at the Assessment Site. This policy seeks to maintain, enhance and restore biodiversity interests in the Borough, with a special focus on: designated conservation sites, priority habitats and species (listed in the UK BAP), 12212/A5/ES January 2010

3 ancient and semi-natural woodlands, landscape features recognised as of major importance for migration, dispersal and genetic exchange; and biodiversity interests of local importance on sites proposed for development, including previously developed land The Local Plan states that development that may adversely affect the resources listed above will only be permitted if: the need for the development outweighs the environmental costs; it can be demonstrated that there is no suitable alternative location; and it is proven that any adverse effects will be mitigated and compensation provided. All three of these caveats have to be met Policy ENV 05 deals with legally protected species in more detail. This policy states that: Development which would affect a legally protected species or a site supporting a legally protected species will only be permitted if: a. individual member of the species [or] their breeding/resting places are not harmed; and b....discrete colonies of the species affected can be sustained. Where development is permitted disturbance to the species should be minimised. TVBC Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft (October 2008) (Ref. 15.5) The Test Valley Borough Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft has been withdrawn and therefore holds limited weight in planning terms. Draft Policy SSA1 of the Pre-Submission Core Strategy identified land at Picket Piece for the development of a new neighbourhood of 800 dwellings. Legislation The Assessment Site contains species protected under the following legislation National Protected Species (slow-worms, nesting birds) Slow-worms (Anguis fragilis) are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (Ref. 15.6) by part of Section 9(1) and all of Section 9(5). This means that they are protected against killing and injuring (but not taking ) and against sale and transporting for sale All native bird species, their eggs, nests and dependent young are protected under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (as amended), when they are nesting /A5/ES January 2010

4 European Protected Species (bats, dormice) Bats and dormice are fully protected under European Council Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (Ref. 15.7) which is transposed into UK law through The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (Ref. 15.8); and are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (Ref. 15.6). This legislation combines to make it an offence to kill, injure or disturb the species or obstruct access to, damage or destroy their place of shelter or rest. Protected Habitats The Assessment Site does not contain any legally protected habitats, although the Hedgerow Regulations (1994) (Ref. 15.8) do apply to some of the hedgerows on-site (this Regulation is not directly relevant to development sites but provides a benchmark for habitat valuation and impact assessment). Other Relevant Policy Guidance UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (1994) and Hampshire BAP (1998) (Ref. 15.9) The UK BAP (1994) (Ref. 15.9) was established in response to the Global Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (Ref ). Individual Action Plans define actions and measures to meet the objectives defined in the strategy, and specify measurable targets. They determine the broad habitats and species that are of value to the natural environment of the UK, and identify actions and projects that could be undertaken to help protect or enhance the national biodiversity. The UK BAP contains 1,149 species and 65 habitats that have been listed as being of principle importance for the purpose of conserving biological diversity in the UK. These are commonly referred to as the UK BAP priority species and habitats The national BAP is supplemented by local BAPs (LBAPs) which identify habitats and species of particular value or endangerment at the local or regional level and which set out local actions for the conservation of priority BAP species and habitats. The Assessment Site is covered by the Hampshire LBAP (Ref ) BAPs in the UK have no statutory status, but provide a framework for implementing conservation requirements. Furthermore, species listed as priority species in the UK BAP are afforded a degree of protection under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) (Ref ), in relation to the planning process. The presence of, or potential presence of UK BAP and Hampshire BAP habitats and species have been considered 12212/A5/ES January 2010

5 throughout the preparation of this chapter, and are discussed where relevant in the assessment of effects and valuation below. Discussion These planning policies effectively combine the statutory requirements of wildlife law with national and local government targets which aim to maintain and improve biodiversity. They have influenced the spatial arrangement of the Overall Development by ensuring that existing habitats and populations of significant value are retained, where possible, within the Assessment Site In particular, the Overall Development has been influenced by the aspiration to retain as many native hedgerows as possible (Policy CC8, ENV 01 and UK BAP), and to provide enhancements to retained hedgerows. This has resulted in a net gain of structural hedgerow and tree planting across the Assessment Site Other major ecological influences on the design of the development parameters revolve around the presence of protected species (dormice and slow-worms), since PPS9 (Ref. 15.1), TVBC Local Plan policy ENV 05 (Ref. 15.4), the Habitat Regulations (1994) (Ref. 15.7) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (Ref. 15.6) all oblige that new development is not permitted unless these populations can be successfully retained in a healthy and viable ecosystem In addition to the protection of specific habitats and species, the planning policies set out a clear remit for new development to achieve biodiversity gain and to deliver new green infrastructures in response to current declines in biodiversity. This has been reflected in the masterplan of the Overall Development, which includes the creation of areas of open space to act as biodiversity reserves linked by wildlife networks. Assessment Methodology Assessment Guidance This assessment has been undertaken with reference to the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM) (2006) (Ref ) and IEMA s Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (1997) (Ref ). Best practice guidance is available for survey techniques and mitigation measures for a number of species and habitats. This assessment has been prepared with a full working knowledge of the following guidance: 12212/A5/ES January 2010

6 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit (Ref ); Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10 (Ref ); Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland (1998) Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARGs). HGBI, c/o Froglife, Halesworth. Unpublished. (Ref ); Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines, Bat Conservation Trust, London (Ref ); BSI (2005) BS5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction Recommendations. (Ref ); DEFRA (2007) Hedgerow Survey Handbook: A standard procedure for local surveys in the UK. 2 nd Edition Defra, London. (Ref ); English Nature (2002) Badgers and Development. External Relations Team, Peterborough. (Ref ); England Nature (2006) The dormouse conservation handbook. Second Edition. Paul Bright, Pat Morris and Tony Mitchell-Jones. (Ref ); Natural England (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough. (Ref ); Herpetological Conservation Trust (2009) Habitat Suitability Index Guidance Notes [online] (Ref ); and Rodwell (2006). NVC Users Handbook. (Ref ). Baseline Assessment Methodology An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken with reference to the Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey (Ref ). The survey established the presence and distribution of habitat types within the Assessment Site and identified any potential ecological constraints to the Overall Development. The survey was extended to identify the potential for any protected, scarce or notable species to be present, including a systematic field survey for badgers and invasive weed species. The extended Phase 1 habitat survey was carried out on 21 and 22 May 2009 in dry weather conditions A desk study assessment was also undertaken to establish whether any ecological records of protected and/or notable species were held for the Assessment Site and a 2km radius of the site as recommended by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment s (IEMA s) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment (1997). (Ref ) This radius was extended for bats to 5km, as recommended by Natural England s Bat Mitigation Guidelines, 2004 (Ref ). Data were requested from the Environment Agency, Natural England and 12212/A5/ES January 2010

7 the Hampshire Biological Information Centre). In addition the following websites were accessed, where necessary, to obtain species and designated habitat information: National Biodiversity Network Gateway (Ref ); MAGIC (Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside -(Ref ); and Natural England s Nature on the Map (Ref ) The findings of the desk study are incorporated within this chapter and records of species or habitats which could provide a potential constraint to development are mapped on Figure Further details of the methodology employed for the extended Phase 1 habitat survey and desk study can be found within the Extended Phase 1 habitat report in Appendix As a result of the findings of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, a number of targeted species and habitat surveys were undertaken during 2009 to enable a thorough evaluation of the existing ecological baseline within the Assessment Site. The scope and extent of these further surveys are presented in Table 15.1 and full methodologies for each survey can be found within the individual protected species reports in Appendices 15.2 to Table 15.1: Species and Habitat Surveys undertaken in support of this Ecological Impact Assessment Survey Type Survey Dates Brief Description of methods Relevant Appendix Hedgerow 7 September 2009 Standard field survey Appendix 15.2 methodology Botanical 28 and 29 July 2009 Quadrat sampling Appendix 15.3 Reptile 8 23 September Seven repeat lifts using artificial Appendix refugia Bat 23 July 22 Emergence/re-entry, activity Appendix 15.5 September 2009 transects and point sampling (including remote sampling), 3 repeat visits. Dormouse 1 October 2009 Nut search Appendix 15.6 Invertebrate 27 July 25 September Great Crested Newt (Habitat Suitability Index) Sweep netting, beating, suction sampling, pit-fall trapping and malaise trapping. 3 September 2009 Standard field survey methodology Badger 1 October 2009 Standard field survey methodology Appendix 15.7 Appendix 15.8 Appendix 15.9 Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) Methodology The ecological assessment has been conducted with reference to the methodology set out within the IEEM Guidelines (Ref ). A summary of the assessment methodology is provided in Table 15.2 and the bullet points below /A5/ES January 2010

8 Summary of EcIA steps: Define a Zone of Influence i.e. the areas/resources that may be affected by changes caused by the Overall Development. This has been defined in paragraphs and is illustrated in Figure 15.1; Assign a baseline value to each ecological receptor within the Zone of Influence using a geographic scale of significance, Table Valuations are described within the baseline conditions below; Assign a threshold value below which ecological receptors will not be considered as significant, and therefore not included within this assessment. For the purposes of this assessment, a threshold value of Site (Low) value has been set; Characterise the potential effects of construction (including site clearance activity) and operational phases of the development in accordance with a range of ecological factors (including structure, function, fragility and connectivity) and state magnitude, extent, duration, reversibility, frequency and phenology associated with each of these effects; and Assign a significance level to each potential effect based upon the geographical scale at which it is considered. Table 15.2: Significance Scale Geographic Significance International UK or National (i.e. Country) Regional County Borough Local (i.e. at a Parish scale) Site (Assessment Site) Less than site scale Relation to Significance Scale that is used in other chapters High High High High Medium Medium Low Negligible To facilitate comparisons between other technical chapters of the ES, the geographic scale of significance has been aligned with the significance scale of negligible, low, medium and high that is used throughout the rest of the ES. This is presented in Table 15.2 of this Chapter In Ecological Impact Assessment, the geographical significance scale is used twice (Ref 15.14). In the first instance it is used to value the ecological receptor. The scale is then revisited to assign the significance level of the arising impact. It is therefore possible for an adverse impact on a receptor of County ecological value to be significant only at a Borough scale (for example, if the receptor is only partially affected or the effect is only temporary) /A5/ES January 2010

9 15.34 Species or habitats relevant to the Assessment Site that are afforded legal protection have been identified in this assessment. It should be noted that legal protection does not necessarily infer ecological value The assessment of the ecological effects of the Overall Development has been an iterative process where the findings of the baseline surveys have been used to inform the design of the development parameters and as such, many potential effects on the local ecologically sensitive receptors have been avoided The intention of this chapter is not to document all stages of the ecological assessment process, but to present the final conclusions of the assessment in a concise manner in order to inform a planning decision. Detailed information to support the statements within this chapter can be found within the Appendices 15.2 to 15.9 and are referred to throughout this chapter. Zone of Influence The Zone of Influence is shown on Figure This constitutes all areas of land which have the potential to be affected by the Overall Development and have therefore been considered within this assessment. If, on further consideration, land within the Zone of Influence has been found to be unaffected by the Overall Development then this is stated (for example, paragraph ). Habitats The Zone of Influence includes all of the habitats within the Assessment Site, plus the adjacent London Exeter railway line Designated wildlife sites within 2km of the Assessment Site have been assessed to determine whether they could potentially be affected by the Overall Development. These are listed within the Phase 1 habitat report (Appendix 15.1, chapter 4: Baseline Conditions). Of the designated sites present within 2km, potential effects are only considered likely for Harewood Forest. This Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) is therefore included within the Zone of Influence. Species All legally protected and UK or Local BAP species dependent on the habitats within this Zone of Influence are assessed. These have been identified to be local populations of bats, birds, reptiles and dormice. A more general assessment of effects on habitat connectivity in the 12212/A5/ES January 2010

