CAMEL CREEK, TREVIBBAN FARM, CORNWALL

PEGASUS GROUP CAMEL CREEK, TREVIBBAN FARM, CORNWALL e c o l o g y s o l u t i o n s f o r p l a n n e r s a n d d e v e l o p e r s

COPYRIGHT The copyright of this document remains with The contents of this document therefore must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any purpose without the written consent of.

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2 3 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES 5 4 WILDLIFE USE OF THE SITE 11 5 ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION 15 6 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 26 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 29 PLANS PLAN ECO1 PLAN ECO2 PLAN ECO3 Site Location and Ecological Designations Ecological Features Protected Species APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 4 Proposed Site Plan - PRP. March 15. Site Plan. Camel Creek Resort. Drawing No. AA5538_1005 RevD. Information Downloaded from MAGIC Suitable Examples of Bat Boxes Suitable Examples of Bird Boxes

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background & Proposals 1.1.1. was commissioned in by Pegasus Group, to undertake an of Camel Creek, Trevibban Farm, Cornwall (see Plan ECO1). 1.1.2. The proposals for the site are for a resort comprising up to 241 dwellings, with a swimming pool, a lake system, associated open space and landscaping (see Appendix 1). 1.2. Site Characteristics 1.2.1. The Application Site, (hereafter referred to as the site ) is located at Trevibban Farm, Cornwall. The site is bordered to the west and southwest by agricultural fields and open countryside, to the north by residential properties, a vineyard and agricultural fields, and to the east by a wooded stream, with Cornwall s Crealy Great Adventure Park and agricultural fields beyond. To the southeast of the site lies an area of heathland that is designated as the Trelow Downs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 1.2.2. The vast majority of the site itself comprises semi-improved grassland with areas of rush-dominated grassland. The fields are separated by hedgerows and trees, as well as fences and scrub, and there are grass tracks also present through the site. Five buildings are present within the site, with associated areas of hardstanding and amenity grassland and planting. Areas of woodland are present along the eastern and southeastern borders of the site and small areas of scrub are also present, generally associated with the boundary features and wet issues that flow through the site into the stream bordering the eastern and southeastern boundary. 1.3. 1.3.1. This document assesses the ecological interest of the site at Camel Creek, Trevibban Farm, Cornwall. The importance of the habitats within the site is evaluated with due consideration given to the current guidance published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) 1. 1.3.2. Where necessary mitigation measures are recommended so as to safeguard any significant existing ecological interest within the site. Specific enhancement opportunities that are available for habitats and wildlife within the site are detailed where appropriate, with reference to the 'UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework' 2. Finally conclusions are drawn. 1 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html 2 JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries' Biodiversity Group) (2012) UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. July 2012. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189 1

2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2.1. The methodology utilised for the survey work can be split into three areas, namely desk study, habitat survey and faunal survey. These are discussed in more detail below. 2.2. Desk Study 2.2.1. In order to compile background information on the site and the surrounding area, contacted the Environmental Records Centre for Cornwall and The Isles of Scilly (ERCCIS). 2.2.2. Further information on designated sites from a wider search area was obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) 3 database. This information is reproduced at Appendix 2 and where appropriate on Plan ECO1. 2.3. Habitat Survey Methodology 2.3.1. Habitat surveys were carried out in mid- in order to ascertain the general ecological value of the site and to identify the main habitats and associated plant species. 2.3.2. The site was surveyed based around extended Phase 1 survey methodology 4, as recommended by Natural England, whereby the habitat types present are identified and mapped, together with an assessment of the species composition of each habitat. This technique provides an inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of areas of greater potential which require further survey. Any such areas identified can then be examined in more detail. 2.3.3. Using the above method, the site was classified into areas of similar botanical community types, with a representative species list compiled for each habitat identified. 2.3.4. All the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, since different species are apparent at different seasons. Although the surveys were undertaken outside the optimum period for Phase 1 habitat and botanical surveys, given the location of the site in the southwest of Cornwall and the habitats present (dominated by semi-improved grassland separated by hedgerows), it is considered that a robust botanical assessment has been made. 2.4. Faunal Survey 2.4.1. Obvious faunal activity, such as birds or mammals observed visually or by call during the course of the surveys, was recorded. Specific attention was paid to any potential use of the site by protected species, Priority Species, or other notable species. 3 http://www.magic.gov.uk 4 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey a Technique for Environmental Audit. England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, reprinted JNCC, Peterborough. 2

2.4.2. In addition to general observations of faunal activity, specific surveys were undertaken in for bats and Badgers Meles meles. 2.4.3. Experienced ecologists undertook the faunal surveys with regard to established best practice and guidance issued by Natural England. Details of the methodologies employed are given below. Bats 2.4.4. Field surveys were undertaken within the site with regard to best practice guidelines issued by, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2004 5 ) and the Bat Conservation Trust (2012 6 ). 2.4.5. The buildings within the site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats in. In addition, during these surveys the buildings were subject to internal and external surveys using ladders, torches, mirrors, binoculars and an endoscope where necessary. 2.4.6. Evidence of the presence of bats was searched for, with particular attention paid to the roof areas and gaps between rafters and beams. Specific searches were made for bat droppings, which can indicate present or past use and extent of use and other signs to indicate the possible presence of bats e.g. presence of stained areas, or areas that are conspicuously cobweb-free. 2.4.7. In addition, all trees within the site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. Features typically favoured by bats were searched for, including: Obvious holes, e.g. rot holes and old Woodpecker holes; Dark staining on the tree, below the hole; Tiny scratch marks around a hole from bat claws; Cavities, splits and or loose bark from broken or fallen branches, lightning strikes etc; and Very dense covering of mature Ivy over trunk. Badgers 2.4.8. Specific surveys for Badgers were carried out in. 2.4.9. The surveys comprised two main elements. Firstly, searching thoroughly for evidence of Badger setts. For any setts that were encountered standard survey practice would record the location of each sett entrance, even if the entrance appeared disused. The following specific information was recorded where appropriate: i) The number and location of well used or very active entrances; these are clear of any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular use and may, or may not, have been excavated recently. 5 Mitchell-Jones, A.J. & McLeish, A.P. (Eds.) (2004). Bat Workers Manual. 3 rd edition. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 6 Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines (2 nd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust, London. 3

ii) iii) The number and location of inactive entrances; these are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance, or have plants growing in or around the edge of the entrance. The number of disused entrances; these have not been in use for some time, are partly or completely blocked and cannot be used without considerable clearance. If the entrance has been disused for some time all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where the hole used to be together with the remains of the spoil heap. 2.4.10. Secondly, any evidence of Badger activity such as well-worn paths, runthroughs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs was recorded so as to build up a picture of the use of the site by this species. 4

