extended phase 1 habitat survey€¦ · p2384.1.1 phase 1 habitat survey 19 may 2015 land at...

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

Land at Royston Road, Barkway, Hertfordshire SG8 8BX

Client Name: Rand Brothers Project Number: P2384.1

Date: 19th May 2015

bdavidson

Typewriter

APPENDIX C

Client: Rand Brothers

Site: Land at Royston Road, Barkway, SG8 8BX

Report ref.: P2384.1.1

Prepared by: Odette Robson MCIEEM and Cerys Owen BSc MSc

Reviewed by: Odette Robson BSc (Hons) PhD MCIEEM

Approved by: Rachel Hickey BSc MSc

Date: 19 May 2015

Version: Final

agb Environmental Ltd has prepared this document in accordance with the instructions of its

client, Rand Brothers, for their sole and specific use and has been prepared based on a scope

of works which has been agreed directly with the client.

agb Environmental Ltd Terms and Conditions apply.

© agb Environmental Ltd 2015

Newmarket Business Centre

341 Exning Road, Newmarket, CB8 0AT

Tel: 01638 663226 www.agbenvironmental.co.uk

agb Environmental Ltd

http://www.agbenvironmental.co.uk/


P2384.1.1 Phase 1 Habitat Survey 19 May 2015 Land at Royston Road, Barkway, SG8 8BX Page 2 of 26

1 Summary

Site: Land at Royston Road, Barkway, SG8 8BX

Grid Reference (from the centre of the site) TL 384 362

Report Commissioned by: Rand Brothers

Date of Survey: 29th April 2015

Considerations Description Timings and potential impacts

Statutory designated

wildlife sites within 2km: No statutory wildlife sites

within 2km. N/a

Non-statutory wildlife sites

within 2km:

Three ancient woodlands within 2km. Sixteen Local

Wildlife Sites (LWS), of which the nearest is Barkway Chalk

Pit, over 300m to the north west.

Low risk of impact on any locally sensitive sites due to distance between LWS’s and proposed

development, and large extent of accessible green space in the local

area.

Hertfordshire Ecological

Network:

MO6788: The site lies within a ‘no known habitat’ area:

(medium priority for habitat creation).

The target habitat for creation (not currently present) is chalk grassland.

European designated

statutory wildlife sites (SPA,

SAC or Ramsar) within

7km:

No European designated wildlife sites (SPA, SAC or

Ramsar) within 7km. N/a.

Phase 2 surveys: No further surveys required.

Precautionary clearance

methods:

Nocturnal mammals Escape planks to be secured within

any deep holes or foundations.

Nesting birds (ground-nesting

or hedgerows).

Any hedgerow removal or

clearance of the cropped area

should be carried out outside the

nesting bird season, or preceded by

a nesting bird survey.

Habitat types: Arable field, currently uncropped; managed hedgerow boundaries

(north, east and west); narrow grass/ruderal field margins.



Contents

1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Proposed Development ........................................................................................... 5

2.3 Scope of survey ...................................................................................................... 5

3 Survey Methodology ....................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Habitat Survey ......................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Desk Study .............................................................................................................. 7

3.2.1 Herts Environmental Records Centre (HERC) .................................................. 7

3.2.2 Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) ................................................................ 7

3.2.3 Statutory designated sites ................................................................................ 7

3.3 Surveyor Details ...................................................................................................... 7

4 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Site and Habitat Description .................................................................................... 8

4.2 Target Notes ........................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Desk Study ............................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Potential for Protected Species ............................................................................. 14

4.4.1 Habitats and Species ..................................................................................... 14

4.4.2 Bats ................................................................................................................ 15

4.4.3 Reptiles .......................................................................................................... 15

4.4.4 Amphibians (great crested newt and common toad) ....................................... 15

4.4.5 Birds ............................................................................................................... 16

4.4.6 Badger ........................................................................................................... 16

4.4.7 Otter and Water Vole ...................................................................................... 16

4.4.8 Dormice .......................................................................................................... 16

4.4.9 Hedgehogs, Hares, or Other Protected, BAP or Rare Species ....................... 16

4.4.10 Invertebrates .................................................................................................. 17

4.4.11 Impact on Designated Wildlife Sites ............................................................... 17

4.5 Limitations and Assumptions ................................................................................. 17

5 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 18

5.1 Key Recommendations and Avoidance/Precautionary Methods ............................ 18

5.2 Enhancement Recommendations .......................................................................... 18

6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 20

7 References ................................................................................................................... 21



Appendix A – Legislation and Planning Policy

Appendix B – Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan



2 Introduction

2.1 Background

agb Environmental was commissioned by Rand Brothers, to undertake an ecological survey

at Land at Royston Road, Barkway, Hertfordshire SG8 8BX.