10 Assessment Site (which relates to a wider range of species in the local area) will also be undertaken. Baseline Conditions Baseline Conditions in The value of the ecological receptors within the Zone of Influence are described below. These have been based on the findings of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, specialist species surveys and desk study information (including locally recorded protected species information) undertaken in The baseline conditions in 2011 are considered likely to be very similar to those found on-site in 2009, since no changes in land use are anticipated between now and then. Supporting information, including full habitat descriptions, is set out within the Extended Phase 1 habitat report in Appendix 15.1 and the individual protected species and habitat reports in Appendices 15.2 to Harewood Forest (Off- Site) Harewood Forest SINC is a large ancient woodland which lies to the south-east of the Assessment Site boundary and is less than 0.7km distance at its nearest point. The Forest is valued for its ancient woodland habitat, which is a UK BAP priority habitat and which supports a wide range of species including European protected species such as bat and dormice. The site is of County (high) wildlife value. There are a number of public rights of way which pass through the Forest and it is used for recreational activities. Broad-Leaved Plantation Woodland One area of broad-leaved plantation woodland exists on-site (an orchard) and a second area is present directly adjacent to the Assessment Site (the London Exeter railway embankment). These are described in detail within the phase 1 habitat report and shown on Figure The broad-leaved woodland both on and adjacent to the Assessment Site is of Borough (medium) ecological value. This value is assigned due to the maturity of the trees and, in the case of the London Exeter railway embankment, the ecological connectivity it provides to the wider countryside Old orchards can also support old or rare varieties of fruit trees and can be of cultural as well as ecological value /A5/ES January 2010

11 Mixed Plantation Woodland In the south-east of the Assessment Site is a small block of mature mixed plantation woodland, within a residential garden and is described in the phase 1 report (Appendix 15.1). The mixed plantation woodland covers a tiny proportion of the Assessment Site and is dominated by non-native tree species. It is considered to be of site (low) value only. Native Hedgerows The majority of the field boundaries on-site are well established, native hedgerows. All of these native hedgerows qualify under the UK BAP priority habitat criteria, in that they comprise over 80% native species and are over 20m in length. The findings of the hedgerow survey (Appendix 15.2) have enabled the relative values of the hedges to be assessed in greater detail. Of the 52 native hedgerows surveyed, 17 hedgerows are considered important in ecological terms under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (Ref. 15.8); these 17 hedgerows and an additional 20 hedgerows on-site are also classified as species-rich species-poor native hedgerows are present on-site Important and species rich hedges are generally of greater value for wildlife however the habitat should be viewed as a network and the isolation of hedgerows substantially decreases their value. The hedgerows on-site provide connectivity with the adjacent broadleaved plantation woodland habitat and woodland along the London Exeter railway line on the northern boundary of the Assessment Site. The hedgerows also provide habitat for wildlife such as nesting birds, foraging and commuting habitat for bats and hibernation habitat for amphibians and reptiles. Finally, they are an important food source and the prevalence of unmanaged and low intensity managed hedgerows present on the Assessment Site increases the quantity of nuts and fruit that are produced. This is of particular benefit to birds and small mammals, including mice, voles and dormice (see section 15.80) The hedgerows on-site are considered to provide a sizable network of priority habitat identified in the UKBAP. Hampshire occupies 2.8% of England and has 4.6% of England s hedgerows based on national estimates of hedgerow length (Ref Hampshire BAP habitat action plan for hedgerows) and therefore the hedgerow resource of Hampshire is significant at the national scale. The habitat action plan also relates that large parts of the Open Arable identified by the habitat action plan tend to have lower density and generally poorer quality hedgerows. Examples include the predominantly arable area between Winchester, Andover and Basingstoke where the Assessment Site lies and therefore the 1 In order to provide clarification of ecological value a distinction was made between species rich and species poor hedgerows, with a species rich hedgerow being defined by the pre-2007 UK BAP classification (as those with an average of five or more native woody species within the 30m surveyed sections) /A5/ES January 2010

12 presence of a good hedgerow network with a high number of species rich hedgerows is considered to be of Borough (medium) importance. Non-Native Hedgerows There are several coniferous hedges on-site. These are predominantly Leyland cypress (Chamaecyparis leylandii), but other unidentified conifer species are also present. These have been planted to provide landscape screens for some of the more industrial land-uses (such as the commercial centre, the self-storage area and the poultry farm). The non-native hedgerows do not qualify as UK BAP priority habitat and, being non-native, do not provide a significant source of food or shelter for native species. They also tend to shade-out native flora, preventing the natural colonisation of scrub or herb species along the hedge. Overall, the non-native hedgerows are considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value. Continuous and Scattered Scrub Scrub is frequent across the Assessment Site in areas of low-intensity management and areas left unmanaged. Scattered scrub is particularly prevalent at the far end of fields that adjoin residential properties, where mowing and hedge-management does not occur. Furthermore, some dense stands of continuous scrub have established across disused field access routes and in disused fields, especially in the north-west of the Assessment Site The scrub habitats on-site augment the existing network of hedgerows and scrub habitats can be of value to a wide range of species (including nesting birds). However, the scrub at the Assessment Site was not found to support a significant invertebrate assemblage and reptiles were only found to use the scattered scrub north of Walworth Road (as shown on Figure 15.2). Finally, scrub habitat is common, readily re-created and is quick to establish in a wide range of conditions. For these reasons, the scrub on-site is considered to be of less than site (negligible) value except where is specifically provides habitat for slow-worms (slow-worm habitat is assessed in paragraph below). Continuous Bracken Two patches of continuous bracken are present on-site, on either side of a wide, outgrown native hedge. The bracken occupies a very small area of land and is not of significance ecological value in its own right. However, the bracken habitat falls entirely within the hedgerow/ scrub/ grassland habitat mosaic that supports slow-worms in the north-west of the site. The value of the bracken habitat is therefore directly linked to the value of the site for slow-worms. For this reason it is therefore considered to be County (high) value /A5/ES January 2010

13 Tall Ruderal Tall ruderal habitats are present at field edges and across areas of disturbed ground, predominantly in the north. There is some overlap between this habitat and the grasslands described below. This habitat was allocated a provisional local value in the Phase 1 habitat report (Appendix 15.1) but surveys have since shown that there is no significant invertebrate value to this habitat. It is acknowledged that tall ruderal plants can provide a seed source for birds and for this reason the tall ruderal habitat is considered to be of site (low) value. Scattered Trees The scattered trees on-site comprise a high proportion of non-native species and are generally immature. For these reasons, they are not currently of significant wildlife value. Overall, the scattered trees on-site are considered to be of site (low) value only. Improved and Amenity Grassland Approximately half of the fields on the Assessment Site are either amenity or improved grassland. The improved grassland exists across fields that are intensively grazed by horses, goats, chickens or cattle (or cut for silage). These show signs of significant nutrient enrichment and, across the large fields, likely re-seeding with grasses that are productive for grazing. They have a low species diversity and a high proportion of grasses in the sward The amenity grassland is located around the residential gardens and in front of the selfstorage area in the far north-east of the Assessment Site. These grasses are regularly mown and dominated by species such as perennial rye grass and white clover. This habitat type is defined by the intensive management regime, which restricts flowering and seed production thereby lowering the value of the grasslands Both the improved and the amenity grassland on-site are considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value. Semi-Improved Grassland The semi-improved grassland habitat on-site varies in quality, structure and species composition. These grasslands were the subject of a detailed botanical survey in July 2009, to determine their wildlife value and species diversity. The results of the survey are discussed below and can be found in Appendix /A5/ES January 2010

14 15.59 The semi-improved grasslands fall into four habitat categories. The most species rich grasslands are those within habitat category S-I (4) and these are calcareous grasslands that appear to be relatively undisturbed. The least species rich grasslands are more neutral in character and have generally been horse grazed, these have been allocated to habitat category S-I (1). Please refer to the botanical report (Appendix 15.3) for detailed descriptions of each habitat type It is considered likely that the differences observed between each grassland type are more influenced by current management regimes than the underlying ground conditions and it is considered likely that the majority of these semi-improved grassland areas have the potential to be restored to reasonably rich chalk grassland if subjected to an appropriate management regime None of the grasslands surveyed qualify as UK BAP priority Habitats, Local BAP priority Habitats or County Wildlife Site grassland. Overall, the semi-improved grassland on-site is considered to provide an ecological resource that is of local (medium) wildlife value Some of the grassland habitat in the north of the Assessment Site supports a population of slow-worms, which are legally protected species. These are discussed further in paragraph below. Arable Two arable fields are present on-site, one of which is a narrow strip of land to the rear of a property in the north-east of the Assessment Site, whilst the other is a larger agricultural field accessed from Ox Drove to the south of the Assessment Site. Both were ploughed at the time of survey (May) and neither support wide field margins, headlands, set aside or other features which might provide ecological interest. The arable habitat on-site is considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value. Buildings The buildings on-site are also of less than site (negligible) value. No bat roosts are present within buildings on site (one roost has been located in an off-site location, see paragraph for further details). Some of the outhouses and sheds on-site are suitable to support nesting birds (such as starlings and swallows) and this element is discussed under the valuation of the bird assemblage below (paragraph 15.82) /A5/ES January 2010

15 Hard standing Areas of hard standing on the Assessment Site include the tarmac car park in the far northeast of the Assessment Site, the adjacent self-storage site, the land surrounding the poultry units in the south-west, and the access route into the industrial units in the north-west of the Assessment Site. These are all tarmac or hardcore with very few associated species and this habitat is considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value. Bare Ground Two areas of bare ground are present on-site. In the north-east there is a small square of bare ground habitat. This is a sand-school for horses. In the north-west is a rectangle of bare ground habitat, this is a gravel car park supporting a few ruderal species such as forget-me-not and buddleia. The bare ground habitat represents a tiny proportion of the Assessment Site and supports a low diversity and density of vegetation. It is considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value. Ponds One pond is present on the Assessment Site, and a second is present within 500m of the site (the second pond was included within the Assessment Site boundary in July 2009 but the boundary has subsequently been altered). Both ponds are man-made, concrete lined ponds within residential gardens and both support non-native fish and aquatic plant species. The ponds provide the only aquatic habitat on or near to the Assessment Site, and are likely to support some aquatic invertebrate populations and common amphibians, but their small size and artificial surroundings limits their ecological value to that of site (low) scale only The ponds have been assessed for their suitability for great crested newts (Appendix 15.8). Neither pond is considered suitable for great crested newts and the Habitat Suitability Index for both ponds is less than 0.5, equating to a poor pond suitability (Appendix 15.8). Furthermore, no relevant records of great crested newt were recorded in the local area. Great crested newts are considered to be absent from the Assessment Site and do not pose a constraint to its future development. Slow-Worms The findings of the reptile survey (Appendix 15.4) show that all fields that contained suitable reptile habitat were directly adjacent to the London Exeter railway embankment and were found to support slow-worms, a common and widespread species, at low to moderate densities. The highest densities of slow-worms are found in the far north-west 12212/A5/ES January 2010