3. ECOLOGICAL FEATURES 3.1. Habitat surveys were undertaken within the site in. 3.2. The following main habitat / vegetation types were identified within (and adjacent to) the site: Semi-improved Grassland; Grass Tracks Rush-dominated Grassland; Scrub-dominated Grassland; Scrub: Woodland; Hedgerows and Trees; Amenity Grassland and Planting; Wet Issues; Stream; and Buildings and Hardstanding. 3.3. The location of these habitats is shown on Plan ECO2. Semi-improved Grassland 3.4. There are a total of eleven semi-improved grassland fields within the site (F1 F11). These semi-improved grassland fields are generally species-poor and are grazed by Red Deer Cervus elaphus. 3.5. The sward within field F1 is dominated by Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne, with abundantly found Creeping Bent Agrostis stolonifera, while Cock s-foot Dactylis glomerata and Soft Rush Juncus effuses are found occasionally. Herbaceous species present include frequently found Dandelion Taraxacum officinale, and occasionally found White Clover Trifolium repens and Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens. Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum, Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius, Common Nettle Urtica dioica, Lesser Celandine Ranunculus ficaria, Broad-leaved Willowherb Epilobium montanum, Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense, Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare, Marsh Thistle Cirsium palustre and Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata are found rarely. 3.6. The sward within field F2 is dominated by Perennial Rye-grass, while Creeping Bent is abundant, Cock s-foot is occasionally found and Soft Rush is found rarely. Herbaceous species present include occasionally found Lesser Celandine, while Common Nettle, Common Mouse-ear, Dandelion, Broadleaved Dock, Dove s-foot Crane s-bill Geranium molle and Creeping Thistle are found rarely. 3.7. The sward within field F3 is dominated by Creeping Bent, with occasional False-oat Grass Arrhenatherum elatius and Cock s-foot recorded occasionally. Herbaceous species present include frequently found White Clover, with Dandelion, Creeping Buttercup, Broad-leaved Dock and Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium found rarely. 3.8. The sward within field F4 is dominated by Perennial Rye-grass, Fescues Festuca sp. are abundant, while Creeping Bent and Cock s-foot are found 5

occasionally and Soft Rush is found rarely. Herbaceous species present include occasionally found White Clover, with Marsh Thistle, Creeping Thistle, Dandelion, Lesser Celandine and Common Nettle recorded rarely. 3.9. The sward within field F5 is dominated by Creeping Bent, with occasionally recorded Cock s-foot, Perennial Rye-grass, Soft Rush and Jointed Rush. Herbaceous species present include occasionally found Dandelion, with Marsh Thistle, Broad-leaved Dock, Ribwort Plantain and Creeping Buttercup recorded rarely. 3.10. The sward within field F6 is dominated by Yorkshire Fog, with frequently found Fescues, occasionally found Creeping Bent and rarely found Cock s-foot. Herbaceous species present include frequently found Creeping Buttercup, with occasionally found Dandelion, Marsh Thistle and Ribwort Plantain, with Common Mouse-ear and Curled Dock Rumex crispus found rarely. 3.11. Within the sward of field F7 Creeping Bent and Yorkshire Fog are abundant, while Cock s-foot and Perennial Rye-grass are occasionally found. Herbaceous species present include frequently found Creeping Buttercup, with Dandelion, Common Nettle, Creeping Thistle and Common Mouse-ear recorded rarely. 3.12. Field F8 is adjoined to field F7 and the two fields are divided by a fence. The species content of field F8 is generally the same as field F7, with the addition of Red Dead-nettle Lamium purpureum, Common Field-speedwell Veronica persica and Bitter-cress Cardamine sp found rarely. 3.13. Fields F9-F11 were recorded as being stocked with Red Deer at the time of surveying. The swards of fields F9-F11 are dominated by Creeping Bent, with rarely found Cock s-foot. Herbaceous species present include frequently found White Clover, with occasional Common Mouse-ear and rarely found Dandelion. Grass Tracks 3.14. Grass tracks are present between fields F3 and F11 and to the west of fields F8, F9 and F11 to provide access. 3.15. The sward of the grass tracks is dominated by Creeping Bent, with Cock s-foot recorded occasionally and Soft Rush found rarely. Herbaceous species present include occasionally recorded Ribwort Plantain, Common Mouse-ear, White Clover and Dandelion, with Broad-leaved Dock and Common Vetch Vicia sativa subsp. segetalis recorded rarely. Rush-dominated Grassland 3.16. Areas of rush-dominated grassland are present within fields F1, F2, F4, F5 and F6. These areas are wet and marshy, and there are wet issues flowing through some of these areas. 3.17. Species present within this habitat are dominated by Soft Rush, Jointed Rush, Bitter-cress Cardamine sp., Creeping Buttercup, Water-dropwort Oeanthe sp., Brooklime Veronica beccabunga and Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea. 6

Scrub-dominated Grassland 3.18. An area of scrub-dominated grassland is present in the northeast of the site, bordering a wet issue. 3.19. Species present within this habitat include Creeping Bent and Cock s-foot, with Bramble Rubus fruticosus and Willow Salix sp scrub. Common Comfrey, Symphytum officinale, Common Sorrel Rumex acetosa, Cleavers Galium aparine, Ribwort Plantain, Soft Rush and, Marsh Thistle are also found. Scrub 3.20. Areas of scrub present within the site are typically associated with boundary features, wet issues and areas of hardstanding. Species present within this habitat include Ash saplings Fraxinus excelsior, Oak saplings Quercus sp. Hazel Corylus avellana, Bramble, Cleavers and Common Nettle. Woodland 3.21. An area of woodland is present bordering and within the eastern and southeastern boundary to the site. A small stream runs through this woodland, and also borders the eastern and southeastern boundaries of the site. 3.22. Tree species present within the woodland include Oak, Willow, Hazel, Silver Birch Betula pendula, Ash, Alder Alnus glutinosa, Sycamore and Pine Pinus sp., with Blackthorn Prunus spinosa, Bramble, Holly Ilex aquifolium and Gorse Ulex europaeus present in the understorey, and Hard Fern Blechnum spicant, Pendulous Sedge Carex pendula, Foxglove Digitalis purpurea and Daffodil Narcissus pseudonarcissus present within the ground flora. Amenity Grassland and Planting 3.23. An area of amenity grassland and planting is present associated with B5 in the north of the site. 3.24. The amenity grassland is dominated by Perennial Rye-grass, with occasionally found Creeping Bent and Cock s-foot. A number of amenity shrubs are also present. Hedgerows and Trees 3.25. Hedgerows are present at the site boundaries and at the field boundaries the majority of which are set on banks. The hedgerows are described individually below. Of the 18 hedgerows present, five are considered to be species-rich (H5, H7, H9, H13, and H14) comprising five or more woody species, while three hedgerows are considered to potentially qualify as being important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (H3, H15, and H17), comprising seven or more woody species. 3.26. Hedgerow H1 is approximately 3m high and is unmanaged. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Gorse, Hawthorn and Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymerum also present within the hedgerow, with Bramble trailing through. Ground floral species present include Red Campion, Hedge Bedstraw Galium mollugo, Hart s-tongue, Hard Fern, Navelwort Umbilicus rupestris, Foxglove, 7