This report contains the findings of a Phase 1 Habitat Survey to identify the potential for

presence of species protected under European Legislation (Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations 2010, as amended), UK legislation (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;

Protection of Badgers Act 1992), and other priority species and habitats which are a

consideration under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, under Section 41, lists

Species of Principal Importance for Conservation of biodiversity in England (SPIE species).

Protected and UK SPIE species are a material consideration for individual planning consents

under the NPPF, which promotes the enhancement of natural and local environments through

planning, and encourages a move towards achieving net gains for biodiversity where possible

(DCLG, 2012).

The site survey is supported by a desk study, including consultation with the Herts

Environmental Records Centre (HERC), to identify the presence of statutory and non-statutory

designated wildlife sites, and any protected species, which could be impacted by development

of the site.

2.2 Proposed Development

Proposals are likely to include residential development of the site, with associated

infrastructure and soft landscaping.

2.3 Scope of survey

This Phase 1 Habitat Survey is based on a single site survey, and provides an overview of the

likelihood of protected species occurring on the site: Where no evidence is found, this does

not mean that species are not present, or using the site. Further surveys are only

recommended if there is a significant likelihood that protected species may be present and

impacted by the proposed development, based on the suitability of the habitat and any direct

evidence.

This Phase 1 Habitat Survey does not constitute a full botanical survey or a Phase 2 pre-

construction survey for Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica.



3 Survey Methodology

3.1 Habitat Survey

The survey involved a site visit to record and map habitat types and ecological features on the

site. The survey was undertaken in accordance with Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological

Assessment produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

(CIEEM, 2015), and the general principles and methods outlined in the Handbook for Phase 1

Habitat Survey (JNCC 2010). Features of interest were identified as target notes on the Phase

1 Habitat Map (Appendix B).

The potential for presence of protected species was assessed as follows:

Amphibians - Known ponds within 500m of the site (unless ecologically separated by

significant barriers) were addressed for potential to support breeding protected amphibians,

such as great crested newts or toads.

Bats - Trees adjacent to the site boundary were assessed from the ground for potential to

support roosting bats. Habitat was also assessed for foraging and commuting potential, aided

by aerial photographs of the surrounding landscape.

Dormice - Hedges were assessed for potential to support dormice: Structure, connectivity and

a range of food sources throughout the active dormouse season.

Reptiles - The presence of suitable reptile habitat was assessed according to the criteria

described in the Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual (Gent and Gibson 1998) and Froglife

guidelines (Froglife 1999).

Invertebrates - The site was surveyed for high quality aquatic, deadwood or other habitats

which could be used by significant assemblages of invertebrates, or by invertebrate species

identified in the desk study.

Flora and habitats - Habitats and dominant plant species which were identifiable at the time

of the survey were recorded, including Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedule 9 invasive plant

species, such as Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum.

Water voles and otters – Any water bodies within impact distance of the site were assessed

for potential to support water voles and otters.

Badgers - A visual assessment for setts, hair, latrines, prints, foraging disturbance or other

signs of badger activity was undertaken within, and directly adjacent to, the site boundary.

Birds - A visual survey of bird activity and suitable nesting habitat was carried out, to determine

if any areas would be suitable for WCA Schedule 1 birds, Birds of Conservation Concern

(BoCC), SPIE or other common and widespread nesting birds.

Adjacent habitat - Aerial photographs, maps and field observation were used to identify

habitats in the wider landscape which could be impacted by development of the site.



3.2 Desk Study

Data was obtained from the following sources:

3.2.1 Herts Environmental Records Centre (HERC)

Records were provided on 27th April 2015, of protected species and Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)

within a 2km radius of the site.

3.2.2 Local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

The site was covered by the Local BAP for Hertfordshire.

3.2.3 Statutory designated sites

The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC), was accessed (8th

May 2015), to identify the presence of statutory designated sites within a 2km radius. The

search radius was extended to 7km for European designated sites (Special Areas of

Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites), where the potential

risk of impact to interest features of such sites may extend over a wider area.