16 corner of the Assessment Site. No other reptile species were found to be present on the Assessment Site. No fields to the south of Walworth road support reptiles. It appears that Walworth Road, along with associated residential housing, acts as a barrier for slow-worm dispersal within the Assessment Site The number of slow-worms recorded on-site does not indicate an exceptional population and it is considered probable that slow-worms occur along the extent of the London - Exeter railway embankment, wherever similarly suitable rough grassland and scrub exists. It can therefore be concluded that the Assessment Site supports part of a non-exceptional population of slow-worms, which are a widespread but declining and threatened species that are identified as being of principle importance to the conservation of biodiversity (i.e. a UK BAP priority species). As such, the slow-worm population on-site is considered to be of County (high) ecological value. Furthermore, the habitat that directly supports the slow worm on site is also of County (high) value. This includes all of the semi-improved grassland, hedgerows, scrub and bracken that falls within the area that slow-worms have been recorded. The extent of the slow-worm population is shown on Figure 1 of Appendix 15.4). There are also legal implications associated with the presence of this species. Bats Bat surveys have been undertaken on the Assessment Site in 2009, and the findings of the surveys are reported in full in Appendix Bat roosts: None of the buildings within the development parameters have been found to support roosting bats and there are very few mature trees within the Assessment site Boundary which could provide potential tree-roosting opportunities One building, just outside of the Assessment Site was included within the bat surveys as it was within the ecological survey area 2, and was considered to have a medium potential to support bats. This building supports a transient bat roost for up to three different bat species (common pipistrelle, brown long-eared bats and potentially serotine bats). This is the residential property called Building 3 in the bat report (Appendix 15.5) and building 12 in the Phase 1 habitat survey (Appendix 15.1). The building is marked as building 12 on Figure The survey evidence suggests that this is a transitional roost, due to the low numbers of bats recorded using it, although access for internal inspection would need to be granted in order to fully determine the extent of bat use at this roost. The roost is 2 At the onset of ecological surveys the exact red-line application boundary had not been determined. The ecological survey area was therefore devised, to enable baseline assessments to proceed. The ecological survey area represents the maximum extent of any potential application boundary for the site /A5/ES January 2010

17 considered to be of Borough (medium) value, since it is a known temporary roosting site for three European protected species. If the roost is also used as a maternity roost or hibernation roost then its status would be elevated to county (high) value. (This higher value will be used within this ecological impact assessment, in keeping with the precautionary principle) Only two residential properties fall directly within the development parameters. These are building 5 and building 18 as described within Appendix E of the Phase 1 habitat survey (Appendix 15.1). Both buildings have low potential to support roosting bats Bat foraging and commuting habitat: At least five species of bat have been recorded over the site. In order of abundance these are: Common pipistrelle; serotine; noctule; Myotis species (at least one species); long-eared bat (at least one species). Key foraging and commuting areas for bats have been identified and are illustrated on Figure 3 within the Bat Report (Appendix 15.5). This identifies hedgerows, woodland and fields where bats were most frequently recorded. It also highlights areas which are considered to be important to bats due to their plant species composition, close vicinity or connectivity to areas of high bat activity. The key areas include: the overgrown hedgerow/tree line along the railway embankment which is considered to be a particularly important commuting route for foraging pipistrelles; and the grassland/scrub/hedgerow mosaics in the central and eastern parts of the Assessment Site which are used by a locally high number of serotines The whole site is used by a low number of noctules and the open grassland and hedgerow network is likely to provide the greatest value to this species Despite the presence of a roost close to the site, Myotis bats did not appear to forage within the Assessment Site, and this may be due to the relatively high density of street and house lights throughout No long-eared bats were registered during the activity surveys however it is likely they will have been under recorded due to their low intensity calls. This species are thought to forage within woodland and woodland edge habitat and is likely to forage over the outgrown hedgerows woodland on-site and also within nearby woodland The Assessment Site is considered to be of local (low) value for foraging and commuting bats (especially Pipistrelles and serotines) /A5/ES January 2010

18 Dormice The potential presence of dormice on-site was scoped out during the Phase 1 habitat survey due to the absence of any connectivity between the Assessment Site and any woodland habitat, and the patchy distribution of suitable hedgerows. However, in September 2009 WSP were made aware of a previous dormouse survey that had been undertaken at Picket Piece in 2004 during which dormouse were found to be present. A plan showing dormouse distribution in 2004 has been obtained (see Figure 2 of Appendix 15.6). The plan shows that dormice were found to be present within three separate parts of the Assessment Site in Two of these areas are within Phase One and the third is within the subsequent development area. As a result of these findings, a nut search was undertaken in October 2009 and the presence of dormice within the subsequent development area was confirmed. The nut-search survey method was not viable for the other two parts of the Assessment Site due to the absence of hazel (see Appendix 15.6). Therefore, no current presence or absence data are available for dormouse within the Phase One area. Accordingly, for the purposes of this assessment, dormice have been assumed present in all three locations in which they have been previously recorded, in keeping with the precautionary principle Dormice are legally protected under European legislation due to continued declines in population numbers and distributional range. The dormouse population on-site is therefore considered to be of county (high) value. Due to the small size and fragmented nature of the habitat on-site, the long-term viability of the dormouse population on-site appears to be threatened, even in the absence of development (see Appendix 15.6). Birds One building on-site (a wooden stable) has been observed to support nesting swallows (Building B26 on Figure 15.2). Old birds nests were also observed in and on a number of the small stables and sheds that occur throughout the Assessment Site, indicating that the Assessment Site supports a healthy population of nesting birds, as would be expected by the combination of hedgerows and grassland habitats on the Assessment Site and the relatively low intensity of land management across the majority of the Assessment Site. The survey window for breeding bird surveys is March July and as such it has not been possible to undertake bird surveys for the preparation of this chapter. Breeding bird surveys will be conducted at the earliest opportunity, in the appropriate season (Spring 2010). In the meantime, a provisional value has been allocated to the bird assemblage, which is considered to be of Borough (medium) value due to the range of habitats on-site /A5/ES January 2010

19 Invertebrates Invertebrate surveys were undertaken between July and September 2009 and the results are reported in the invertebrate report (Appendix 15.7). A total of 322 invertebrate species were recorded, and this indicates that the survey effort was sufficient. This number cannot be used to infer ecological value of the site, which is discussed below and within Appendix 15.7) No legally protected, red data book or UK BAP priority species were recorded on-site 3 and no rare invertebrate species of significance (in the professional opinion of the invertebrate specialist) have been recorded. Refer to Appendix 2 of the the invertebrate report (Appendix 15.7) for an explanation of the invertebrate status codes Three nationally scarce species were recorded on the Assessment Site, as follows: The solitary bee Colletes hederae was until recently not known from Britain. Its arrival from France is probably a reflection of climate change. It colonised the South Coast within the past ten years and has now established itself north to mid-hampshire. The adults feed on ivy blossom, and the discovery of adults both on ivy during surveys at the Assessment Site represents a new location for this colonising species; The mining bee Lasioglossum xanthopus is present on site. It is more normally associated with calcareous grassland, coastal landslips and sea cliffs, but it has been found with increasing frequency at inland sites in the past ten years or so and it may be a species that is responding favourably to climate change; and Roesel's Bush-cricket Metrioptera roeselii has, recent years, undergone a very large expansion of range that is almost certainly climate-driven. This species has been found to be present on the site. In most years the insects develop without the ability to fly, but in favourable (hot) summers the females develop winged forms that are able to disperse after mating and establish populations in new areas. In the south-east of England, this cricket is present in considerable abundance in grassland habitats, including set-a-side, field margins, road verges and lightly grazed pastures where there is plenty of vegetation cover. The Nationally Notable status is probably no longer warranted Eleven nationally local 4 species were recorded, within a variety of habitats on the Assessment Site. These are species that, whilst fairly common, are evidently not a common as truly 3 Excepting a moth species which is a research only BAP species and is not of conservation concern. 4 species which, whilst fairly common, are evidently less widespread than truly common species (see Appendix 2 of the invertebrate report in Appendix 15.7) /A5/ES January 2010

20 widespread species. They include flies, beetles and leaf-hoppers and were found in grassland and hedgerow habitats Whilst overall the semi-natural habitats at the Assessment Site form a habitat mosaic of local importance, some parts of that mosaic make a greater contribution to the invertebrate value of the Assessment Site than others as described below The network of hedges and occasional tree groups and scrub, including inaccessible areas alongside the railway tracks, probably input the single most important significance to invertebrate ecology at the Assessment Site. Hedges have two particular attributes in terms of their support of invertebrate ecology their intrinsic quality and their use as corridors for physical movement across the landscape. Due to the maturity and species diversity within the hedgerow network at the Assessment Site, the hedgerows are considered to have a very high invertebrate value. In particular, hedgerows containing wild privet (a total of 25 hedgerows) are considered to be of potential value to the Barred Tooth-striped moth (Trichopteryx polycommata) a nationally rare insect that is included as a priority Species within the UK BAP. The moth is known from this south central area of Britain and in some areas the habitat at the Assessment Site is considered to be ideal. Surveys for this species were not possible due to seasonal restrictions The mosaic of gardens and other habitats, including the derelict orchard area, to the north of the main road through the village presents a generally attractive range of habitats to invertebrates. Although contributing to the overall green mosaic, remaining areas of the Assessment Site currently have an apparently lower value to invertebrates or else are replaceable Overall the Assessment Site is considered to be of Borough (medium) importance for invertebrates due to the importance of the hedgerow network that is present. Invasive species No invasive species that are listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 have been found on the Assessment Site. A small patch of Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) is present within scrub in the north-west of the Assessment Site (Target Note 2 on Figure 15.2). This is an invasive species although not currently listed under any legislation. 5 This moth species can only be searched for between mid- March and June, which was outside of the 2009 survey period /A5/ES January 2010

21 15.92 Parrot s-feather (Meriophylum aquaticum), a highly invasive, non-native aquatic species, is present in one of the ponds on-site (Target note 6 on Figure 15.2). A wildlife value is not applicable to invasive species. Other species Great crested newts and badgers are absent from the Assessment Site and have been scoped out of this assessment. Please refer to the separate newt and badger reports for further information (Appendix 15.8 and 15.9 respectively) Table 15.3 provides a summary of the existing baseline ecological values. Table 15.3: Summary of Baseline Ecological Values Feature Value Legal Protection Scoped in or out of subsequent effect assessment (where scoped out, brief reason is given) Harewood Forest County (high) No In Broad-leaved woodland Borough No In (medium) Mixed plantation woodland Site (low) No In Native Hedge Borough Yes (some In (medium) hedgerows) Non-native Hedge Less than site No Out low ecological value (Negligible) Continuous and scattered scrub No Bracken Less than site (Negligible) (County value where slow worm are present) County (high) (as slow-worm habitat) No Out low ecological value, effects in relation to slow worm are scoped in. In effects in relation to slow worm are scope in. Tall Ruderal Site (low) No In Scattered trees Site (low) No In Improved and Amenity Less than site No Out low ecological value grassland (Negligible) Semi-improved grassland Local (medium) No In (County value where slowworm are present) Arable Less than site No Out low ecological value (Negligible) Building Less than site No (except Out low ecological value (Negligible) where nesting birds) Hardstanding Less than site No Out low ecological value (Negligible) Bare ground Less than site No Out low ecological value (Negligible) Ponds Site (low) No Out both ponds now fall outside of the red line boundary. Slow-worm County (high) Yes In 12212/A5/ES January 2010