Bracken Pteridium aquilinum, Cleavers, Common Nettle and Ivy. A semimature Oak Quercus sp. tree is also present within the hedgerow. 3.27. Hedgerow H2 is approximately 4m tall and is unmanaged. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn with Hazel, Elm Ulmus sp and Honeysuckle also present within the hedgerow, and Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Primrose, Red Campion, Hedge Bedstraw, Hart s-tongue, Hard Fern, Bracken, Foxglove, Cleavers, Common Nettle and Ivy. 3.28. Hedgerow H3 is approximately 2.5m tall, is unmanaged and has become scrubby in places. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Hazel, Elder, Oak, Wild Privet Ligustrum vulgare, Dog Rose Rosa canina, Field Rose Rosa arvensis and Sycamore also present, and Bramble trailing through. Ground floral species present include Hart s-tongue, Hedge Bedstraw, Cleavers, Herb Robert Geranium robertianum, Common Nettle and Ivy. 3.29. Hedgerow H4 is a Blackthorn dominated hedgerow, with Gorse and Holly found rarely and Bramble trailing through. This hedgerow is approximately 4m tall and is unmanaged, with Red Campion, Bracken, Hart s-tongue, Ground Ivy, Foxglove and Hedge Bedstraw present in the ground flora. 3.30. Hedgerow H5 is approximately 4m tall and is unmanaged. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Honeysuckle, Willow, Hazel, Gorse and Holly also present and Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Navelwort, Red Campion, Foxglove, Primrose, Hedge Bedstraw, Hart s-tongue, Common Nettle and Ivy. 3.31. Hedgerow H6 is a coppiced tree belt comprising immature and semi-mature trees. This hedgerow is dominated by Sycamore and Blackthorn, with Holly and Honeysuckle also present and Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Red Campion, Hart s-tongue, Male Fern, Hedge Bedstraw, Common Nettle and Ivy. 3.32. Hedgerow H7 is dominated by Blackthorn, with Willow, Oak, Gorse and Holly also present and Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Red Campion, Hedge Bedstraw, Hedge Woundwort, Cleavers and Ivy within the ground flora. 3.33. Hedgerow H8 is approximately 4m tall and is unmanaged. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Bramble trailing through. Hazel is abundant in the western half of the hedgerow, while immature / semi-mature Ash and Oak trees are found more frequently in the east of the hedgerow closer to the adjoining woodland. Species present in the ground flora include Red Campion, Wood Sedge Carex sylvatica, Broad-leaved Dock, Hart s-tongue, Male Fern, Bracken, Hedge Woundwort and Cleavers. 3.34. Hedgerow H9 is approximately 4m tall and is unmanaged. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Oak, Hazel, Holly and Honeysuckle also present and Bramble trailing through. Species present in the ground flora include Foxglove, Hart s-tongue, Bracken, Hedge Bedstraw, Hedge Woundwort, Common Nettle and Ivy. 8

3.35. Hedgerow H10 is approximately 4m tall and is gappy in nature. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Hazel also present and Bramble trailing through. Species present in the ground flora include Foxglove, Red Campion, Hedge Bedstraw, Bracken, Cleavers, Common Nettle and Ivy. 3.36. Hedgerow H11 is approximately 4m tall. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Hazel and Elder also present and Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Red Campion, Cleavers and Common Nettle in the ground flora. 3.37. Hedgerow H12 is approximately 4m tall. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Hazel, Elder and Gorse also present and Bramble trailing though. Other species present include Foxglove, Red Campion, Hedge Bedstraw, Bracken, Cleavers, Common Nettle and Ivy. 3.38. Hedgerow H13 is 3-4m tall and is unmanaged. Species present within this hedgerow include Blackthorn, Gorse, Hazel, Honeysuckle and Holly, with Bramble trailing through and Bracken present in the ground flora. 3.39. Hedgerow H14 is approximately 4m tall and is unmanaged. Species present within the hedgerow include Oak, Elder, Blackthorn, Hazel, Gorse and Ash and Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Hart s-tongue, Male Fern, Hedge Bedstraw and Wood Sedge. 3.40. Hedgerow H15 is approximately 3m high and is scrubby and gappy in places. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn, with Willow, Hazel, Dog Rose, Oak, Elm and Honeysuckle also present and Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Foxglove, Red Campion, Hart s-tongue, Bracken, Common Nettle and Ivy. 3.41. Hedgerow H16 is approximately 4-5m tall and is scrubby. This hedgerow is dominated by Blackthorn with Holly also present and Bramble trailing through. Common Nettle is found in the ground flora. 3.42. Hedgerow H17 is approximately 4m tall. Species present within the hedgerow include Blackthorn, Hawthorn, Ash, Hazel, Sycamore, Gorse, Oak, Elder and Holly, with Bramble trailing through. Other species present include Hart stongue, Male Fern, Bracken, Hedge Bedstraw, Red Campion, Common Nettle, Ivy and Hogweed. 3.43. Hedgerow H18 is a continuation of H8, becoming a tree belt of Oak trees at its southern end. The hedgerow section in the north is dominated by Blackthorn, with abundant Hazel, and rarely found Ash and Holly. Bramble is present trailing through. The southern tree belt section is dominated by immature / semi-mature Oak trees. With Ash trees also present. Species present in the ground flora include Red Campion, Wood Sedge, Broad-leaved Dock, Hart stongue, Male Fern, Bracken, Hedge Woundwort and Cleavers. 3.44. Individual Oak and Ash trees are present within the site within the semiimproved grassland fields and associated with the areas of scrub. 9

Wet Issues and Streams 3.45. Wet issue IS1 is located within field F1, with scrub and scrub-dominated grassland present along its banks. Species present include Sycamore, Oak, Ash, Honeysuckle and Willow, with Bramble, Common Nettle, Common Sorrel, Cleavers, Ribwort Plantain, Water-dropwort sp., Marsh Thistle, Common Comfrey, Red Campion, Male Fern, Hart s-tongue, Ivy and Primrose also present. 3.46. Wet issue IS2 is located between field F2 and field F4, with scrub along its banks. Species present include Oak, Ash and Hazel, with Hart s-tongue, Hard Fern, Hogweed, Common Nettle, Bramble, Cleavers, Lesser Celandine, Herb Robert and Red Campion also present. 3.47. Stream S1 flows from south to north through the wooded areas at the eastern site boundary. Background Records 3.48. The ERCCIS returned no records of any notable plant species from within the site itself. A number of low resolution records of notable plant species were returned from the wider study area including, Dwarf Spurge Euphorbia exigua (2012), Field Woundwort Stachys arvensis (2008), Allseed Radiola linoides (Allseed), Corn Spurrey Spergula arvensis (1999), Pale Dog-violet Viola lacteal (1999), Chamomile Chamaemelum nobile (1996), Field Gentian Gentianella campestris (1909) and Lesser butterfly-ordchid (1909). 3.49. None of the above species was recorded within the site. Buildings and Hardstanding 3.50. Five buildings are present within the site (B1-B5) including four agricultural buildings and one residential dwelling. These buildings are described individually below. 3.51. Building B1 is a single-storey barn constructed from corrugated metal and wooden boarding set on breezeblocks. The roof is pitched and constructed of corrugated metal with metal beams and rafters. 3.52. Building B2 is a single-storey shed constructed from breezeblocks with a pitched, corrugated-metal roof. Metal beams and rafters are present internally. 3.53. Building B3 is a single-storey barn constructed from corrugated metal and wooden boarding set on breezeblocks. The roof is pitched and constructed of corrugated metal with metal beams present. 3.54. Building B4 is a single-storey shed constructed from breezeblocks, with a pitched, corrugated-metal roof. The roof sheeting is partially missing. 3.55. Building B5 is a two-storey house constructed from rendered brick, with a pitched, slate-tiled roof. 10