3.3 Surveyor Details

The site survey was undertaken by Odette Robson BSc (Hons) PhD MCIEEM Principal

Ecologist at agb Environmental, on the 29th April 2015. During the survey, the temperature

was 10°C; there was a breeze (Beaufort scale 5), 90% cloud cover and occasional rain

showers, though good visibility.

The surveyor is a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental

Management (MCIEEM), subject to the CIEEM Professional Code of Conduct and licensed by

Natural England to survey for great crested newts (WML-CL09; Level 2), bats (WML-CL18;

Level 2) and dormice (WML-CL10a; Level 1).



4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Site and Habitat Description

The site was located on the northern edge of the village of Barkway in North Hertfordshire.

Directly adjacent to the western boundary was Royston Road, with arable farmland and

residential properties beyond. To the north and east, a bridleway separated the site from

grassland (grazed horse pasture to the north and rough grassland to the east). The southern

site boundary was unmarked, crossing the arable field.

There were no significant waterbodies or watercourses in the local landscape, however, a

large network of small ponds was present. Nine ponds were marked on maps within 500m of

the site, of which the nearest to the site was approximately 120m to the south. This pond was

dry at the time of survey. The remaining eight ponds were all more than 250m from the site.

There were a number of small woodlands in the area, within the predominantly agricultural

landscape, including three ancient woodlands within 2km (to the south-east and west).

The site itself was an arable field, currently uncropped but with a high (40%) cover of volunteer

oil seed rape and arable weeds. The boundaries to the north, east and west were managed

hedgerows with an associated 1-2 metre grass and ruderal field margin.



4.2 Target Notes

Target

note Habitat Description Photo

1

Set aside uncropped arable field: 60%

bare ground. High volunteer oil seed

rape crop and arable weed cover, with

evidence of grazing by hare and a hare

observed close to the north-western

boundary.

2

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna hedge,

mostly continuous, but with frequent

gaps. Managed at approximately 2m in

height. Section of outgrown blackthorn

Prunus spinosa to the north.

A 1m wide field margin at the hedge

base, dominated by barren brome

Bromus sterilis, common nettle Urtica

dioica, cow parsley Anthriscus

sylvestris, cleavers Galium aparine,

hogweed Heracleum sphondylium,

broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius,

and white dead-nettle Lamium album.

Grass bridleway and a chain-link fence

beyond the hedge.

3

Mostly continuous, species-poor hedge

(hawthorn, blackthorn and bullace

Prunus spp.), managed at

approximately 2m height with a 1m

wide grass field margin (composition as

for TN2). There were occasional gaps

and no tree standards.

No associated bank or ditch, but

adjacent to a wide bridleway with a

parallel hawthorn hedge.



Target


4

Minimally managed defunct hedge 3 –

5m in height, adjacent to garden:

Hawthorn, Wilson’s honeysuckle

Lonicera nitida, snowberry

Symphoricarpos albus, hazel Corylus

avellana, blackthorn, field maple Acer

campestre, blackthorn, rose rosa spp.,

and Berberis spp.

Narrow grass and ruderal field margin.

5

Managed hedge, approximately 2m in

height.

Dominated by hawthorn with ivy

Hedera helix. Occasional elder

Sambucus nigra, apple Malus

domestica and rose.

A 1-2 m wide field margin dominated by

sterile brome, cow parsley and nettle.

The hedge was continuous with no

bank, ditch or tree standards.

Field entrance at southern corner.

Pond

1 (off

site)

The nearest pond to the site, marked on maps, was approximately 120m to the

south, within a horse-grazed paddock. This was a dry depression at the time of

survey, with no aquatic or emergent vegetation suggesting seasonal inundation

so likely to be dry for much of the year, or permanently dry.

Pond

3 (off-

site)

Heavily shaded pond, encroached by

Salix. Approximately 425m to the south

east.

Emergent vegetation (<5%), dominated

by Iris. Aquatic vegetation dominated

by watercress Rorippa spp.

Algal growth over 30% of the surface.

Water depth >50cm. Water quality was

average to good. No fish or wildfowl

present.

Good quality adjacent terrestrial

habitat: Mown grass to the north and

east and rough grass to the west.



Target


Pond

9 (off-

site)

Heavily shaded pond, approximately

390m to the south-east.

No emergent or aquatic vegetation, fish

or wildfowl noted.

Pond depth approximately 50cm.

Water quality was average with surface

algae.

Approximately 5cm x 5cm in extent.

Terrestrial habitat was excellent to all

aspects.

Pond

4 (off-

site)

Heavily shaded pond approximately

460m to the east of the site.