22 Feature Value Legal Protection Scoped in or out of subsequent effect assessment (where scoped out, brief reason is given) In In Bats: roost foraging County (high) Local (low) Yes No Dormouse County (high) Yes In Bird Borough Yes In (medium) Invertebrate Borough No In (medium) Invasive species N/A No In due to risk of adverse effects Great crested newts Absent No Out absent from site Badger Absent No Out absent from site Baseline Conditions in In the absence of development, the baseline conditions on the Assessment Site in 2015 would be expected to be broadly similar to those described above. In particular, the hedgerows, trees and managed grasslands would be expected to remain the same. Some of the immature trees would be expected to increase in size, but four years is a relatively short time-span and would not bring about a significant change in the ecological value of the tree stock on-site Where land management is currently not undertaken, or undertaken sporadically, it can be predicted that some of the existing grasslands might revert to scrub habitat, and the areas of existing patchy scrub might progress to dense, continuous scrub cover. This would reduce the suitability of the land in the north-west of the Assessment Site for slow-worms, potentially resulting in a decline in the slow-worm population on site and a shift in the invertebrate assemblage present. Scrub encroachment could also reduce the floristic diversity of some of the grasslands. Conversely, should areas of grassland that are currently intensively mown or grazed be left unmanaged, these would be expected to increase in ecological value and provide new habitat suitable for reptiles and increased value to invertebrates The future baseline conditions in 2015 depend largely on the management practices that are in place at the time. Since the Assessment Site is under multiple ownership (and therefore each land parcel is subject to its own management regime) it is considered likely that the overall ecological value of the Assessment Site would be expected to remain the same. Baseline Conditions in Baseline conditions would be expected change in line with the description above, right through to In general, if the overall use of the fields was to decline across the 12212/A5/ES January 2010

23 Assessment Site, there would be an increase in the overall ecological value of the Assessment Site. Conversely, if the overall use of fields was to intensify (for example, if a greater proportion of the fields were used for livestock) then the overall ecological value of the Assessment Site would decrease. There are some nuances which would not follow this trend, such as the potential loss of suitable reptile habitat and species rich grassland as described above, which might come about if unmanaged fields are left unmanaged (so revert to scrub) and managed fields remain managed in a relatively intensive way (therefore not progressing to species rich, rank grassland) Approximately one third of the existing hedgerow network is protected under the Hedgerow Regulations, 1997 and therefore permission from TVBC would be required prior to their removal. The remaining hedgerows could potentially be removed without any such permission, and some hedgerow removal has clearly already been undertaken at the Assessment Site since the original layout of private small holdings. It is therefore possible that, even in the absence of development, further hedgerow removal could occur at the Assessment Site over the next ten years, without any requirement for compensatory planting and this could lead to a reduction in the value of the hedgerow network (the severity of which will be proportional to the amount of hedgerow removal which occurs) It can be concluded that the overall ecological value of the Assessment Site is not secured in 2017, even in the absence of development, since changes to the current land use could significantly change the value of the Assessment Site for better or for worse. Likely Significant Effects Construction of Phase One In the absence of mitigation, the following effects are likely to arise from the construction of Phase One in relation to the baseline conditions for Effects excluded from the construction of Phase One Several of the receptors scoped into the assessment would not be affected during the construction of Phase One There would be no significant construction effects on Harewood Forest due to the large distance between the Assessment Site and the forest. The access routes for construction traffic are via the existing road network and do not pass near the Forest. Neither will additional noise or dust arising from the construction process be significant in relation to the background levels arising from Andover town centre and the Walworth industrial estate /A5/ES January 2010

24 Slow worm will not be affected during construction of Phase One, since they are absent from the Phase One site. The same is also true for bracken, tall ruderal habitat and broad-leaved woodland Effects to habitats of site value that are within Phase One are discussed under loss of other semi-natural vegetation in paragraph These habitats are mixed plantation woodland and scattered trees. Loss and Degradation of Hedgerow Habitat (and habitat connectivity) Hedgerow retention has been a priority in the design of the development parameters, and approximately 80% of existing hedgerows will be retained, meaning that the overall connectivity of hedgerow habitat across the Assessment Site will largely be retained. However, some losses have been unavoidable and the Overall Development will bring about a loss of one of the 17 hedgerows qualifying as important under the hedgerow regulations and 3 of the 20 species-rich hedgerows. Importantly, all but one of hedgerows that are assumed to support dormice will be retained (see paragraph for further details). There will also be some degradation of retained hedgerows, where it has been necessary to fragment them with roads. A significant amount of replacement planting is proposed in the soft-estate, but this will take time to become established. The loss and degradation of hedgerows during the construction of Phase One is considered to be a certain temporary adverse effect of Borough (medium) wildlife value, since it amounts to a loss of over 1km of UK BAP priority habitat for a duration of approximately 8 years (4 years during the construction process and a further 4 years to allow the new planting to become established) Since construction activities will occur in close proximity to the retained hedgerows, there is also a high risk of accidental damage to these hedges, in the absence of mitigation, which could lead to degradation or destruction of the hedgerows intended for retention. This would also be an adverse effect of Borough (medium) significance, and there could be associated legal implications 6. Loss of Semi-Improved Grassland Substantial areas of semi-improved grassland will be excluded from the construction footprint of the Phase One development, in regions proposed for informal and formal public space in the south-east of Phase One to the south of Ox Drove and land adjacent to the village hall in the centre of Phase One and this will ensure continuity of this habitat type on-site throughout the construction period. Nonetheless, the construction of Phase One will bring 6 A legal offence would be committed if hedgerows are removed for which full planning permission has not been granted /A5/ES January 2010

25 about a loss of semi-improved grassland habitat in the western and eastern areas which will amount to an approximate 50% reduction in semi-improved grassland of local (medium) wildlife value at the site clearance stage Additional species-rich grassland creation is proposed over approximately 1.5 ha in the final scheme for Phase one, and retained grassland will also be enhanced. However, the enhancement and new creation of grassland will take a few years to take effect and therefore the construction effects on grassland habitat as a result of the Phase One development are considered to a certain temporary, adverse effect of site-scale significance 7. Loss of Other Semi-natural Vegetation In addition to the habitats assessed above, the construction of Phase One will lead to a wider loss of semi-natural vegetation. This includes habitats of site value such as a small area of mixed plantation woodland and some scattered trees When assessed in combination with the effects on hedges and grassland above, it is considered that this wider loss of vegetation will bring about a temporary adverse effect on common and widespread animals and plants on the Assessment Site for the early stages of the construction activity (before soft-landscaping has been created). This is considered to be a certain temporary, adverse effect of site (low) significance. Effects on Bats Phase One of the Overall Development does not affect any known bat roosts and the single building-roost identified during surveys does not fall within the Phase One boundary. Neither are long-term adverse effects on tree-roosting bats likely, since the Assessment Site does not contain a significant resource of trees with roosting potential, and only a small proportion of these will be lost to development leading to no significant change in the value of the site for tree roosting bats. One dwelling (Building number 18 on Figure 15.2) with low bat potential will be demolished as a result of the Phase One development. For the purposes of this assessment, bats are assumed absent based on external assessments of the suitability of the building, but this will require confirmation through internal inspections (see section ). There is a risk that construction activity could bring about the killing or injury of individual bats, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, and this would be a possible, permanent adverse effect of county significance. There would also be associated legal implications. 7 The effect is significant at a scale that is lower than the ecological value since only partial habitat loss will occur /A5/ES January 2010

26 Effects on foraging bats will occur as a result of the loss of existing key foraging or commuting resources (as illustrated on Figure 3 of the Bat Report, Appendix 15.5). The main area of loss will be in the central/eastern part of Phase One where existing grassland fields will be converted to residential development. High levels of serotine bat activity were recorded here, and a roost is suspected to be present somewhere locally (off-site). Serotines preferentially feed in open habitats and edge habitats such as the semi-improved grassland/hedgerow matrix on-site. Whilst it is possible that levels of bat activity could remain high over the construction areas of the Overall Development (due to the compensatory effects of temporary tall ruderal habitat likely to establish across large areas of the construction site during the four year construction process) it is probable that significant areas of the Assessment Site will be temporarily unsuitable for foraging bats for the duration of the construction activities as a result of habitat loss during the site clearance stages. Since alternative proven foraging and commuting routes exist across the Assessment Site (in particular along the London Exeter railway line to the north) and these will remain unaffected during the construction of Phase One, it is considered likely that most bat species will simply utilise alternative routes and foraging areas during the construction phase, perhaps travelling further afield than they otherwise would in search of suitable foraging habitat (e.g. Harewood Forest, to the south of the Assessment Site, or the retained grassland/hedgerow present immediately south of Ox Drove) It is therefore unlikely that the temporary effect of the construction work will lead to a significant effect on bats at any scale. This is therefore a negligible effect. Effects on Dormice Almost all of the existing dormouse habitat on-site will be retained in Phase One, with the exception of hedgerow 24 (see Figure 2 of the hedgerow report, Appendix 15.6). Unmitigated, removal of this hedge could lead to killing or injury of dormice and loss of dormouse habitat, although it is not known whether this species is still present in this location (see ) Extensive effort has been made to retain the existing level of hedgerow connectivity and coverage in the Overall Development, and to consolidate suitable dormouse habitat by providing wide buffers to the retained hedgerows. However, even if the Overall Development were not to proceed, it is considered possible that dormice could be lost from both areas where they are considered to be present in Phase One (see Appendix 15.6) Due to the existing vulnerability of the dormouse population on-site any adverse effect on the habitat resource or individual dormice would lead to a permanent adverse effect on the 12212/A5/ES January 2010

27 dormouse population on-site, which is considered to be of county significance. There are also associated legal implications. Effects on Birds The bird interest of the Assessment Site is likely to be closely linked to the hedgerow habitat and residential gardens. Due to the significant levels of hedgerow retention, significant effects on the availability of nesting habitat for the existing bird assemblage are not likely to occur during the construction phase. However, in the absence of appropriate mitigation direct effects on nesting birds could arise during the construction of Phase One as result of insufficient protection of hedgerows or inappropriate timing of vegetation clearance. This is considered to be a possible, temporary adverse effect of local significance. There are associated legal implications. Effects on Invertebrates The greatest invertebrate interest on the Assessment Site is within the hedgerows and an important factor is the age of the hedgerow network. Since direct compensation for hedgerow loss would require greater than 100 years to reach an equivalent invertebrate interest, it is considered that the effects of hedgerow loss is most accurately described as a permanent and irreversible effect. Ancient or species-rich hedgerows have been preferentially retained over species poor hedgerows (see effects on hedgerows, paragraph ) and therefore the 20% reduction in the existing hedgerow network is not likely to be directly comparable to 20% reduction in invertebrate value. In fact, the effects are considered to be far less, and might be expressed at about a 10% in the distribution of the most valuable invertebrate assemblage currently on-site However, a new range of micro-habitats attractive to invertebrates will be created as an incidental result of construction activity. These will comprise bare earth and an abundance of tall ruderal habitat during the early construction phase, giving way to gardens, permanent scrub, new hedgerows and species-rich grasslands as the scheme and landscaping progresses. Many of these are habitats that are easily re-created and as such might be considered to be of less value than the established hedgerows that will be lost. Therefore, in the absence of specific compensatory or enhancement measures the construction of Phase One would have a probable permanent adverse effect of site significance 8 on the invertebrate interest of the Assessment Site. 8 The effect is significant at a scale that is lower than the ecological value since only partial habitat loss will occur /A5/ES January 2010