4. WILDLIFE USE OF THE SITE 4.1. General observations were made during the surveys of any faunal use of the site, with specific attention paid to the potential presence of protected species. Specific surveys were undertaken with regard to bats and Badgers. Bats Tree Surveys 4.2. A number of trees within woodland W1 are likely to have developed features suitable to support roosting bats. However, the woodland is to be retained within the development proposals in any event. No other trees within the site were recorded as having developed features suitable to support roosting bats. Internal / External Surveys 4.3. It is considered that buildings B1-B4 do not have any potential to support roosting bats due to their design and construction. 4.4. Building B5 has low potential to support roosting bats, and this building is to be retained within the development proposals in any event. Habitats 4.5. It is considered that the hedgerows, trees and woodland within the site offer suitable foraging and navigational opportunities for bats. 4.6. Background Records. The ERCCIS returned no records of any bats from within the site itself. A single record of dead Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus was returned from the gird square east of the site in 2008. Badgers 4.7. Four Badger setts were recorded during the surveys undertaken. These were situated along the southern boundary of the site (the location of these can be seen on Plan ECO3). Each sett is described below. Sett One 4.8. Sett one is located at the southern boundary of field F7, and the northern boundary of the adjoining woodland W1. This is a main set comprising 16 active entrances were recorded, together with old bedding in some entrances. Pathways were recorded along the southern boundary of field F7 and through the adjacent woodland and snuffle pits were recorded within field F7. Pushthroughs were recorded through the fence line between field F7 and woodland W1. Sett Two 4.9. Sett two is located at the southern margin of field F7. Two active entrances and one collapsed entrance were recorded, together with associated mammal paths / push-throughs between field F7 and woodland W1. It is considered likely that sett two is a subsidiary sett to sett one. 11

Sett Three 4.10. Sett three is a potential Badger sett located at the southern margin of field F7. One clear entrance was recorded, although no evidence of Badger, such as hairs, was recorded. It is considered likely that sett three is a potential outlier sett to sett one. Sett Four 4.11. Sett four is located at the southern margin of field F8. One active entrance was recorded. It is considered likely that sett four is a subsidiary sett to sett one. 4.12. Background Records. The ERCCIS returned no records of any Badgers from within the site itself. The nearest record of Badger was returned 0.5km southwest of the site in 2005. A low resolution record of an active Badger sett was also returned from the wider study area in 2005. 4.13. Other Mammals 4.14. It is considered that the scrub, hedgerows and woodlands within the site provide suitable habitat for Dormouse. However, a nut search was conducted and no evidence of this species was recorded. 4.15. It is considered that stream S1 and the wet issues within the site provide suitable foraging and dispersal opportunities for Otter Lutra lutra. 4.16. It is considered that stream S1 offers some limited opportunities for Water Vole Arvicola amphibious. It is not considered that the wet issues within the site offer any suitable opportunities for Water Vole. 4.17. Evidence of Rabbits Lepus curpaeums was recorded associated with the hedgerows, and as stated above the site is grazed by farmed Red Deer. No evidence of any other mammals was recorded within the site. However, it is considered that the habitats within the site provide suitable opportunities for a range of common mammal species. 4.18. Background Records. The ERCCIS returned no records of any other notable mammals were returned from within the site itself. The nearest record of Dormouse was returned from approximately 1km west of the site in 2012. No records of any other mammals were returned. Birds 4.19. General observations of the use of the site by birds were made during March 2015. 4.20. The Red List and Priority Species House Sparrow was recorded associated with the residential properties in the north of the site, while the Priority Species Dunnock were recorded associated with the hedgerows and woodland within the site. 4.21. A number of common bird species were also recorded within the site, including Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus, Blackbird Turdus merula, Magpie Pica pica, Wren Troglodytes troglodytes, Woodpigeon Columba palumbus, Jackdaw 12

Corvus monedula, Robin Erithacus rubecula, Raven Corvus corax, Buzzard Buteo buteo, Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita, Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus, Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis, Redlegged Partridge Alectoris rufa, Pheasant Phasianus colchicus and Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. 4.22. In addition, Guinea Fowl Numida meleagris were recorded within field F1 and in the amenity grassland surrounding building B5. 4.23. A Barn Owl Tyto alba box is present within building B1. Around 20 Barn Owl pellets were noted within building B1, the vast majority of which were recorded as being old. Indeed, anecdotal information suggests this box has been occupied by Barn Owls in previous years, but not during the 2014 nesting season. 4.24. It is considered that the scrub, hedgerows, trees and woodland within the site offer suitable nesting and foraging opportunities for birds, while the rushdominated grassland offers some suitable nesting opportunities for groundnesting birds such as Snipe. It is also considered that the semi-improved grassland and scrub-dominated grassland offer some suitable foraging opportunities for birds. 4.25. Background Records. The ERCCIS returned no records of any notable birds from within the site itself. A number of records for birds were returned from the 1km square east of the site in 2006, including the Red List species Sky Lark Arlauda arvensis the Red List and Priority species Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia, Cuckoo Cuculus canorus, and Herring Gull Larus argentatus. Reptiles 4.26. It is considered that the margins of the grass tracks, the scrub-dominated grassland and the woodland margins offer suitable opportunities for reptiles, while the rush-dominated grassland offers some suitable habitat for e.g. Grass Snake Natrix natrix. However, it is considered that the vast majority of the grazed semi-improved grassland does not provide suitable opportunities for reptiles. 4.27. Background Records. The ERCCIS returned no records of any reptiles from within the site itself. The nearest records of Slow Worm Anguis fragilis and Grass Snake were returned from approximately 1.4km southwest of the site in 1992. Great Crested Newts 4.28. There are no ponds within the site. Three ponds are present within 500m of the site boundary. However, the majority of these ponds are separated from the habitats within the site by the fast flowing stream that runs through the woodland and which is considered to act as a dispersal barrier to Great Crested Newts. In addition, these ponds are further considered to be unsuitable for Great Crested Newts as they are stocked with fish. In any event, the site lies within in an area identified within the Habitat Suitability Index assessment as being unsuitable for Great Crested Newts. 13

4.29. Background Records. No records of Great Crested Newts were returned from within the site or wider study area. 4.30. On the basis of the above, and given the absence of this species form the local area, it is considered that the habitats present within the site do not offer suitable terrestrial habitat for Great Crested Newts and as such, no further consideration is given to this species within this report. Invertebrates 4.31. Given the habitats present it is likely an assemblage of common invertebrate species would be present within the site. However, it is not considered that any of these invertebrate species would be reliant on the habitats present within site. 4.32. Background Records. The ERCCIS returned no records of any notable invertebrates from within the site itself. The nearest records of the Priority Species Wall Lasiommata megera was returned from the same grid square as the site in 1999. 4.33. It is not considered that any of the habitats present within the site offer any suitable opportunities for Wall. 14

5. ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION 5.1. The Principles of Ecological Evaluation 5.1.1. The latest guidelines for ecological evaluation produced by CIEEM 7 propose an approach that involves professional judgement, but makes use of available guidance and information, such as the distribution and status of the species or features within the locality of the project. 5.1.2. The methods and standards for site evaluation within the British Isles have remained those defined by Ratcliffe 8. These are broadly used across the United Kingdom to rank sites so priorities for nature conservation can be attained. For example, current sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation maintains a system of data analysis that is roughly tested against Ratcliffe s criteria. 5.1.3. In general terms, these criteria are size, diversity, naturalness, rarity and fragility, while additional secondary criteria of typicalness, potential value, intrinsic appeal, recorded history and the position within the ecological / geographical units are also incorporated into the ranking procedure. 5.1.4. Any assessment should not judge sites in isolation from others, since several habitats may combine to make it worthy of importance to nature conservation. 5.1.5. Further, relying on the national criteria would undoubtedly distort the local variation in assessment and therefore additional factors need to be taken into account, e.g. a woodland type with comparatively poor species diversity, common in the south of England, may be of importance at its northern limits, say in the border country. 5.1.6. In addition, habitats of local importance are often highlighted within a local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). Cornwall s Biodiversity Action Plan 9 currently contains a number of BAP habitats and species. 5.1.7. Levels of importance can be determined within a defined geographical context from the immediate site or locality through to the International level. 5.1.8. The legislative and planning policy context are also important considerations and have been given due regard throughout this assessment. 5.2. Habitat Evaluation Designated Sites 5.2.1. Statutory Sites: There are no statutory designated sites present within the site itself. However, the Trelow Downs SSSI lies adjacent to the site 7 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html. 8 Ratcliffe, D A (1977). A Nature Conservation Review: the Selection of Study areas of Biological National Importance to Nature Conservation in Britain. Two Volumes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 9 http://ukbars.defra.gov.uk/ 15