Excellent water quality. No emergent

vegetation. Aquatic vegetation

dominated by water cress. No fish or

wildfowl present. Quality of adjacent

terrestrial habitat was good: Grassland

to the east and south, and woodland to

the north-west.



4.3 Desk Study

The site itself was not situated within a designated wildlife area, and was listed within the

Hertfordshire Ecological Network as MO6788: No known habitat; medium priority for habitat

creation, with the target habitat for creation being chalk grassland.

There were no statutory sites, designated for wildlife, within 2km of the site, and no European

sites, designated for wildlife, within 7km.

Fifteen Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) were identified within 2km of the proposed site (provided by

HERC), of which those within 1km of the site midpoint are listed in Table 4.1. Barkway Chalk

Pit, a Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust site, is also a Regionally Important

Geological/Geomorphological Site (RIGS - non-statutory earth science site).

Table 4.1: Non-statutory Local Wildlife Sites within 1km of the site midpoint:

Site Name Area (ha) Approximate distance (to midpoint of

site).

Reasons for designation

Rokey Wood

6.44 940 W Ancient semi-natural Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)/Field Maple (Acer campestre)/Hazel (Corylus avellana) coppice-with-standards woodland. Wet on the eastern edge where there is a small spring. A diverse ground flora which includes species typical of damp Boulder Clay woodland has been recorded including species such as Bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), Dog's Mercury (Mercurialis perennis), Wood Millet (Milium effusum), Primrose (Primula vulgaris), Broad Buckler-fern (Dryopteris dilatata), Wood Sedge (Carex sylvatica) and Early Dog-violet (Viola reichenbachiana). Ancient banks and ditches occur along much of the margin. Wildlife Site criteria: Ancient Woodland Inventory site; woodland indicators.

Barkway Chalk Pit

0.31 480 NW Disused chalk pit of geological interest showing chalk exposure pushed over boulder clay by the action of ice during the Anglian Ice Advance. The surrounding vegetation is mainly chalk scrub with remnants of chalk grassland. A range of mosses have been recorded from the site including Seligeria calcarea (a nationally scarce species). Disused chalk pit. Notified an SSSI in 1953, denotified in 1987. Wildlife Site criteria: Species.

Newsells Park Stud Area

- 570 E Building and environs important for protected species. Wildlife Site criteria: Species.

Barkway House Area

- 330 S Building and environs important for protected species. Wildlife Site criteria: Species.

Barkway Meadow

0.86 510 S Meadow with unimproved damp grassland supporting a number of neutral and damp indicator species plus a pond on the southern edge. Species recorded include



Site Name Area (ha) Approximate distance (to midpoint of

site).

Reasons for designation

Common Knapweed (Centaurea nigra), Bulbous Buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), Cowslip (Primula veris), Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and Ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi). Wildlife Site

criteria: Grassland indicators.

Table 4.2: Protected, SPIE and locally scarce species records provided by HERC (27th April 2015):

Species Protection Nearest record to the site

Most recent record

Bats

Pipistrelle bat species

Pipistrellus sp.

CHSR 2010; WCA.

Fourteen records provided (1997 – 2009), only one from within the same 1km grid square as the

site (2000).

Common pipistrelle

Pipistrellus pipistrellus

CHSR 2010; WCA.

Three records provided; nearest in adjacent km grid square to the south.

Serotine

Eptesicus serotinus

CHSR 2010; WCA.

Six records provided, of which four were from the 1km grid square to the south, and one from the grid square to the east of the site (2001 - 2009).

Natterer’s bat

Myotis nattereri

CHSR 2010; WCA.

One roost record from within the same 1km grid square as the site (2000).

Brown long-eared bat

Plecotus auritus

CHSR 2010; WCA; SPIE.

Twenty-two records, of which six were from within the same km grid square as the site (1996 &

2000). Including hibernation and nursery roost.

Amphibians

Great crested newt

Triturus cristatus

CHSR 2010; WCA; SPIE;

LBAP.

Three records provided over 0.5km to the south (2004).

Common toad

Bufo bufo

SPIE; LBAP. One record provided over 0.5km to the south-east (1986).

Reptiles

HERC held no reptile records within 2km of the site.

Other mammals

Brown hare

Lepus europaeus

SPIE; LBAP. One record provided within 0.5km in 2010.



Species Protection Nearest record to the site

Most recent record

Badger

Meles meles

Protection of Badgers Act

1992.

