Land at Whiteditch Lane, Newport, Essex

Transcription

1 Land at Whiteditch Lane, Newport, Essex Ecology Report Produced for Sworders Agricultural By March 2013

2 Document Control: Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by Draft RJH Final RJH DP DP Prepared for: Title: Project number: Document version: Document status: Document date: Sworders Agricultural Whiteditchh Lane, Newport, Essex Ecology Report AEL Final 4 March 2013 Signed on behalf of : Director APPLIED ECOLOGY LTD St. John's Innovation Centre Cowley Road Cambridge CB4 0WS Tel: Fax: Mobile: info@appliedecology.co. uk

3 Contents 1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Legislation 1 Summary 2 2 Survey Approach 3 3 Survey Findings 4 Habitats and Plants 4 Protected Animal Species 4 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 7 Conclusions 7 Recommendations 7 Appendix 1 9 Site Location Plan 9 Figures Figure 3.1: Habitat map 6 04 March 2013

4 04 March 2013

5 1 Introduction Background 1.1 (AEL) were appointed by Sworders Agricultural (on behalf of the landowners) in January 2013 to undertake an ecology walkover survey of an area of arable land (9.1ha in extent) off Whiteditch Lane in Newport, Essex (central grid reference TL ). A figure showing the location of the site is provided in Appendix A walkover survey of the site was completed by AEL on the 6 February 2013 in order to record and evaluate the habitats present, and to assess its potential to support protected animal species that could be of material planning concern for future development of the site. Legislation 1.3 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides the main legal framework for nature conservation and species protection in the UK. The Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is the main statutory nature conservation designation in the UK. Such sites are notable for their plants, or animals, or habitats, their geology or landforms, or a combination of these. Natural England is the key statutory agency in England for advising Government, and for acting as the Government s agent in the delivery of statutory nature conservation designations. 1.4 Designation of a SSSI is a legal process, by which sites are notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act The 1981 Act makes provision for the protection of sites from the effects of changes in land management, and owners and occupiers receive formal notification specifying why the land is of special scientific interest, and listing any operations likely to damage the special interest. 1.5 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, provide supplementary protected species legislation. Specific protection for badgers is provided by the Protection of Badgers Act National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 1.6 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and replaces previous planning policy guidance (PPS 9) on biodiversity. NPPF states in Chapter 9 paragraph 118 the following in relation to biodiversity and planning: When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles: If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; Proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in 1 04 March 2013

6 combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest; Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted; Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged; Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: - Potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation; listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and - Sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined. Summary 1.7 In order to assess the nature conservation and biodiversity value of the proposed development site in accordance with current wildlife legislation and planning policy, a desk assessment and ecological field survey has been completed and is described in this report. 1.8 Chapter 2 and 3 describes the assessment approach and findings, and Chapter 4 provides conclusions and recommendations March 2013

7 2 Survey Approach 2.1 A walkover field survey of the entire site was completed an experienced AEL ecologist ( ) on 6 February 2013, during fine, dry and snow free weather conditions. All field boundaries were walked and associated habitat and botanical information was recorded for dominant and notable habitats and features. 2.2 Evidence of the presence of protected animal species or features of significant potential value in this respect were searched for and recorded during the walkover survey. In the absence of such evidence, a professional judgment assessment of habitat suitability for these species/groups was completed based on habitat extent, condition and connectivity with other habitats March 2013