along its south-eastern boundary, and is separated by woodland W1 and a stream, and lies on the opposite side of a valley to the site. This SSSI is designated for its heathland, valley mire communities and scrub. 5.2.2. It is not considered that the development proposals would have any adverse effects on this SSSI from contaminated run-off, given that it lies on the opposite side of a valley. However, standard engineering practice in respect of pollution control, as part of the development proposals will negate any potential effect to the stream, which borders the souteastern edge of the site and the northern edge of the SSSI. In addition, any potential detrimental effects from dust contamination will be mitigated for through standard industry best practice measures. As such, given the above, it is not considered that there will be any direct or indirect adverse effects on this statutory designated site as a result of the development proposals. 5.2.3. Non-statutory Sites: There are no non-statutory designated sites within or immediately adjacent to the site. The nearest County Wildlife Site (CWS) is Trevillador CWS that lies approximately 260m northeast of the site. This CWS is designated for its mixed broad-leaved woodland and for the possible presence of Priority Habitat upland mixed ashwoods, and for the presence of the Priority Species and European Protected Species Otter. This CWS is separated from the site by roads, tracks and arable fields. This CWS is connected to the site by the stream. However, as set out above, standard engineering practices in respect of pollution control as part of the development proposals will negate any potential effect to the stream. As such, it is not considered that there will be any direct or indirect adverse effects on this non-statutory designated site as a result of the development proposals. Habitats Semi-improved Grassland and Grass Tracks 5.2.4. The semi-improved grassland and grass tracks within the site are of limited ecological value in terms of species content, comprising only common and widespread species. However, it is considered that this habitat offers suitable foraging opportunities for Badgers and birds. 5.2.5. Areas of this habitat are to be lost to the development proposals. 5.2.6. Mitigation and Enhancements. Losses to this habitat could be mitigated for through the oversowing of the retained grassland areas (such as the areas of open space) with a species-rich wildflower grassland seed mixture (such as Emorsgate s Standard General Purpose Meadow Mixture EM2) and implementation of a suitable management regime, to increase the floristic diversity of the site accordingly. In addition, the provision of green roofs within the development proposals will diversify the habitats present. It is recommended that the green roofs be sown with a native wildflower seed mixture (such as Emorsgate s Wild Flowers for Green Roofs Mixture ER1F, or Emorsgate s Turf Roof Mixture ER1). 16

Rush-dominated Grassland 5.2.7. The rush-dominated grassland within the site is of limited ecological value, comprising only common and widespread species. However, it is considered that this habitat offers suitable nesting opportunities for some ground-nesting birds and foraging opportunities for a range of birds. 5.2.8. The majority of this habitat is to be lost within the development proposals. 5.2.9. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that the new lake system be planted with a diverse range of native aquatic and marginal vegetation of known wildlife value, while any ephemerally wet areas be sown with a native wildflower grassland seed mixture suitable for wet / damp conditions (such as Emorsgate s Meadow Mixture for Wetlands EM8) which will increase the floristic diversity of the site. The creation of the new lake system within the site would serve to diversify the habitats within the site, provide new opportunities for a range of wildlife not currently present within the site, and increase the biodiversity of the site accordingly. Scrub-dominated Grassland 5.2.10. The scrub-dominated grassland is of limited ecological value in terms of its species content, comprising only common and widespread species. However, it is considered that this habitat offers suitable foraging opportunities for birds and Badgers, and potentially suitable habitat for reptiles. 5.2.11. The scrub-dominated grassland is to be lost within the development proposals. 5.2.12. Mitigation and Enhancements. Losses to this habitat could be offset and enhancements realised through the oversowing of the retained grassland areas (such as the areas of open space) with a species-rich wildflower grassland seed mixture (such as Emorsgate s Standard General Purpose Meadow Mixture EM2) and implementation of a suitable management regime, to increase the floristic diversity of the site accordingly. 5.2.13. The development proposals include new areas of buffer planting and it is recommended that these be planted with a diverse mix of native species, which will provide new and enhanced opportunities for wildlife. Scrub 5.2.14. The scrub within the site is of limited ecological value in terms of its species content, comprising only common and widespread species. However, it is considered that this habitat offers suitable foraging opportunities for Badgers and foraging and nesting opportunities for birds. 5.2.15. The scrub is to be lost within the development proposals. 5.2.16. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is considered that no specific mitigation measures would be necessary for the loss of this habitat. However, the development proposals include new areas of buffer planting and it is 17

recommended that these be planted with a diverse mix of native species, which will provide new and enhanced opportunities for wildlife. Woodland 5.2.17. The woodland at the margins of the site is of relatively greater ecological value in the context of the site. It is considered that the woodland within the site provides suitable foraging and navigational opportunities for bats, nesting and foraging opportunities for birds, as well as shelter and foraging opportunities for Badgers. 5.2.18. The woodland is to be retained and safeguarded within the development proposals. 5.2.19. Mitigation and enhancements. It is recommended that the footprint of any buildings be situated outside the root protection zones of the trees within the woodland. Indeed, the woodland, together with all retained semi-mature / mature trees within the site will be fenced at canopy width according to the current British Standard (BS 5837:2012) before landscaping work commences on site, to protect roots from compaction. 5.2.20. A significant numbers of trees are to be planted as part of the development proposals, and it is recommended that the new tree planting be based around native species of local provenance. 5.2.21. Any potentially detrimental effects of dust contamination on the retained woodland through dust contamination will be mitigated through standard industry best practice measures. In any event, the residual effect of the construction of the proposed development will be short term, with construction dust infrequently affecting sensitive receptors. Hedgerows and Trees 5.2.22. The hedgerows and trees within the site are also of greater ecological value in the context of the site. A number of hedgerows within the site are considered to be species-rich, with three considered to potentially qualify as important under The Hedgerows Regulations 1997. The hedgerows and trees within the site also offer suitable navigational and foraging opportunities for bats, foraging and nesting opportunities for birds and foraging opportunities for Badgers. 5.2.23. Under the development proposals, hedgerows H9, H12, H14 and H15 will be lost, of which hedgerows H9 and H14 are species-rich and hedgerow H15 potentially qualifies as important under The Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Partial losses would occur to hedgerows H5, H7 and H16 of which hedgerows H5 and H7 are species-rich. 5.2.24. The majority of the trees are to be retained and safeguarded within the development proposals, although some losses to trees would occur to accommodate the development proposals. 5.2.25. Mitigation and Enhancements. Where losses to hedgerows are to occur, new hedgerow / tree planting should be undertaken of a length / area greater than that lost, to offset these losses. Indeed, the development 18