The nearest record is from within the same grid square of the site

(1997)

A more recent record over 1km to the south

of the site (2014)

Hazel dormouse

Muscardinus avellanarius

CHSR 2010; WCA; SPIE;

LBAP

One record approximately 2km east (1985).

Hedgehog

Erinaceous europaeus

SPIE; LBAP. Two records provided within 2km of the site (1985).

Nesting and protected, BAP, SPIE birds

HERC provided numerous bird records, of which the following BAP species could use habitats at the site: Corn bunting, bullfinch, linnet, starling, dunnock, grey partridge, yellowhammer, skylark,

house sparrow and tree sparrow.

Barn owl (WCA Schedule 1 species) has also been recorded close to the site.

Protected and SPIE plants

HERC provided numerous plant records, of which the following could grow in the arable habitats at the site: Dwarf spurge, rye brome, few-flowered fumitory and fine-leaved fumitory.

Blue-bell Hyacinthoides non-scripta, has also been recorded locally.

Protected /SPIE invertebrates

Cinnabar

Tyria jacobaeae

SPIE; LBAP. One record provided over 1.5km to the south-east (2006).

White-letter hairstreak Satyrium w-album

SPIE; LBAP. One record provided, over 1km to the north (2008).

Small heath Coenonympha pamphilus

SPIE; LBAP. The nearest record was over 1km to the south

the site in (2006).

The most recent record was from 2013, over 1.5km to the south.

HERC provided numerous moth records that had been recorded locally.

4.4 Potential for Protected Species

The site was assessed to identify whether proposed works within the site boundary could

impact on protected or locally rare species, either on the site or within the local area.

4.4.1 Habitats and Species

No protected, BAP, SPIE or locally important floral species were recorded at the site during

the survey, which was carried out at a suitable time of year for botanical surveys, when broad

species assemblages and habitat character could be assessed, and many species were

identifiable to species level.



Arable weeds within the cropped area included common groundsel Senecio vulgaris,

scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum, sowthistle Sonchus spp., knotgrass

Polygonum aviculare, wild radish Raphanus raphanistrum, cut-leaved crane's-bill Geranium

dissectum, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis, nipplewort

Lapsana communis, spear thistle Cirsium vulgare, curly dock Rumex crispus, common field-

speedwell Veronica persica, red deadnettle Lamium purpureum, fat hen Chenopodium album,

cleavers, poppy Papaver spp, and sun spurge Euphorbia helioscopia.

No rare or uncommon arable weeds were recorded, such as Euphorbia exigua or the

uncommon Fumaria species which have been recorded locally. The timing of the survey was

appropriate to be able to identify these arable weed species.

The hedges at TN2, TN3 and TN5 were species-poor and lacking additional features such as

ditches or banks. The hedge at TN4 was defunct, with a number of non-native, introduced

species, forming the curtilage of a residential property (TN4). None of the site boundary

hedges would be classified as ‘important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997).

4.4.2 Bats

Roosting Bats

HERC provided records of four species of bats within 2km: Three species were identified within

the same km grid square as the site (brown long-eared bat, Natterer’s bat and pipistrelle).

There were no roosting opportunities on, or adjacent to, the site. No buildings or structures on

the site, and no trees of sufficient maturity to provide potential roosting features.

Foraging and Commuting Bats

The site was of low quality for foraging bats with no mature trees, large extent of bare ground

and limited vegetation that would support significant quantities of insects. Native boundary

hedges could provide some foraging opportunity, but were managed to a low height, so would

provide little shelter for commuting bats.

If the hedges can be retained within the scheme, and lighting directed away from the hedge

boundaries, then any commuting or foraging bats would not be impacted by development of

the site.

No further surveys for bats are recommended.

4.4.3 Reptiles

No reptile records were provided by HERC. Habitats on the site were sub-optimal for reptile

species, such as slow worm, common lizard and grass snake, due to lack of ground vegetation,

and no hibernation and refuge opportunities.

No further survey or precautions are recommended.

4.4.4 Amphibians (great crested newt and common toad)

HERC provided three records of great crested newts from approximately 0.5km to the south-

west of the site 2004; and a toad record over 500m from the site.

There were no water bodies within the site boundary, and the nearest known pond was

approximately 120m to the south of the site, which was dry at the time of the survey. A further



eight ponds were marked on available maps within 500m of the site: All were beyond 250m of

the site boundary, with limited ecological connectivity due to intervening infrastructure.