8 3 Survey Findings Habitats and Plants 3.1 A habitat map is shown by Figure 3.1, with representative photographs provided in Figure The site consists of two separate arable fields, both of which supported cereal stubble during the walkover survey (Photos 1 and 2). The fields supported sparse arable weeds of only a few common species that are evident during the winter, including cleavers Galium aparine, annual meadow grass Poa annua and field forget me not Myosotis arvensis. 3.3 The internal boundary between the two arable fields and the majority of the site s perimeter boundary support hedgerows. In general these hedgerows are relatively speciespoor and lack mature standard trees. For descriptive purposes, the hedgerows have been divided into nine separate sections on the basis of their woody shrub species composition and structure. The locations of the nine sections are shown by Figure 3.1 and the character of each is summarised below. Hedgerow sections H1, H5, H6 and H7 are mixed hawthorn Crataegus monogyna hedges with field maple Acer campestre, elder Sambucus nigra, blackthorn Prunus spinosa and dog rose Rosa canina (e.g. Photo 3). H3, H4 and H9 (a recently planted section) are species poor examples dominated entirely by hawthorn (e.g. Photo 4). H2 is located along a steep sloping embankment and is dominated by dead and dying elm Ulmus species, with a few mature ash Fraxinus excelsior standards. H8 is a mixed blackthorn hedge, with some patches of bramble Rubus agg., elm and dog rose. 3.4 A narrow and sloping rough grassland and tall ruderal verge, dominated by common couch Elytrigia repens, false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius, nettle Urtica dioica and bramble Rubus agg., was present along southern boundary of the site, along the north side of Bury Water Lane (Photo 5). Protected Animal Species Overview 3.5 The site is dominated by in arable land and is of low value in protected species terms. No evidence of protected animal species was recorded during the walkover. 3.6 On the basis of the habitats present the key potential protected species issues identified during the walkover survey can be summarised as: A single mammal dug hole was found along the embankment at hedge section H1 of a size consistent with badger size and shape (Photo 6). No evidence of badger use was found in association with this hole however and the hole was located in an area 4 04 March 2013

9 extensively dug by rabbits. On balance the hole is likely to be the result of tunnel collapse and enlargement of a rabbit dug hole. The presence of a narrow sloping rough grass embankment along the site s southern boundary (northern side of Bury Water Lane) that has some potential to support reptiles. The likely presence of common species of nesting bird within boundary hedgerow habitats, and potentially ground nesting species such as skylark in the arable fields, during the bird breeding period (March July, inclusive). The presence of two off site ponds within 250m of the site (neither was inspected during the walkover), which could theoretically support breeding great crested newts, one in an abandoned area of garden nursery just off site to the south east, and the other a larger water body located around 140m to the southwest of the site. The site itself is of negligible value to terrestrial GCN, but specific GCN survey in April May of these two ponds may be required going forward depending on future development proposals in order to determine the presence/absence of GCN and therefore the potential risk of killing/injuring GCN during any development construction. 3.7 Although further survey for reptiles and off site ponds for GCN may be required, the majority of the site is unsuitable for these species / groups and it is likely that any negative effects of development could be designed out and / or mitigated relatively easily. In summary, no over riding ecological constraints to future development of the site have been identified by the initial walkover survey March 2013

10 H5 H4 Arable land H9 H6 H3 H7 H2 Arable land H1 H8 100 m Key Site boundary Hedgerow secɵon (with secɵon reference number) Land off Whiteditch Lane, Newport, Essex Figure 1: Habitat map

11 Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo 4 Photo 5 Photo 6 Land at Whiteditch Lane, Newport, Essex Photo-sheet

12 4 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions 4.1 In general terms the site is dominated by arable land, with mostly species poor hedgerow boundaries that lack significant mature standard trees or other notable habitat features. 4.2 The site is of limited value to protected animal species with a small linear bank along Bury Water Lane offering habitat conditions potentially suitable for reptiles, and hedgerows that could support nesting birds during the bird breeding period. Two ponds are located within 250m of the site and could theoretically support GCN. Although the site itself supports very little in the way of GCN friendly terrestrial habitat, which is restricted to boundary habitats, specific GCN surveys of these ponds may be required to assess the risk of development construction resulting in negative effects on this species. Recommendations 4.3 The need for further ecology survey will be partly dependent on future development proposals for the site, but recommendations going forward include: Reptile survey If the rough grassland bank along Bury Water Lane is to be lost or damaged, a reptile survey would be required to determine the presence/absence of reptiles from this specific area and the need for associated mitigation. The reptile survey would need to be completed between the months of April September. Great crested newt survey A survey of the two off site ponds to determine their suitability, and if suitable, the presence / absence of GCN should be undertaken; assuming access for survey can be arranged. This survey would need to be completed between April May. If more than a year passes between the current walkover survey and development of the site, a further walkover should be completed in order to check for the presence of badger setts within the site. A specific breeding bird survey is not considered necessary given the lack of habitat diversity and the poor quality of the habitat present within the site. However, site clearance must be completed outside of the bird breeding period (i.e. between the months of August and February) March 2013

13

14 Appendix 1 Site Location Plan 9 04 March 2013

15

16

17 11 04 March 2013

18 , 2013