28 Invasive Species The presence of the invasive species Parrot s-feather in the Phase One development footprint means that site clearance activities could potentially lead to the further spread of this species in the wild. For example, the material could be removed from the Assessment Site and disposed of elsewhere, introducing a risk of contamination of watercourses further afield. Parrot s-feather is an aggressive coloniser in the wild. It out-competes native species leading to a reduction in biodiversity along watercourses because it reduces the availability of food/shelter/oxygen and other factors within the ecosystem. It can also create a serious flood risk. This is considered to be a possible, permanent adverse effect of local significance. Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Development The operational effects of Phase One are assessed below, in combination with the construction of the Subsequent Development phases as these are likely to occur together. This is anticipated to occur in 2015 to For the reasons described in paragraphs the ecological baseline for the subsequent development has been assumed to be comparable to the existing baseline. Where in-combination effects of the operation of Phase One and the construction of the subsequent development are not discussed, it should be assumed that no significant in-combination effects exist. Hedgerows and Habitat Connectivity The construction of subsequent phases of the Overall Development will result in no loss of native hedgerows, although some fragmentation will occur as a result of new roads. This fragmentation is not likely to prevent movement of species across the Assessment Site (due to the retention of existing mature vegetation, including areas of bracken and tall ruderal habitat, along the railway line), and the resulting effect is unlikely to be significant at any scale. There would be no additional effect as a result of the operation of Phase One since all compensatory habitat creation will be in place The creation of a wide buffer strip abutting the London Exeter railway line, in which extensive compensatory planting is proposed (in the form of native hedgerows, scrub and species-rich grassland, creating a habitat mosaic) is likely to enhance habitat connectivity, such that the overall effect on hedgerows and connectivity on the Assessment Site will be neutral (and therefore is considered negligible) /A5/ES January 2010

29 Loss of Semi-Improved Grassland The overall Subsequent development to the north of Walworth Road will bring about losses of semi-improved grassland habitat in the region of 4ha or 75% of the semi-improved grassland of the Assessment Site. This will not be in addition to losses south of Walworth Road, since the compensatory habitat provision in Phase One will have become well established by now, (being implemented from day one of the construction of Phase One and therefore present for four years) This loss will be permanent and irreversible, since there is little scope for provision of large scale replacement grassland habitat in the Overall Development. Since the Assessment Site as a whole enables at least 50% of the existing area of semi-improved grassland to be represented in the final scheme, and since this amounts to a large, functional area of grassland that will be the focus of future wildlife management (circa 5-6ha) it is considered that the high percentage loss of grassland in the area of subsequent development is only of site-level significance. This is considered to be a certain, permanent adverse effect Since slow-worms are present in some of this grassland, there will also be legal implications associated with site clearance. Loss of other Semi-Natural Vegetation (of site value) Construction of the subsequent development will bring about relatively small losses of bracken, scattered trees and tall ruderal habitat of site value, but the majority will be retained within the wide buffer strip along the London - Exeter railway line, and connecting hedgerows. The resulting effect is therefore of negligible significance Furthermore, once Phase One is operational, compensatory planting (including creation of public open space, new structural planting and residential gardens) will have been undertaken across this part of the development and this will off-set any previous effects on construction-stage losses to common and widespread species. This effect is therefore reduced to a negligible effect once Phase One is operational, irrespective of construction of the subsequent development. Effects on Reptiles Construction of the subsequent development could lead to adverse effect to slow-worms, which are present in the north-west of the Assessment Site, in grassland habitat directly adjacent to the London Exeter railway line. The overall area that currently supports slowworms is approximately 3.5ha, of which approximately 50% is within the development 12212/A5/ES January 2010

30 footprint, the remaining areas fall within the retained orchard area or the large buffer strip adjacent to the London Exeter railway line. Both of these areas are highly suitable for the retention and enhancement of reptile habitat Even without specific reptile mitigation measures, the existing slow-worm population would be retained on-site if the development were to proceed, although in the absence of habitat enhancement the overall population size might be reduced by up to 50% (in line with habitat reductions) Without appropriate safeguards in place during the construction process, there could also be directly killing or injury of some slow-worms as a result of construction The unmitigated effects on slow-worms is considered to be a probable permanent adverse effect of Borough significance and there are associated legal implications. Effects on Bats No significant effects of habitat loss are likely to occur to bats as a result of the construction of the subsequent development As with Phase One, there is a risk that individual tree felling could bring about the killing or injury of individual bats, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures. This is considered to be a possible, permanent, adverse effect of County (medium) significance. There are also associated legal implications. One dwelling with low bat potential will be demolished as a result of the subsequent development. For the purposes of this assessment, bats are assumed absent based on external assessments of the suitability of the building, but this will require confirmation through internal inspections (see section ) In the absence of appropriate measures, operation of Phase One could result in adverse effects on foraging bats as a result of street lighting and residential security that will be in place in the operational development. This is discussed separately below. Effects on Dormice Dormice are present within part of the subsequent development areas, largely within habitat that will be retained and augmented along the London Exeter railway line. However, as for Phase One, construction activity could adversely affect this species, especially since fragmentation of some hedgerows is likely to make way for road crossings /A5/ES January 2010

31 Operational effects on dormice could also arise at Phase One during this time, as a result of inappropriate hedgerow management, which could compromise the existing dormouse population by reducing the availability of food sources, or lighting effects (as discussed in more detail below) Due to the existing vulnerability of the dormouse population on-site any adverse effect on the habitat resource or individual dormice could lead to a permanent negative effect on the dormouse population on-site, which is considered to be of county significance. There are also associated legal implications. Effects on Birds and Invertebrates The substantial amount of semi-natural habitat retention proposed along the London Exeter railway line within the subsequent development areas, along with retention of existing native hedgerows and the orchard area (which is of some invertebrate value for it s deadwood components), is considered sufficient to ensure that there would be no long-term significant adverese effects on birds or invertebrates within these areas as a result of site clearance activity However, in the absence of appropriate mitigation, direct effects on nesting birds could arise as result of insufficient protection of hedgerows or inappropriate timing of vegetation clearance. This is considered to be a possible, temporary adverse effect of local significance. There are associated legal implications. Invasive Species The presence of the invasive species Himalayan balsam in the subsequent development footprint means that site clearance activities could potentially lead to the further spread of this species. The effects of the spread of this species are as described for Parrot s-feather in paragraph above. This is considered to be a possible, permanent adverse effect of local significance. Effects arising from Artificial Lighting There is the potential for wildlife to be adversely affected by increased artificial night-time lighting on the operational development. Of the species known to be present on the Assessment Site, bats and dormice are thought to be the most vulnerable to night-time lighting, although effects on most invertebrates are largely unknown, and some birds are also adversely affected by lighting (Ref ). The majority of studies to date have been on bats and the effect of lighting on bats has been found to be species-specific, with some 12212/A5/ES January 2010

32 species showing avoidance of lighting and others actively seeking out and foraging around artificial lighting (due to the insects that can be attracted to the lighting) (Ref ). On the Assessment Site, both serotines and pipistrelles appear unaffected by the existing light spill. In fact, pipistrelles were often found feeding around street lamps. Wider research supports these observations and it is generally accepted that these species often feed on insects attracted to artificial light (Ref ). That is not to say that there are no adverse effects of lighting on these species since artificial lighting is thought to increase the chances of such bats being preyed upon and may adversely affect other natural behaviour (Ref ). In view of current knowledge of bats and lighting, it is considered that as long as certain important foraging and commuting areas are retained (as indicated in recommendations below), the increased light spill from other areas will not significantly affect these species In contrast, Myotis bats are known to be particularly sensitive to lighting effects and actively avoid light. Artificial lighting can therefore prevent movement of such bats across otherwise suitable habitat (Ref ). At least one Myotis species is roosting within Picket Piece (outside of the Assessment Site), yet apparently not spending significant time foraging on the Assessment Site. In the absence of dark corridors through the Assessment Site, Myotis bats could potentially be cut off from their off-site foraging grounds, and the existing roost would therefore no longer be suitable for these species. Long-eared bats are also sensitive to night-time lighting (Ref ) and could be adversely affected. This species uses the Assessment Site, but it has not been possible to ascertain the level of long-eared activity across the Assessment Site (since this species cannot be reliably detected using current bat detector activity) Night-time lighting could adversely affect bats by fragmenting existing commuting corridors and reducing the area of suitable foraging habitat available to light-sensitive bat species, leading to a reduction in the number and diversity of species using the Assessment Site Dormice are a strictly nocturnal species. The affects of artificial lighting on dormice are unknown, but as a small, cryptic, nocturnal species that avoids predation through being undetected, it is reasonable to assume that artificial lighting of their hedgerow habitat could lead to adverse effects such as increased predation or avoidance behaviour The potential unmitigated effect of artificial lighting on some bat species and dormice in the Assessment Site is considered to be a possible, permanent adverse effect of County significance, due to potential worst-case scenario effects, which could result in a loss of these species from the Assessment Site. Effect to Harewood Forest (Recreation) 12212/A5/ES January 2010

33 Consideration has been given to the potential for the operation of Phase One to bring about adverse effects on nearby sensitive receptors. The only possible effect that could arise is an increase in recreational pressure on Harewood Forest. Public footpaths run through Harewood Forest and it is used for informal recreation. It is considered possible that residents could make use of Harewood Forest as one of the nearest available public area suitable for dog walking etc, however, since the Overall Development involves approximately 4ha of informal and formal public space, which is more convenient to the residents, it is considered that these areas will be used preferentially. Therefore, no significant effects resulting from recreational pressure are considered likely at Harwood Forest. Operation of the Overall Development (i.e. Phase One and Subsequent Development complete) The likely significant effects of the whole development once complete and occupied (i.e. Phase One plus the subsequent development) when compared to the baseline conditions described for 2017 (which are considered to be equivalent to the current baseline conditions). Effects arising from Artificial Lighting The effects of lighting at this stage (when night-time lighting has also been installed into the subsequent developments) will be similar to that already described on completion of Phase One, except that a larger area of land would be affected, including the existing dark wildlife corridor along the railway line. This would remain a possible, permanent adverse effect of County significance. Additional Recreational Pressure to Harewood Forest The provision of substantial areas of formal and informal open space within the Phase One development is considered likely to be more attractive to new residents of the Overall Development than the more distant Harwood Forest, therefore adverse effects from additional recreational pressures are considered unlikely to be significant. Mitigation Measures The ecological mitigation measures for each sensitive receptor comprise two phases: The protection of the receptor during construction processes (avoidance) followed by habitat creation measures post-construction (compensation and enhancement). Examples of 12212/A5/ES January 2010

34 compensatory and enhancement measures include supplementary species planting, augmentation of existing features and creation of entirely new habitats All protection measures will be put in place before site clearance activities begin within any given construction areas, whilst compensation and enhancement will be implemented as land becomes available. This means that compensation and enhancement of the majority of large grassland areas (e.g. the areas of public open space) and some of the hedgerow connections (e.g. in the south and east) will begin at the onset of construction activity, whilst other measures may not be implemented until the later stages of the construction period (such as planting of new hedges along the central road, creation of residential gardens and hedgerow planting around the boundaries of the residential development) Since the ecological mitigation measures for each receptor are a complete package of avoidance, compensation and enhancement, these are described together in this section and an indication of the phasing of the mitigation is provided alongside these descriptions. The residual effects have been determined on the basis of the likely progress of each area of mitigation at the end of each of the three development stages (i.e. at 2015, 2017 and completion of subsequent development ) Where mitigation is not required, it has been excluded from this section. Mitigation for Hedgerow Loss and Degradation Accidental damage to hedgerows retained in the development parameters will be avoided through the use of protective fencing in accordance with BS5837:2005 and the appointment of a Construction Environmental Manager who will be responsible for implementing all habitat protection measures on the Assessment Site during construction Substantial compensatory habitat creation will occur during the construction stages of the Phase One development to off-set the adverse effect of hedgerow loss and degradation. This will involve supplementary native species planting to enhance the retained hedgerows, and create new lengths of species-rich hedgerow. There will also be domestic hedgerow planting (a mixture of native and near native species) around almost all of the boundaries between existing residential housing and new residential housing, thereby increasing the overall amount of structural vegetation (hedgerows and trees) on-site by approximately 20%. It is the intention that a large proportion of the retained and created hedgerows on site will eventually come under a 3-5 year rotational cutting regime, which would be described within a habitat management plan for the hedges /A5/ES January 2010