proposals include the planting of a large number of native trees, which would more than offset loses to any hedgerows. 5.2.26. Any losses to the trees would be more than mitigated for through the planting of the large number of new native trees as part of the development proposals. 5.2.27. It is recommended that any additional planting as part of the landscape proposals, should utilise a diverse mix of native species, or species of benefit to wildlife wherever possible. Amenity Grassland and Planting 5.2.28. The amenity grassland and planting within the site is of limited ecological value, comprising a number of non-native species. 5.2.29. The amenity grassland and planting within the site is to be retained within the development proposals. 5.2.30. Mitigation and enhancements. No mitigation is required. Buildings and Hardstanding 5.2.31. The buildings and hardstanding within the site are of negligible ecological significance. However, building B1 does provide suitable nesting opportunities for Barn Owl. 5.2.32. Buildings B1-B4 are to be lost to the development proposals. 5.2.33. Mitigation and Enhancements. No specific mitigation is required. Wet Issues 5.2.34. The wet issues within the site are of limited ecological value. However it is considered that the wet issues within the site offer suitable foraging and dispersal opportunities for Otter. 5.2.35. The wet issues within the site are to be lost to the development proposals. 5.2.36. Mitigation and Enhancements. Losses to this habitat could be compensated for and enhancements realised through the creation of the new lake complex. It is recommended that the new lake system be planted with a diverse range of native aquatic and marginal vegetation of known wildlife value, while any ephemerally wet areas be sown with a native wildflower grassland seed mixture suitable for wet / damp conditions (such as Emorsgate s Meadow Mixture for Wetlands EM8) which will increase the floristic diversity of the site. The creation of the new lake system within the site would serve to diversify the habitats within the site, provide new opportunities for a range of wildlife not currently present within the site, and increase the biodiversity of the site accordingly. 19

Stream 5.2.37. Stream S1 is of some ecological value. It is considered that stream S1 provides suitable opportunities for Otter for foraging, dispersal and holts and offers limited burrowing and foraging opportunities for Water Vole. 5.2.38. The stream is to be retained within the development proposals. 5.2.39. Mitigation and Enhancements. Standard engineering practice in respect of pollution control, as part of the development proposals will negate any potential effect to the stream. In addition, any potential detrimental effects from dust contamination will be mitigated for through standard industry best practice measures. As such, given the above, it is not considered that there will be any adverse effect upon the stream as a consequence of the development proposals. 5.3. Faunal Evaluation Bats 5.3.1. Legislation. All bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and included on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ( the Habitats Regulations ). These include provisions making it an offence to: Deliberately kill, injure or take (capture) bats; Deliberately disturb bats in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect:- (i) the ability of any significant group of bats to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young; or to hibernate; or (ii) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species concerned; Damage or destroy any breeding or resting place used by bats; Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place used by bats for shelter or protection (even if bats are not in residence). 5.3.2. The words deliberately and intentionally include actions where a court can infer that the defendant knew that the action taken would almost inevitably result in an offence, even if that was not the primary purpose of the act. 5.3.3. The offence of damaging (making it worse for the bat) or destroying a breeding site or resting place is an absolute offence. Such actions do not have to be deliberate for an offence to be committed. 5.3.4. In accordance with the Habitats Regulations the licensing authority (Natural England) must apply the three derogation tests as part of the process of considering a licence application. These tests are that: 1. the activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety; 2. there must be no satisfactory alternative; and 3. the favourable conservation status of the species concerned must be maintained. 20

5.3.5. Licences can usually only be granted if the development is in receipt of full planning permission. 5.3.6. Site Usage. There are no trees within the site that have developed features suitable to support roosting bats. 5.3.7. None of the buildings to be lost to the development proposals offer suitable roosting opportunities for bats, given their design and construction. 5.3.8. It is considered that the hedgerows, trees and woodland within the site offer suitable foraging and navigational opportunities for bats. 5.3.9. Mitigation and Enhancements. Recommendations have already been made above to offset losses to hedgerows and trees through new native hedgerow / tree planting. The inclusion of new hedgerow planting and a significant number of new trees will more than offset losses to the hedgerows and trees and provide new and enhanced foraging and navigational opportunities for bats. The creation of wildflower grassland within the areas of retained grassland, the creation of new green roofs, and the creation of the new lake system (to be planted with native aquatic / marginal species), will provide further enhanced foraging opportunities for bats. As such, overall it is considered that foraging and navigational resources for bats would be greatly enhanced post-development. 5.3.10. Where necessary, a sympathetic lighting regime associated with the new proposals will be implemented to minimise light spillage into key areas, such as the woodland. To maintain suitable conditions for bats, it is recommended that the use of sodium or LED lights, which produce less light spillage than other types of lighting, and have no low / no UV content, or UV-filtered lights should be considered to reduce the light spillage on existing bat flight lines. In addition, the spillage of the light can be reduced further through use of low-level lights and the employment of lighting hoods which will direct light below the horizontal plane, preferably at an angle less than 70 degrees. 5.3.11. In addition it is recommended that bat boxes, such as Schwegler 1FF boxes (see Appendix 3 for suitable examples), are erected within the site on suitable existing trees and positioned out of reach of opportunistic predators such as cats. This model of bat box is known to be attractive to Pipistrelle, which are known from the local area. These measures will provide increased roosting opportunities across the site over the existing situation. Badgers 5.3.12. Legislation. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidates the previous Badgers Acts of 1973 and 1991. The legislation aims to protect the species from persecution, rather than being a response to an unfavourable conservation status, as the species is in fact common over most of Britain, with particularly high populations in the southwest. 5.3.13. As well as protecting the animal itself, the 1992 Act also makes the intentional or reckless destruction, damage or obstruction of a Badger sett 21

an offence. A sett is defined as any structure or place which displays signs indicating current use by a Badger 10. Current use of a Badger sett is defined by Natural England as how long it takes the signs to disappear, or more precisely, to appear so old as to not indicate current use. 5.3.14. In addition, the intentional elimination of sufficient foraging area to support a known social group of Badgers may, in certain circumstances, be construed as an offence by constituting cruel ill treatment of a Badger. 5.3.15. Site Usage. A main sett, two subsidiary setts and an outlier sett, all of which are active, were recorded within field F7 and F8, together with a number of Badger latrines and footprints recorded throughout the site. 5.3.16. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that the footprint of any development be offset from the Badger setts by at least 30m. Should any of the outlier or subsidiary setts need to be closed / partially closed to accommodate the development proposals, a Natural England licence would be applied for. 5.3.17. During the construction phase of development it is often necessary to undertake a number of additional measures to safeguard any Badgers present on a site, particularly in regard to disturbance, loss of foraging and other related issues. 5.3.18. It is recommended that all contractors working in the vicinity of the Badger sett should be briefed regarding the presence of Badgers and of the types of activities that would not be permissible on site. Any licensing requirements should be particularly highlighted. 5.3.19. Any trenches or deep pits that are to be left open overnight should be provided with a means of escape should a Badger enter. This could simply be in the form of a roughened plank of wood placed in the trench as a ramp to the surface. This is particularly important if the trench fills with water. 5.3.20. Any trenches/pits should be inspected each morning to ensure no Badgers have become trapped overnight. Should a Badger get stuck in a trench it will likely attempt to dig itself into the side of the trench, by forming a temporary sett. Should a trapped Badger be encountered, Ecology Solutions should be contacted immediately for further advice. 5.3.21. The storage of topsoil or other soft building materials within the site should be given careful consideration. Badgers will readily adopt such mounds as setts, which would then be afforded the same protection as established setts. So as to avoid the adoption of any mounds, they should be subject to daily inspections (or nightly patrols if 24 hour security is present on site) or consideration given to fencing them with Badger proof fencing. 10 Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended). Guidance on Current Use in the definition of a Badger Sett http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/regulation/wildlife 22