There were no hibernation, foraging or refuge opportunities at the site, which had poor

terrestrial habitat for amphibians.

Potential for great crested newts or toads to use the site was negligible, and no further surveys

or precautions are recommended.

4.4.5 Birds

A large number of bird records from the local area were provided by HERC, of which a number

were listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA, BAP/SPIE species, and Birds of Conservation Concern.

The site could provide nesting habitat for small common birds in the hedgerows, and SPIE or

Local BAP species, such as skylark and grey partridge, at times of the year when the crop

height/composition is suitable. Yellowhammer, corn bunting, linnet and tree sparrow could use

the hedge boundary habitat, under appropriate management.

Removal of any hedgerow sections, or ground clearance, should be undertaken outside the

nesting bird season, or preceded by a nesting bird survey to confirm presence/absence of

nests immediately prior to works being undertaken (within three days of the start of the works).

The main bird nesting season is March to August inclusive.

4.4.6 Badger

Badgers have been recorded in the local area. HERC provided a record within 1km of the site,

from 1997. However, no evidence of badger activity or setts (active or inactive) was identified

on the site, and due to the open nature there is negligible risk that badgers would use the area

for sett creation. A mammal push-through at the northern boundary hedge was likely to be

used by fox. Badgers could potentially forage within, or commute through, the site.

Precautions, detailed in Section 5, should be implemented to protect badgers and other

mammals during the construction phase.

4.4.7 Otter and Water Vole

HERC did not hold records for otters or water vole within 2km of the site. There were no

significant water bodies within impact distance of the site. No further surveys or precautions

are necessary.

4.4.8 Dormice

HERC provided a single dormouse record from 1985, approximately 2km to the east. The

hedgerows surrounding the site (to north, west and east) lacked the structure to support

dormice. Hedges were well-managed, with frequent gaps, no tree standards, and with limited

connectivity to off-site wooded areas which could support a dormouse population. Potential for

dormice to use boundary hedgerows was very low, and no further survey or precautions are

recommended.

4.4.9 Hedgehogs, Hares, or Other Protected, BAP or Rare Species

A hare was recorded on the site during the survey, and there was evidence that hares had

frequently grazed the brassicas growing on the site. However, open arable and grassland

fields were widespread adjacent to the site and in the wider landscape. Loss of this arable site,

on the edge of the village and bordered by a road to the west, is unlikely to fragment habitat



used by hares, or to impact individual hares, or the local conversation status of hares. No

further survey or precaution is necessary.

There was low potential for hedgehogs to use the site margins, at the hedgerow bases and

field margins. There were no hibernation or refuge areas (such as wood piles) for hedgehogs,

so clearance of the site is unlikely to harm individuals. On completion, the development is likely

to include garden habitat suitable for hedgehogs. If hedgehog links under any solid garden

fences are created, allowing movement of hedgehogs through the area, the site will remain

suitable for hedgehogs on completion.

4.4.10 Invertebrates

There was no aquatic or deadwood habitat at the site that could support a diverse assemblage

of invertebrate species.

Vegetation on the site was limited and unlikely to support the Lepidoptera species listed in the

HERC data search.

4.4.11 Impact on Designated Wildlife Sites

There are no statutory wildlife sites within 2km and no European designated statutory wildlife

sites within 7km. Fifteen non-statutory Local Wildlife Sites were present within 2km, including

three ancient woodland sites, and a disused chalk pit. Direct impact on any locally designated

sites is unlikely, due to the distance and intervening infrastructure. Indirect impact from

increased visitor numbers are also unlikely, due to the large number of recreational open

space opportunities and footpaths closer to the proposed development site.

4.5 Limitations and Assumptions

The baseline conditions reported and assessed in this document represent those identified at

the time of the survey on 29th April 2015. Although a reasonable assessment of habitats

present can be made during a single walkover survey, seasonal variations are not observed.

All areas of the site were accessible on the day of the survey.



5 Recommendations

5.1 Key Recommendations and Avoidance/Precautionary Methods

Clearance of vegetation, including the main cropped area, and any sections of

hedgerows, should be carried out outside the nesting bird season (March to August

inclusive), or preceded by a nesting bird survey to avoid infringing legislation which

protects all nesting birds (WCA 1981).

To protect any mammals (such as hare, hedgehogs or badgers) in the area, any

foundations, holes or deep pits which are left overnight should have a secured plank,

or other means of escape made available.