35 The net increase in the quantity of hedgerows and trees on-site will go a long way to compensate for the reduction in established hedgerows on the Assessment Site In the subsequent development areas, the existing habitat network will not be significantly affected due to the retention and enhancement of the wide buffer of semi-natural vegetation along the London - Exeter railway line. Therefore no mitigation is required. Mitigation for Loss of Semi-improved Grassland Semi-improved grassland retention and creation is proposed throughout Phase One, within areas of informal and formal public space which include the three large fields to the south of Ox Drove, the fields to the back of the village hall and smaller strips of grassland adjacent to retained hedgerows. Many of these are located over existing species-rich grassland although there are some notable exceptions. For example, the large arable field south of Ox Drove will be converted into an open grassland area Species-rich grasslands will be created in the areas of informal and formal public space through habitat management and natural species colonisation in preference to re-seeding with a wild flower mix. The reason for this is two-fold; a) the underlying substrate is chalk and existing areas of grassland left unmanaged on the Assessment Site currently exhibit a species-rich composition, providing confidence that species rich grasslands can be successfully created/ re-created on the Assessment Site; and b) natural recolonisation retains a local, native gene pool in the area, without risk of introducing horticultural varieties and sub-species that originate from other regions in Britain or Europe The future management of the grasslands will is most likely to be undertaken by Test Valley Borough Council. A habitat management plan will be devised for the grasslands to ensure that appropriate ecological management techniques are used across the grasslands. Management will seek to promote herb-rich grassland whilst restricting encroachment by scrub, nettle and ragwort, such that the grassland habitat is maintained in the long-term. Scrub removal will not seek to eliminate scrub from the Assessment Site (as it is of wildlife value in itself) but will ensure that a sensible balance is maintained between scrub and grassland. An annual or twice-yearly cut should be sufficient to appropriately manage this habitat. Cutting/mowing of the nettle areas and pulling of ragwort may need to be undertaken more regularly, perhaps three or four times a year. Again, the aim will be to control but not eradicate these two species, as both have wildlife value, especially to certain butterfly species. All cut material will be removed from the grassland to prevent further nutrient enrichment through organic decomposition. This can be stored in piles on the edge of the habitat to provide habitat for reptiles and invertebrates /A5/ES January 2010

36 Where grasslands exist along hedgerow lengths, cycle paths or footpaths, these may need to be mown on a more regular basis and mowing in these areas will be undertaken rotationally, to reduce effects on invertebrates and ensure continuity of long-grass habitat on the Assessment Site Since the aim is to create species-rich grassland from the existing grasslands on-site, the management plan for the grasslands will need to be under continual review, and changes made as necessary, in response to the emerging site conditions. An ecologist will therefore be involved in the development of the habitat management and the review process There is little scope for extensive habitat replacement to compensate for the grassland loss in the subsequent development. However, once established, the quality of retained grassland will be greater than that lost, and will be secured in the long term. Furthermore, some of the lost grassland habitats across the Assessment Site will be replaced by gardens, which can contain a high density of flowering species of value to many invertebrate species. Mitigation for Semi-natural Vegetation The adverse effect of site (low) significance that will arise through losses of semi-natural vegetation relate solely to the construction-stage loss of habitat connectivity across Phase One. The only measure available to mitigate this effect would be to retain a greater proportion of semi-natural habitat on site at any one time during construction. This would bring about an unreasonable restriction to construction movements on the site and is not considered to be practical to implement. Therefore no mitigation is recommended. Mitigation for Bats Since bats tend to use tree-roosts in a more temporary and transitional manner than building roosts, it will be necessary to undertake pre-felling inspections of any mature trees that are proposed to be lost at the detailed design stage. Such inspections should begin within six months of the proposed felling works, and initial ground-inspection surveys may need to be followed by subsequent climb and inspect investigations or evening emergence survey The two dwellings that fall within the Assessment Site (building 5 and 18 on Figure 15.2) have been assessed as holding low potential for roosting bats, meaning that it is highly unlikely that bats would be found present in the buildings. However, they have not been the subject of specific bat surveys and since bats have been known to roost within surprising and apparently unsuitable locations it is recommended that a precautionary pre-demolition inspection of both buildings is undertaken, prior to the onset of demolition activity. One 12212/A5/ES January 2010

37 building is within the Phase One development, the second is within the subsequent development area In the unlikely event that bats are found to be roosting within any tree or building that is to be lost, a European Protected Species licence would be required from Natural England for the development to proceed, including a detailed Method Statement describing how the works would be undertaken (in a manner that would avoid harming bats) and the measures that would be taken to compensate for the loss of the original roosts Bats will benefit directly from the proposed species-rich grassland and hedgerow creation on the site, which will come under a management programme, thereby securing foraging grounds for bats in the long-term Further enhancement for bats will be provided through the inclusion of woodcrete bat boxes or bat bricks within some of the new housing, to introduce additional roosting opportunities for bats into the Assessment Site These mitigation measures will be adopted throughout the Phase One development and the subsequent development. Mitigation for Dormice Since the long-term future of dormice on-site is considered to be threatened even in the absence of development, significant enhancement of the existing situation is proposed as part of the Overall Development, in order to secure a viable habitat for dormice on-site in the future Mitigation for dormice has been built into the scheme design so that there is confidence that the new scheme will have sufficient capacity within it to accommodate a population of dormice, should they be confirmed to be present during nest tube surveys which will be conducted between April October This has been achieved through the following measures; a) Increasing the availability of food within the hedges supporting dormice; these hedges currently contain virtually no hazel (favoured by dormice) and, in the east, are dominated by several large coniferous trees which provide no food for dormice. Careful supplementary planting of species such as hazel, wayfaring tree, honeysuckle and occasional oak standards will be undertaken within new and retained hedges to increase the variety of food that is available. In addition, wide buffers have been secured around these hedgerows, allowing them to be managed specifically to benefit dormice by being 12212/A5/ES January 2010

38 cut on a 3-5 rotation whereby alternate sides of the hedge are cut each time, so that there is a continual food supply each year. b) Increasing the connectivity of habitat for dormice; the retained dormouse habitat is linked to the wider hedgerow network through the development, and similar enhancements will take place along these hedgerows (although some of the hedgerows are set within narrower buffers and these will necessarily be managed on a shorter rotation). In particular, the hedges along the eastern boundary will be linked to the wide hedgerow buffer that surrounds the public open space proposed in the south-east. Although these hedgerows are separated by Ox Drove, links for dormice will be established by encouraging tree canopies to meet above the road (either using existing vegetation or by planting oak trees on either side of Ox Drove). This canopy connection could be supplemented by a specific dormouse crossing as illustrated in the dormouse conservation handbook (Ref ) and this will be undertaken if further surveys identify dormice in this area. c) The creation of the wide buffer zone along the railway line in the Subsequent Development area will deliver a large increase in the amount of available dormouse habitat in the Overall Development and is a significant enhancement to the existing situation. d) If dormice are confirmed to be present during the 2010 surveys, monitoring of the dormouse population will take place. Monitoring will begin in the year following any disturbance to dormouse habitat (i.e. after the licenced displacement or translocation of the species) and would continue for a period of 5 years (appropriate intervals for this monitoring will be agreed with Natural England as part of the licencing process). This provides important information about the existing and future composition and size of the dormouse population and will directly influence the on-going habitat creation and management methods at the site All works that could lead to disturbance of dormouse habitat will require a European Protected Species licence from Natural England. This will include the clearance of small areas of hedgerow to make way for the road networks (in Phase One and the subsequent development) and the removal of hedgerow number 24, as part of the site clearance activities for the Phase One development. The mitigation approach (and therefore the European Protected Species licence application) will be informed by the findings of a nesttube survey conducted from April to October It is most likely that the clearance methods employed will involve displacement of dormice using the hedge into the adjacent, retained, suitable habitat through persuasion techniques (as described within NE, 2006 Ref 15.21). This approach would involve enhancement of adjacent suitable habitat through additional planting and bespoke habitat management measures during summer and autumn. This would be followed by careful clearance of a high proportion of the above-ground sections of the hedge during winter, taking care to avoid disturbance to hibernating dormice 12212/A5/ES January 2010

39 at the hedge base. In this way, dormice emerging from hibernation in the spring are persuaded to move into the adjacent suitable habitat. Once emergence is complete (usually the end of May) full clearance of the hedge can continue. A full method statement including a detailed assessment of the resulting impacts to dormice will be submitted to Natural England as part of the EPS licence application, for their approval Within the subsequent development areas, the creation of additional dormouse habitat within the wide buffer zone adjacent to the railway line will lead to an enhancement of the existing situation The habitat clearance measures described above have the potential conflict with site clearance measures for nesting birds and reptiles, and an overall site clearance strategy will be developed at the detailed planning stage, to ensure all ecological constraints are appropriately avoided during site clearance activity. Mitigation for Birds To avoid adverse effects on nesting birds during the construction phase of the development, general site clearance works (removal of scrub, trees and hedgerows and building demolition work) will be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season in order to prevent any adverse effects on nesting birds in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, (1981) (Ref. 15.6). This mitigation applies to all phases of the Overall Development In addition to the mitigation and enhancement measure that will be adopted across the seminatural habitats on-site, new habitat types (buildings and gardens) will be introduced on to the Assessment Site as a result of the Overall Development which will potentially attract additional bird species to breed on-site. For example, starling, house sparrow, house martin and swallow have all been recorded in the local area meaning that they could adopt habitats proposed within the application site. These species are red and amber listed (i.e. of conservation concern) and starling and house sparrow are also UK BAP priority species. For these reasons species-specific nest boxes and/or nest bricks will be incorporated into the new housing specifically targeting these four species Recommendations for the timing of site-clearance work has the potential conflict with site clearance measures for dormice and reptiles, and an overall site clearance strategy will be developed at the detailed planning stage, to ensure all ecological constraints are appropriately avoided during site clearance activity /A5/ES January 2010