5.3.22. During the development the storage of any chemicals required for the building construction should be well away from any Badger activity and contained in such a way that they cannot be accessed or knocked over by any roaming Badgers. 5.3.23. The retention of the woodland, hedgerows and trees, and the extensive planting of new native trees, as well as the creation of areas of new wildflower grassland, will maintain and enhance foraging opportunities for Badgers. It is recommended that any new planting as part of the landscape proposals include fruit-bearing species to provide new seasonal foraging opportunities for Badgers. Other Mammals 5.3.24. Site Usage. Evidence of Rabbit was recorded associated with the hedgerows, and as stated above the farm is grazed by farmed Red Deer. It is considered that the scrub, hedgerows and woodland within the site offer suitable opportunities a range of small mammals, including Dormouse, although no evidence of this species was recorded. 5.3.25. It is considered that the wet issues within the site and the stream at the site boundary offer suitable opportunities for Otter, although no evidence of this species was recorded. 5.3.26. It is considered that the stream within the site offers limited opportunities for Water Vole, although no evidence of this species was recorded. 5.3.27. Mitigation and Enhancements. The majority of the hedgerows and trees within the site are to be retained within the development proposals. Any losses to the scrub and hedgerows will be more than compensated for with the new hedgerow planting, extensive planting of trees, creation of new areas of wildflower grassland and the creation of new areas of wet / marshy grassland. Should Dormouse be recorded within the site, a Natural England licence will likely be required before any hedgerow / scrub removal works can commence. 5.3.28. Any losses to the wet issues within the site will be more than compensated for with the creation of the new lake complex and standard engineering practices as described above will ensure that the stream is not adversely affected by the development proposals. Should Dormouse be recorded within the site, a Natural England licence will likely be required before any hedgerow / scrub removal works can commence. Birds 5.3.29. Legislation. Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is concerned with the protection of wild birds, whilst Schedule 1 lists species that are protected by special penalties. All species of birds receive general protection whilst nesting. 5.3.30. Site Usage. The scrub, hedgerows, trees and woodland within the site offer suitable foraging and nesting opportunities for birds, while the semiimproved grassland offers suitable foraging opportunities for birds. A Barn 23

Owl box is present within building B1, together with evidence and anecdotal evidence of past usage by Owls. 5.3.31. Mitigation and Enhancements. The planting of new tree planting will provide new and enhanced foraging and nesting opportunities for birds, while the creation of new areas of wildflower grassland, the creation of new areas of wet grassland and the creation of a new lake will provide enhanced foraging opportunities for birds, as well as new foraging and nesting opportunities for aquatic bird species. As such, it is considered that opportunities for birds within the site will be greatly enhanced postdevelopment. 5.3.32. In order to compensate for the loss of the Barn Owl box within building B1, it is recommended that a new Barn owl box be provided within a suitable new building / tree to provide continued nesting opportunities for this species. 5.3.33. As a precautionary measure it is recommended that any required clearance of any suitable nesting vegetation (including tree felling) be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March to July inclusive) to avoid any potential offence. Should the above timing constraints conflict with any timetabled works, it is recommended that works commence only after a suitably qualified ecologist has undertaken checks to ensure no nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are found to be present during checks then clearance would need to be delayed until young have fledged. 5.3.34. Simple enhancement measures could ensure the ornithological interest at the site is increased. The erection of bird nest boxes could provide further enhancements for this group if placed on suitable semi-mature / mature trees or buildings post-development. Using nest boxes of varying designs would maximise the species complement attracted to the site, and where possible these could be tailored to provide opportunities for red listed / Priority Species known from the local area, e.g. House Sparrow (see Appendix 4 for suitable examples). Reptiles 5.3.35. The rough margins of the grass tracks and scrub-dominated grassland only limited suitable opportunities for reptiles. 5.3.36. Mitigation and Enhancements. As a precautionary measure it is recommended that, prior to any works within the grass tracks and scrubdominated grassland, a habitat manipulation exercise be carried out to encourage any reptiles that may be present to move away from those areas into areas of adjacent retained habitat. 5.3.37. The creation of new areas of species-rich wildflower grassland will provide new suitable habitat for reptiles over the existing situation, while the creation of new areas of species-rich wet grassland will also create potentially suitable habitat for e.g. Grass Snake, known from the local. 24

Invertebrates 5.3.38. Site Usage. Given the habitats present it is likely an assemblage of common invertebrate species would be present within the site. 5.3.39. Mitigation and Enhancements. The implementation of other measures recommended above would also likely provide knock-on benefits for invertebrates, e.g. through new tree and hedgerow planting and use of species of wildlife benefit. The provision of nectar-rich flowers within the wildflower grassland and green roofs will also provide suitable foraging resources for a range of invertebrates, while the inclusion of species such as Lucerne and Clovers within the wildflower grassland seed mixture will provide new and enhanced opportunities for a number of invertebrates species. The creation of the lake system, to be planted with native aquatic and marginal plants, will diversify habitats present and provide new habitats for a range of aquatic invertebrate species. 5.3.40. It is recommended that log piles be incorporated into the new woodland areas, which would be beneficial to saproxylic species. 25

6. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 6.1. The planning policy framework that relates to nature conservation at Camel Creek, Trevibban Farm, Cornwall is issued at two main administrative levels: nationally through the National Planning Policy Framework and locally, through the emerging Cornwall Local Plan and saved policies from the North Cornwall Local Plan. The proposed development will be judged in relation to the policies contained within these documents. 6.2. National Policy National Planning Policy Framework 6.2.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government s requirements for the planning system and was adopted on 27th March 2012. It replaces previous national planning policy, including PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) published in 2005. 6.2.2. The key element of the NPPF is that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking (paragraph 14). It is important to note that this presumption does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined (paragraph 119), although this is not applicable to the proposals in this case. 6.2.3. A number of policies in the NPPF are comparable to those in Planning Policy Statement (PPS)9 (which it replaced), including reference to minimisation of impacts to biodiversity and provision of net gains to biodiversity where possible (paragraph 109) and ensuring that Local Authorities place appropriate weight to statutory and non-statutory nature conservation designations, protected species and biodiversity. 6.2.4. The NPPF also considers the strategic approach which local authorities should adopt with regard to the protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure, priority habitats and ecological networks, and the recovery of priority species. 6.2.5. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF comprises a number of principles which Local Authorities should apply, including encouraging opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments, provision for refusal of planning applications if significant harm cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for, applying the protection given to European sites to potential SPAs, possible SACs, listed or proposed Ramsar sites and sites identified (or required) as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, and the provision for the refusal for developments resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. 6.2.6. National policy therefore implicitly recognises the importance of biodiversity and that, with sensitive planning and design, development and 26