Any security or task lighting should be directed away from boundary hedges, to

maintain dark corridors which could be used by bats. PIR lights should be sensitive to

large moving objects only. Any street-lighting at the boundaries should be low level,

with cowls of baffles to avoid light-spill.

Any barriers, such as close-board garden fence, should have hedgehog links at

ground-level (gaps approximately 10cm x 10cm, every 10m).

If these recommendations are carried out, then potential impact of the proposed development

on local biodiversity would be minimal. The site could be enhanced for wildlife if the following

additional recommendations are implemented.

5.2 Enhancement Recommendations

These recommendations will enhance the value of the site for wildlife, and will help towards

Local BAP targets and enhancement, as encouraged through the NPPF.

1) Native fruit and berry bearing species such as hazel Corylus avellana, apple Malus

spp., hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, guelder rose

Viburnum opulus and spindle Euonymus europaeus could be included along within the

boundary hedges to the north, west and east, where there are gaps. New hedge-

planting could be considered for the southern boundary. This would enhance ecological

connectivity around the site and provide foraging and refuge opportunities for birds,

small mammals and other wildlife.

2) Tree standards, which could include oak Quercus robur and field maple Acer

campestre, could be planted within the existing hedge, and any new hedge-planting to

the south.

3) A wildflower grassland area could be included to provide suitable habitat for reptiles,

and to encourage invertebrates to use the site. This should be planted with native chalk

grassland species, to contribute to BAP targets and as suggested by the Hertfordshire

Ecological Network project.

4) Bird boxes could be provided on fences, sheds and new homes. These should be sited

to avoid direct sunlight (not directly south-facing), prevailing wind and the heaviest rain.

Areas inaccessible to cats should be used:

o A smaller, open-fronted box, made to BTO dimensions (for song thrush, robin

and spotted flycatcher).



o Three hole-box type bird boxes with 32mm holes for house sparrows – which

should be located in a group of three boxes for this colonial nesting species.

Ideally, these should be located in a sheltered, less disturbed part of the site,

within scrub or trees and close to the site boundary.



6 Conclusion No further protected species surveys are recommended.

If the precautionary clearance methods recommended to protect nesting birds, commuting

bats at the boundary, and nocturnal mammals (detailed in Section 5) are carried out,

development of the site can proceed with minimal impact on any protected, SPIE or locally

rare species within the area (individuals, or the local conservation status).

If some, or all, of the additional recommendations (Section 5.2) are implemented, the site could

be enhanced for local wildlife, post completion.



7 References Bat Conservation Trust: Artificial Lighting and Wildlife. Interim guidance: Recommendations to

help minimize the impact of artificial lighting. June 2014.

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). HMSO, London.

DCLG (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. ISBN: 9781409834137. Available to

download online on the Communities and Local Government website

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf

English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature

Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey: An Introduction to Planning, Conducting and Interpreting

Surveys for Snake and Lizard Conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10.

Gent, A.H. and Gibson, S.D., eds. (1998) Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Peterborough, Joint

Nature Conservation Committee.

Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Assessment produced by the Chartered Institute of

Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) in July 2015.

Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (1998) A 50-year vision of the wildlife and natural habitats

of Hertfordshire. A Local Biodiversity Plan. Revised 2006 (The Biodiversity Partnership).

HMSO (2010) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) HMSO,

London.

HMSO (2000) Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act. HMSO, London.

HMSO (1981) Wildlife and Countryside Act. HMSO, London.

Hundt, L. (2012). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation

Trust.

JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: a technique for environmental audit

(revised reprint) JNCC: Peterborough.

MAGIC: Designated area data downloaded from URL http://magic.defra.gov.uk (accessed 8th

May 2015).

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC Act) (2006) HMSO London.

Promap (2014). 1:10,000 Street Map of Barkway. Accessed May 2015.

http://www.promap.co.uk/

UK BAP from URL http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5717

http://magic.defra.gov.uk/

http://www.promap.co.uk/

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5717



Appendix A – Legislation & Planning Policy National Legislation

Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations transpose Council Directive

92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (Habitats

Directive) into English law, making it an offence to deliberately capture, kill or disturb wild

animals listed under Schedule 2 of the Regulations. It is also an offence to damage or destroy

a breeding site or resting place of such an animal (even if the animal is not present at the time).