40 Mitigation for Invertebrates Effects of habitat loss on invertebrates will be compensated for through habitat creation. This includes the significant amounts of new hedgerow and tree planting, which will be exclusively native species in the areas of open space, and will contain a mix of native and near-native species along the more urban areas (for example, street trees and in residential gardens). Please see Chapter 8 of this ES (Landscape and Visual Assessment) for an indicative species list. A particular emphasis will be placed on the provision of wild privet within new species-rich hedgerows, due to the value of this species to the barred stripedmoth Dead wood habitats will be created using material that is cut-down during the site clearance phase. This will involve the creation of buried log piles within some new grassland areas, and the creation of small brash piles along the wider retained hedgerow strips (these may be used to protect newly planted hedgerow species from deer grazing With the exception of sports fields and LEAPs/NEAPs, all grassland will be managed to benefit wildlife (i.e. allowing grasses and herbs to flower and set seed). In addition, all of the hedgerows will be set within small grassland buffers (c. 2m), enabling the establishment of long-grass habitat at the hedge base. Therefore, whilst there is a net loss in semiimproved grassland habitat on-site, the quality of retained grassland for invertebrates will be high, and this value will be secured in the long-term through appropriate habitat management. Mitigation for Reptiles Although no reptiles were found within Phase One, it is best practice to adopt a precautionary approach when clearing any habitat suitable for reptiles. This is because some species (specifically grass snake) are very mobile and may pass through sites at low densities, undetected by standard survey methods. Precautionary site clearance measures will therefore be undertaken in the suitable reptile habitat across the Assessment Site. This involves undertaking specific grassland vegetation clearance between May and September (when reptiles are active) and dismantling large scrub piles by hand to ensure reptiles have sufficient time to escape from scrub clearance activities In the subsequent development areas, habitat retention and enhancement will occur across approximately 50% of the current range of slow-worms on-site. It is therefore considered that the most appropriate form of mitigation is to encourage slow-worms to move out of the development areas and into the adjacent areas of habitat retention directly adjacent to the railway line, which can then be protected during the construction phase /A5/ES January 2010

41 This would be achieved by cutting all vegetation in the affected areas to a height of 15 cm at least two days in advance of commencement of any development works. This vegetation management should be carried out by, or under the supervision of, a suitably experienced ecologist to ensure that no reptiles are harmed in the process and should avoid the coldest part of the year, when reptiles are less active (generally October- April). Other potential ecological constraints would need to be considered when scheduling such vegetation management (e.g. nesting bird seasons) and it may be necessary for site clearance to be undertaken in two or more phases, or under specific ecological supervision. Once the vegetation has been cut to a height of 15 cm, it would be maintained at this height until ground clearance works begin. Ground clearance would be carried out under the supervision of a suitably experienced ecologist, in case any reptiles were still present. Using appropriate machinery, the upper layer of top soil and any remaining vegetation would be scraped away slowly so as to allow the ecologist to search for reptiles and, if found, transport them to a safe location such as within the retained vegetation alongside the railway line The above method is considered to be more desirable than a reptile translocation, as it will result in less disruption to the slow-worm population Enhancement of the receptor land would be undertaken in advance, to ensure that the land has sufficient carrying capacity to accommodate the additional slow-worms. This would include the creation of rank grassland and scrub, hedgerow edge habitat and the provision of reptile hibernacula (log, rubble or wood chipping piles). A method statement describing the reptile mitigation plan, including all site clearance and enhancement measures, would be submitted to Natural England for approval, prior to the onset of the displacement activity These measures have the potential to conflict with site clearance measures for dormice and nesting birds, and an overall site clearance strategy should be developed at the detailed planning stage, to ensure all ecological constraints are appropriately avoided during site clearance activity. Mitigation of Increased Artificial Lighting To minimise the potential for adverse effects of night-time lighting during the operation of the development, a sensitive lighting strategy will be adopted such that dark passages are retained to enable light-sensitive wildlife (including bats and dormice) to commute and forage across the Assessment Site Where possible, lighting will be directed away from areas of semi-natural vegetation and the use of high specification luminaries (lights) will be considered across the most sensitive areas 12212/A5/ES January 2010

42 of the scheme, where street lighting backs on to wide hedgerow buffers. In these locations it is recommended that luminaries have a full horizontal cut-off, thereby directing light only onto the surfaces that need to be lit and limiting light-spill into the night sky In addition, the new vegetative planting that will be introduced across the Overall Development will act as baffles (screens) that will partially shield the surrounding open countryside from light-spill. This is particularly the case along the railway line, which will remain dark through a combination of the very wide buffer zone and the patches of tree planting which will further shield the river from the effects of light spill or glare from residential properties. The footpath lighting in this area will be of the appropriate specification and orientation to avoid light spill into the buffer zone (and additional baffles or screens may be inserted into the luminaries to further direct lighting away from the seminatural vegetation). Mitigation for Invasive Species A control strategy will be put in place for both of the invasive species that are present on the site. This will follow Environment Agency guidelines (Ref ) and the aim of the strategy will be to eliminate both species from the site. It is most-likely that Parrot s-feather will be eradicated in one attempt by removing it from the pond and burning it on-site. The Himalayan balsam is more appropriately controlled over three years by pulling or cutting in June on an annual basis until no further growth occurs (cut material should be burnt), however burning in one season can also be successful. Residual Effects Construction of Phase One Loss and Degradation of Hedgerow Habitat (and Habitat Connectivity) Protection of the retained hedgerows will guarantee that the construction effects on hedgerows is minimised as far as possible and this reduces the construction phase effects on an adverse effect of site-scale significance. It also means that any potential legal issues will be avoided The compensatory effects of the supplementary planting and hedgerow creation are unlikely to be fully in place by the end of the construction period, since the planting will be immature. This compensatory habitat has therefore not been included within the assessment of residual effects at the end of the construction of Phase One /A5/ES January 2010

43 Loss of Semi-improved Grassland Since the largest areas of grassland creation will be available from the beginning of the construction phase, the compensatory grassland habitat will be approximately 4 years old at the end of the construction period. At this point it will be reasonably well established, and many of the micro-habitats of wildlife value will be in place. The residual effect is therefore considered to be neutral (negligible) even at the construction phase. Loss of Other Semi-Natural Vegetation (of Site Value) The ecological mitigation for overall losses of semi-natural vegetation relates to a combination of grassland creation, hedgerow planting and residential gardens. Whilst the full network of vegetation will be in place at the end of the construction period, this will include immature components (such as trees and hedgerows) and it is considered that the overall effect of site clearance will not be mitigated until the vegetation has matured (i.e. a few years into the operation phase). The residual effect at the end of construction of Phase One is therefore considered to remain as a certain temporary, adverse effect of site-scale significance. Effects on Bats The mitigation will ensure that no killing or injury of bats occurs, thereby removing any potential for adverse effects on roosting bats to take place (and eliminating the potential for a legal offence to occur). Furthermore, construction stage effects on foraging bats are considered negligible even without mitigation. Therefore, the residual effect on roosting and foraging bats is considered to be negligible at the end of the construction phase. Effects on Dormice The adoption of the mitigation measures will ensure that direct killing or injury of dormice will be avoided and will lead to an enhancement of the existing situation for dormice on-site. This is considered to be a beneficial effect. Effects on Birds With the adoption of scrub clearance in the correct season, direct effects on nesting birds will be avoided. This mitigation, combined with the retention of 80% of the hedgerow network means effects on birds will be negligible during the construction of Phase One /A5/ES January 2010

44 Effects on Invertebrates In combination with the wider habitat retention and landscape planting proposals, the additional habitat creation for invertebrates is considered to provide partial compensation for the adverse effect of the construction phase on invertebrates. Whilst it is not likely that the existing assemblage of invertebrates would remain on the Assessment Site after site clearance has been undertaken, invertebrates will colonise the newly created permanent habitats within retained grasslands. They will also benefit from temporary habitats such as stands of tall ruderal vegetation, although the significant construction activity is likely to reduce the overall value of the site for invertebrates, during the construction of Phase One The residual effect on invertebrates at this stage is likely to remain as an adverse effect of site-scale significance. Invasive Species The responsible removal of invasive aquatic plants from the Assessment Site removes the risk of future contamination of local aquatic environments. This is considered to be a positive effect of site-scale significance. Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Phases Loss of Semi-Improved Grassland Additional losses of semi-improved grassland habitat during construction of subsequent development will be partially compensated for through enhancement and management of retained grassland areas and eventual creation of residential gardens. However, there is no space for additional creation of grassland in order to fully off-set grassland losses and it is considered that there will be a certain, permanent adverse effect of site significance as a result of the construction of the subsequent development The mitigation measures for slow-worms will ensure that site clearance does not bring about a legal offence. Hedgerows and Habitat Connectivity Once the new planting within Phase One has been in place for approximately 10 years it is considered that it will be sufficiently mature to adequately compensate for the adverse effects on hedgerows, and the ecological value of the new planting will continue to increase with time. Furthermore, the additional construction activity within subsequent development 12212/A5/ES January 2010

45 will not bring about an additional significant effect to this habitat type. Therefore, once Phase One is operational, the residual effect on hedgerows and habitat connectivity will be neutral (negligible) with the adoption of the mitigation measures described above. Loss of other Semi-natural Vegetation (of site value) This effect is reduced to a negligible effect across the Assessment Site as a result of compensatory planting. Effects on Bats The mitigation will ensure that no killing or injury of bats occurs, thereby removing any potential for adverse effect to roosting bats to take place (and eliminating the potential for a legal offence to occur). In addition, habitat creation and management in the operational stage of Phase One will retain the foraging interest of the Assessment Site and provide roosting opportunities. Therefore, the residual effect on roosting and foraging bats is considered to be negligible at the end of the construction phase. (Please note that lighting effects are considered separately below). Effects on Dormice The adoption of the mitigation measures will ensure that direct killing or injury of dormice will be avoided and will lead to an enhancement of the existing situation for any dormice onsite. This is considered to be a possible beneficial effect. The significance of the effect is dependent on whether the measures lead to the long-term security of dormice on the Assessment Site. If this is achieved this would be of county significance. Effects on Birds and Invertebrates With the adoption of scrub clearance in the correct season, direct effects on nesting birds will be avoided and the residual effect on birds will be negligible Once the Phase One development is operational, the habitat grassland, hedgerow and garden habitat creation will be in place, and the specific measures such as provision of dead wood habitat will have matured. At this stage, the residual effects on invertebrates are considered to be reduced to negligible /A5/ES January 2010

46 Effect to Reptiles With the adoption of the mitigation described above, slow-worms will be retained on-site, even during the construction stages of the subsequent development. The resulting effect is negligible. Effects arising from Artificial Lighting If the mitigation recommendations described above are adopted within the operational Phase One development, the resulting effects of artificial lighting on wildlife would be negligible. Effects on Harewood Forest (Recreation) The effect remains unchanged (as described in paragraph ) and is negligible. Operation of the Overall Development (i.e. Phase One and Subsequent Development complete) Effects arising from Artificial Lighting If the mitigation recommendations described above are adopted within the Overall Development, the resulting effects of artificial lighting on wildlife would be negligible. Effects on Harewood Forest (Recreation) The effect remains unchanged (as described in paragraph ) and is a negligible. Cumulative Effects Of the cumulative schemes presented in Table 2.2, it is not considered that there would be any cumulative effects on ecology as a result of the Andover Airfield development, because of its location approximately 5km west of the Assessment Site on the far side of Andover. This site is therefore excluded from the assessment The East Anton and Picket Twenty schemes are both within 1km of the Assessment Site and have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on ecology East Anton comprises a large development located over predominantly arable land. Field sizes are very large and there are few interconnecting hedgerows across the site /A5/ES January 2010