6.3. Local Policy conservation of the natural heritage can co-exist and benefits can, in certain circumstances, be obtained. North Cornwall Local Plan - Saved Policies 6.3.1. District Councils within Cornwall became a unitary authority (Cornwall Council) in 1 st April 2009. Many of the planning policies that were used by the former districts have been saved until such time that a county wide Cornwall Local Plan is adopted. 6.3.2. There are three saved polices within the North Cornwall District related in whole or in part to nature conservation, policies ENV1, ENV4 and ENV5. Policies ENV4 and ENV5 are concerned with the protection of internationally, nationally and locally designated sites. Cornwall Local Plan 6.3.3. The Cornwall Local Plan is comprised of a suite of documents including: Strategic Policies, Community Infrastructure Levy, Mineral Safeguarding Development Plan Document and the Allocation Development Plan Document. Strategic Policies 2010-2030 6.3.4. There are five polices within the Local Plan Strategic Policies document that are related in whole or in part to nature conservation, policies 2, 22a, 23, 25, and PP10. Policy 2 is concerned with the protection and enhancements of environmental assets, including mitigation of unavoidable effects, appropriate and proportional to their value. Policy 22a is concerned with impacts upon biodiversity, while Policy 23 is concerned with designated sites of nature conservation, loss of biodiversity and protection of wildlife corridors. Policy 25 is concerned with green infrastructure, while Policy PP10 is concerned with the protection of national and international designations. 6.4. Discussion 6.4.1. Measures have been suggested within this report to ensure that the development proposals will have no adverse effects on any statutory or non-statutory designated sites and as such the proposals will accord with policies ENV4, ENV5, 23, and PP10 of the saved policies, strategic policies and the principles laid down in the NPPF. 6.4.2. The majority of the features of greater ecological value within the site are to be retained, including all of the woodland and the majority of the hedgerows and trees. Where losses to the hedgerows and trees are to occur, these will be more than mitigated for through new hedgerow planting and through the planting of large numbers of new native trees. Losses to the wet issues within the site will be mitigated through the creation of a new lake complex which will diversify the habitats within the site and create new aquatic habitats within the site. As such the proposals 27

will accord with policies 2, 22a and PP10 of the strategic policies and the principles laid down in the NPPF. 6.4.3. Where the development proposals are likely to have an adverse effect on any protected species, works will only commence after a Natural England licence has been obtained and appropriate mitigation put in place. Although there will be some losses to the hedgerows within the site (a Priority Habitat), the planting of significant numbers of new native trees of an area far greater than that lost will mitigate for these losses. As such the proposals accord with policies 2, 22a and PP10 of the strategic policies. 6.4.4. In conclusion, implementation of the measures set out in this report would enable development of the site to accord with national and local planning policy for ecology and nature conservation. 28

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 7.1. was commissioned in to undertake an of the site at Camel Creak, Trevibban Farm, Cornwall for Pegasus Group. 7.2. The proposals for the study area are for a resort comprising up to 241 dwellings, with a swimming pool, a lake system, associated open space and landscaping. 7.3. The site was surveyed based around extended Phase 1 survey methodology, as recommended by Natural England. In addition, specific surveys were undertaken in respect of bats and Badgers. 7.4. A number of recommendations have been made to safeguard any designated statutory and non-statutory sites of nature conservation interest, and there are not considered to be any significant adverse effects on any designated sites as a result of the development proposals. 7.5. Four Badger setts are present within the site. Recommendations have been made to ensure that there is no adverse effect on the Badger setts as a consequence of the development proposals. Should any setts need to be closed / partially closed to accommodate the development proposals, a Natural England licence would be applied for 7.6. There are no trees or buildings within the site that have developed features suitable to support roosting bats. 7.7. The planting of new native hedgerows and large numbers of trees, the creation of new areas of wildflower grassland, the creation of new areas of wet grassland and the creation of a lake system will diversify the range of habitats present within the site and will provide enhanced opportunities for foraging bats, Badgers and invertebrates, while the erection of bat boxes on suitable retained trees will provide new roosting opportunities for bats within the site. 7.8. The above planting / habitat creation measures will also provide new and enhanced opportunities for nesting and foraging birds and a range of other wildlife e.g. invertebrates, while the erection of bird boxes within the site will also provide new nesting opportunities for birds. 7.9. Further recommendations have been made to safeguard other protected and notable species present within the site, including nesting birds. Recommendations have also been made to achieve ecological enhancements for such protected/notable species wherever possible. 7.10. In conclusion, through the implementation of the safeguards and recommendations set out within this report it is considered that the proposals accord with planning policy with regard to nature conservation at all administrative levels. 29

PLANS

PLAN ECO1 Site Location & Ecological Designations

PLAN ECO2 Ecological Features

PLAN ECO3 Protected Species

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Proposed Site Plan PRP. March 15. Site Plan. Camel Creek Resort. Drawing No. AA5538_1005 RevD.

APPENDIX 2 Information Downloaded from MAGIC

6693 (c) Crown Copyright and database rights 2015. Ordnance Survey 100022861. Legend Local Nature Reserves (England) National Nature Reserves (England) Ramsar Sites (England) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) Special Areas of Conservation (England) Special Protection Areas (England) Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland Ancient Replanted Woodland Projection = OSGB36 xmin = 184500 ymin = 65230 xmax = 199600 ymax = 73860 Map produced by MAGIC on 20 March, 2015. Copyright resides with the data suppliers and the map must not be reproduced without their permission. Some information in MAGIC is a snapshot of the information that is being maintained or continually updated by the originating organisation. Please refer to the metadata for details as information may be illustrative or representative rather than definitive at this stage.

APPENDIX 3 Suitable Examples of Bat Boxes

Bat Boxes Schwegler bat boxes are made from woodcrete and have the highest rates of occupation of all types of box. The 75% wood sawdust, clay and concrete mixture is ideal, being durable whilst allowing natural respiration and temperature stability. These boxes are rot and predator proof and extremely long lasting. Boxes can be hung from a branch near the tree trunk or fixed using tree-friendly aluminum nails. 1FF Bat Box The rectangular shape makes the 1FF suitable for attaching to the sides of buildings or in sites such as bridges, though it may also be used on trees. It has a narrow crevice-like internal space to attract Pipistrelle and Noctule bats. Woodcrete (75% wood sawdust, concrete and clay mixture) Width: 27cm Height: 43cm Weight: 8.3kg 2FN Bat Box A large bat box featuring a wide access slit at the base as well as an access hole on the underside. Particularly successful in attracting Noctule and Bechstein s bats. Woodcrete construction, 16cm diameter, height 36cm.

APPENDIX 4 Suitable Examples of Bird Boxes

Bird Boxes Schwegler bird boxes have the highest rates of occupation of all types of box. They are designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment with the right thermal properties for chick rearing and winter roosting. Boxes are made from Woodcrete. This 75% wood sawdust, clay and concrete mixture is breathable and very durable making these bird boxes extremely long lasting. 1B Bird Box This is the most popular box for garden birds and appeals to a wide range of species. The box can be hung from a branch or nailed to the trunk of a tree with a tree-friendly aluminium nail. Available in four colours and three entrance hole sizes. 26mm for small tits, 32mm standard size and oval, for redstarts. 2H Bird Box This box is attractive to robins, pied wagtails, spotted flycatcher, wrens and black redstarts. Best sited on the walls of buildings with the entrance on one side. Schwegler boxes have the highest occupation rates of all box types. They are carefully designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment for chick rearing and winter roosting. They can be expected to last 25 years or more without maintenance. 2M Bird Box A free-hanging box offering greater protection from predators. Supplied complete with hanger which loops and fastens around a branch. With standard general-purpose 32mm diameter entrance hole. Schwegler boxes have the highest occupation rates of all box types. They are carefully designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment for chick rearing and winter roosting. They can be expected to last 25 years or more without maintenance.

Bird Boxes Schwegler bird boxes have the highest rates of occupation of all types of box. They are designed to mimic natural nest sites and provide a stable environment with the right thermal properties for chick rearing and winter roosting. No 23 Barn Owl Box This box is best sited on the interior wall of barns or church towers. Only a small opening is needed on the outside of the building to serve as an entrance. There is an inspection panel at the back of the box. Made of waterproof wooden boarding Dimensions 100 x 50 x 50 cm Entrance hole 14 x 19 cm