Wildlife & Countryside Act

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way

Act (CRoW) 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) 2006,

consolidates and amends existing national legislation to implement the Convention on the

Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and Council

Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive), making it an offence

to:

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or their eggs or nests (with certain

exceptions) and disturb any bird species listed under Schedule 1 to the Act, or its

dependent young while it is nesting;

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal listed under Schedule 5 to the Act;

intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used for shelter or

protection by any wild animal listed under Schedule 5 to the Act; intentionally or

recklessly disturb certain Schedule 5 animal species while they occupy a place used

for shelter or protection;

Pick or uproot any wild plant listed under Schedule 8 of the Act.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are designated under this Act.

Special Protection Areas (SPA) are strictly protected sites, designated under the Birds

Directive, for rare and vulnerable birds and for regularly occurring migratory species.

Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act

The NERC Act amends the CRoW Act, by further extending the requirement to have regard

for biodiversity to all public authorities, which includes local authorities and local planning

authorities and requires that the Secretary of State consults Natural England (NE) in the

publication of the list of living organisms and habitat types deemed to be of principal

importance in conserving biodiversity.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF sets out current government policy on biodiversity and nature conservation and

places a duty on planners to make material consideration to the effect of a development on

legally protected species when considering planning applications. NPPF also promotes

sustainable development by ensuring that developments take account of the role and value of

biodiversity and that it is conserved and enhanced within a development



NPPF replaced PPS9 in April 2012. NPFF works is considered in conjunction with

Government Circular 06/2005 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory

Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System.’

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act, (1996)

This Act states it is an offence to intentionally cause all wild mammals’ unnecessary suffering

by certain methods, including crushing and asphyxiation. This includes common mammals

such as red fox.

National Planning Policy

Biodiversity Action Plans

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) (Anon, 1995) was organised to fulfil the Rio

Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, to which the UK is a signatory. As a result of new

drivers and requirements, the 'UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework', published in July 2012,

has succeeded the UK BAP. In particular, due to devolution and the creation of country-level

biodiversity strategies, much of the work previously carried out under the UK BAP is now

focussed at a country level.

The UK BAP lists of priority species and habitats are still valuable reference sources. Notably,

they have been used to help draw up statutory lists of priority species and habitats as required

under Section 41 of the NERC act.

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework

The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012) was produced in response to a change in

strategic thinking following the publication of the Convention of Biological Diversity’s Strategic

Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. The Strategic Plan consists of 20 new biodiversity targets for

2020, termed the ‘Aichi biodiversity targets’ and the launch of the new EU Biodiversity Strategy

in May 2011.

The framework sets a structure for action across the UK between now and 2020, including a

shared vision and priorities for UK-scale activities to help deliver the Aichi targets and the EU

Biodiversity Strategy. A major commitment by Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity

is to produce a National Biodiversity Strategy and/or Action Plan (NBSAP).

Natural England Standing Advice

Natural England has adopted national standing advice for protected species. It provides a

consistent level of basic advice which can be applied to any planning application that could

affect protected species. It replaces some of the individual comments that Natural England

has provided in the past to local authorities.

Regional and Local Planning Policy

Hertfordshire Biodiversity Action Plan

The Hertfordshire BAP is an important source of information for key stakeholders and decision

makers including land managers, developers, planners and others. During 2005/2006, a

review of the original habitat and species action plans, focussing on the objectives, targets and

actions. Hertfordshire BAP provides Species Action Plans (SAPs) for water vole, dormouse,

Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri, otter, tree sparrow, song thrush, great crested newt as well as

Habitat Action Plans for woodland, wetlands, neutral grassland, chalk grassland, urban,

farmland and heathland.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189



Local Structure Plans

County, District and Local Councils have Structure Plans and other policy documents that

include targets and policies which aim to maintain and enhance biodiversity. These are used

by Planning Authorities to inform planning decisions.

Relevant Protected Species Legislation

Species Relevant Legislation Level of Protection

Hedgehog/fox/hare Wild Mammals (Protection) Act,

(1996).

This Act states it is an offence to intentionally cause all wild mammals’ unnecessary suffering by certain methods, including crushing and asphyxiation.

Nesting birds. Protection under the Wildlife

and Countryside Act (1981) as amended.

Under the WCA (1981) it is an offence to:

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird;

Intentionally take, damage or destroy nests in use or being built (including ground nesting birds)

Intentionally take, damage or destroy eggs.

Species listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA or their dependant young are afforded additional protection from disturbance whilst they are at their nests.



Appendix B – Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan

extended phase 1 habitat survey€¦ · p2384.1.1 phase 1 habitat survey 19 may 2015 land at...

Documents