47 Picket Twenty is located over a mixture of arable and pastoral farmland. Field sizes are smaller than at East Anton, and there is a reasonable hedgerow network throughout the site. It also appears that this site supports semi-natural habitat types such as scrub and semiimproved grassland. The site adjoins the Harewood Forest SINC It is assumed that each scheme will have been designed in accordance with the standard ecological principles of avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement to ensure that the developments do not bring about significant adverse ecological effects. However, as for the Overall Development, some adverse effects are unavoidable. Where adverse affects occur for each cumulative scheme, it is possible that these may form a cumulative effect of a greater significance than each independent effect, and this is assessed below. Construction of Phase One Adverse Effects At the Assessment Site, the construction of Phase One will lead to a residual adverse effect to hedgerow habitat (UK BAP habitat), habitat connectivity and invertebrates. These effects are likely to be significant at a site-scale only. That is to say that the wider ecology of the local area would not be significantly affected East Anton does not appear to contain significant amounts of hedgerow habitat or habitat typically of value to invertebrates, and it is reasonable to assume that the boundary hedgerows will be largely retained within that development. Therefore construction at East Anton is unlikely to contribute to a significant additional pressure on invertebrate populations or hedgerow resources In contrast, Picket Twenty supports some notably wide hedgerows and potentially interesting scrub and grassland habitat and is linked to a woodland of County importance (Harewood Forest). It appears likely that there could be a significant stress to the hedgerow and scrub network during construction activity at Picket Twenty. When this is combined with the construction of Phase One of Picket Piece it is likely that there could be a residual temporary adverse effect on invertebrates, hedgerow habitat and hedgerow connectivity of local significance. This residual effect is likely to last no longer than the duration of construction of the Overall Development and no further mitigation (other than that which has already been described within the impact assessment above) is possible /A5/ES January 2010

48 Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Development Once Phase One of the Overall Development is operational and the subsequent development is under construction, there is only one residual adverse effect. This is due to losses of semi-improved grassland in the subsequent development that cannot be further compensated for. This is considered to be a loss of site-scale significance Losses of semi-improved grassland are also likely to arise across part of Picket Twenty, but would not be a consequence of development of East Anton (which is almost entirely agricultural land). As a result of the provision of new public open space including recreational land and parkland within all of these developments, it is likely that there will be an overall increase in the amount of semi-improved grassland in both schemes that is managed in such a way as to be of ecological value (i.e. annual or bi-annual cuts to allow species to flower and set seed). Furthermore, there will be a big increase in the amount of land laid to residential gardens, which can also provide significant ecological value (especially for birds and invertebrates). It is therefore considered that there will be no additional, cumulative adverse effect, since both the East Anton and Picket Twenty Scheme will be partway complete at this stage and therefore some of the benefits of these schemes will be in place The operational phases of all three developments will lead to an increase in artificial lighting. Provided that sufficient dark corridors are maintained within each development, and lightspill onto adjacent vegetation is avoided, there should be no specific loss of functionality of the local environment with respect to key sensitive receptors. That is to say that light-sensitive species would still be able to move through each site and through the wider countryside. Since light sensitive species of significance on the Assessment Site (bats, birds and invertebrates) would not be excluded from the local area as a result of cumulative effects, it is considered that there would be no cumulative adverse effect of significance However, it should be noted that the mechanism and extent of effects on wildlife arising from artificial lighting are still poorly understood, and therefore the significance of the effect of increased lighting across the east of Andover on common and widespread species is unknown (as is the case for all new development). Operation of the Overall Development (i.e. Phase One and Subsequent Development complete) There are no residual adverse effects for the Overall Development when it is fully operational. When considered in combination with the other two schemes, no additional significant effects are likely. In particular, effects of additional recreational pressure on 12212/A5/ES January 2010

49 nearby sensitive receptors (such as Harewood Forest) are not expected due to the large amount of informal and formal open space that is provided within the Overall Development. It is assumed that the cumulative schemes will include adequate open space for their future occupants. Summary The primary ecological value of the Assessment Site is within the well established and extensive network of hedgerows, which are of Borough value and qualify as UK BAP priority habitat. In addition to their innate wildlife value, they also support invertebrate, bird and bat populations all assessed as of local or Borough value. Dormice also live within these hedgerows in three discrete locations, and these are a receptor of county importance, although their patchy distribution across the Assessment Site indicates that this population may not be viable even in the absence of development Retention of hedgerow habitat has been a primary focus of the design of the development parameters and it has been possible to maintain a valuable network of hedgerows on the Assessment Site through a combination of retention and habitat creation. This has enabled the majority of the existing wildlife value of the site to remain The overarching ecological mitigation measures comprise a site clearance strategy (for the construction phase) and a hedgerow and grassland management plan (for the operational phase) The site clearance strategy will set out the seasonal timing, methodology and, where appropriate, licences required for clearance of semi-natural habitat on the site. The key receptors are bats, reptiles, nesting birds and dormice. Each of these have different optimal seasons for clearance and require slightly different treatments. A co-ordinated approach will therefore be critical to ensuring that adverse effects and legal offences are avoided The hedgerow and grassland management plans will set out the techniques that will be used to create habitats of ecological value and maintain that value in the long-term. This includes measures such as rotational 3-5 yearly cutting for many of the hedgerows and a programme of extensive management to promote natural regeneration within the grasslands Other valuable receptors include slow-worms, along the London Exeter railway line embankment in the north of the subsequent development area and a bat roost, immediately north of Phase One (and therefore off-site). These receptors are of county value and will be retained within the final scheme. Special mitigation measures will be adopted in relation to 12212/A5/ES January 2010

50 the slow-worms and these include enhancement of retained habitat and supervised siteclearance work in the appropriate season The residual effects of the Overall Development on ecology and nature conservation are generally negligible although there will be some temporary adverse effects on hedgerows and habitat connectivity during the construction period, before compensatory habitat provision becomes established. One residual adverse effect of site-scale significance will remain within the Overall Development and that is a residual loss of semi-improved grassland. Substantial grassland retention and creation will take place, and this residual effect is an unavoidable result of development over previously undeveloped ground. The Overall Development will bring about beneficial effects through eradication of invasive weeds and, if achieved, the long term retention of the currently vulnerable dormouse population on the Assessment Site as a result of species-specific habitat enhancements. Long-term population monitoring for dormice will be undertaken in the built scheme Table 15.4 contains a summary of the likely significant effects of the Overall Development /A5/ES January 2010

51 Table 15.4: Table of Significance Potential Effect Nature of Effect (Permanent/ Temporary) Significance (Major/Moderate/Minor) (Beneficial/Adverse/ Negligible) Mitigation / Enhancement Measures Geographical Importance* I UK E R C B L Residual Effects (Major/Moderate/Minor) (Beneficial/Adverse/ Negligible) Construction of Phase One Loss of semi-improved grassland Certain, temporary Adverse site-scale (low) Species-rich grassland restoration. Production and implementation of management plan that is subject to regular review by an ecologist. * Negligible Loss and degradation of hedgerow habitat Certain, Permanent Adverse Borough (medium) Legal implications Protective fencing during construction activities. New planting with native species of local provenance. * Adverse, site-scale (low) Loss of semi-natural vegetation Certain temporary Adverse, site-scale (low) New planting with native species of local provenance. * Adverse, site-scale (low) Effects on roosting Bats (killing and injury) Possible, Permanent Adverse county (high) Legal implications Pre-felling surveys and inspections. EPS licence obtained if necessary. Adoption of bat boxes within new housing. * Negligible Effects on foraging/ commuting bats (habitat loss) Certain temporary Negligible Habitat retention and creation is integral to the scheme design. * Negligible Effects on Dormice (killing, injury and habitat loss) Probable permanent Adverse county (high) Legal implications Nest tube survey from April- October. Enhancement of retained habitats and creation of new habitats. EPS licence obtained prior to onset of any site clearance activity that could affect dormice. Dispersal or translocation of dormice from areas to be cleared. * Negligible to Beneficial, county (high) Effects on Birds (killing and injury) Possible temporary Adverse local (medium) Legal implications Vegetation clearance to avoid March- July inclusive. Develop an overall site clearance strategy, to avoid conflicts between different protected species requirements. * Negligible 12212/A5/ES January 2010

52 Effects on Invertebrates (habitat loss) Invasive species Probable permanent Possible permanent Adverse site-scale (low) Adverse local (medium) Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Development Loss of semi-improved grassland Degradation of hedgerows and habitat connectivity Certain permanent Adverse site-scale (low) Legal implications Bird boxes in new development Retention and long term management of hedgerows and grassland will benefit invertebrates. Specific planting of wild privet within new hedgerows (for the barred striped moth). Creation of buried log piles and brash piles within informal open space. Adoption of control strategy with the aim of eradicating both species from the site. Species-rich grassland restoration. Production and implementation of management plan that is subject to regular review by an ecologist. N/A Negligible Retention of important hedgerows and significant habitat creation along the northern railway line. Retention and creation is integral to the scheme design. Loss of Semi Natural Vegetation N/A Negligible Retention and creation is integral to the scheme design. Effects on roosting Bats (killing and injury) Effects on Dormice (killing, injury and habitat degradation) Effects on birds and invertebrates Possible permanent Possible permanent Possible temporary Adverse County (high) Legal implications Adverse county (high) Legal implications Adverse local (medium) Pre-felling surveys and inspections. EPS licence obtained if necessary. Adoption of bat boxes within new housing. Nest tube survey from April- October. Enhancement of retained habitats and creation of new habitats. EPS licence obtained prior to onset of any site clearance activity that could affect dormice. Dispersal or translocation of dormice from areas to be cleared. Vegetation clearance to avoid March- July inclusive. Develop an overall site clearance * Adverse, site-scale (low) Beneficial, Site-scale (low) * Adverse, site-scale (low) * Negligible * Negligible * Negligible * Negligible to Beneficial, county (high) * Negligible 12212/A5/ES January 2010

53 Legal implications strategy, to avoid conflicts between different protected species Effects on Reptiles (killing, injury and habitat loss) Probable permanent Adverse Borough (medium) Legal implications Mitigation strategy to be submitted to Natural England in advance of site clearance work. This will describe how reptiles will be displaced into retained and enhanced areas on the site. * Negligible Invasive species Possible permanent Adverse local (medium) Adoption of control strategy with the aim of eradicating both species from the site. Beneficial, Site-scale (low) Effects on artificial lighting on wildlife Possible permanent Adverse county (high) Adoption of sensitive lighting strategy to maintain dark corridors. * Negligible Impacts to Harewood Forest N/A Negligible N/A * Negligible Operation of the Overall Development Effects on artificial lighting on wildlife Possible permanent Adverse county (high) Adoption of sensitive lighting strategy to maintain dark corridors. * Negligible Impacts to Harewood Forest N/A negligible N/A * Negligible Cumulative Effects Construction of Phase One: hedgerow loss, habitat connectivity and invertebrates Possible temporary Adverse local (medium) No further mitigation is possible during the construction phase. * Adverse, local (medium) Operation of Phase One and construction of Subsequent Development No significant effects N/A N/A N/A Operation of the Overall Development No significant effects. N/A N/A N/A * Geographical Level of Importance I = International; UK = United Kingdom; E = England; R = Regional; C = County; B = Borough; L = Local 12212/A5/ES January 2010

54 Ecological Constraints Plan Figure 15.1 A3 : 1:22,308 Key 4 Site Boundary 2km Search Area 5 Zone Of Ecological Influence Designated Sites Anton Lakes LNR SINC 1. Ladies Walk Down South 2. Andover (Churchill Way - London Road Verges 3. RV:NS54, A303/A3093 Junction 4. Hackwood Copse 5. Trinley Wood 6. Harewood Forest (2) 7. Harewood Peak 8. Harewood Forest (1) 9. Faulkners Bushes Ancient Woodland Semi-Natural Replanted Protected Species Record Historic GCN Record Brown hare (UK BAP) Dormouse PROJECT: PROJECT No: Client: Picket Piece, Andover Wales Development Ltd Drawn: Checked: Approved: Revision: Date: GH AB AB A November 2009