extended phase 1 survey habitat assessment for reptiles ......executive summary a pjc consultancy...

Strumpshaw Road, Brundell October 2010

PJC Consultancy Ltd 1

Strumpshaw Road, Brundall Norfolk

**

Extended Phase 1 Survey Habitat Assessment for Reptiles

Habitat Assessment for Great Crested Newts External Bat Survey

A report for JB Planning

October 2010

txgou

20120167



Contents

CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 41.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 5

BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 5SITE CONTEXT AND STATUS .................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 PLANNING POLICIES .............................................................................................................. 6NATIONAL POLICY WITH STATUTORY BACKING – TIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN .................................. 6NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY .............................................................................................................. 6LOCAL PLAN......................................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 9DESK TOP STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 9FIELD SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................... 9TREE SURVEY FOR BATS ....................................................................................................................... 9BADGER SURVEY................................................................................................................................ 10HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR REPTILES ................................................................................................ 11OTHER SPECIES................................................................................................................................... 12

4.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS BY ECOSULIS LTD................ 13HABITAT............................................................................................................................................. 13BATS................................................................................................................................................... 14BADGERS ............................................................................................................................................ 14GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ..................................................................................................................... 14

5.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 15DESKTOP STUDY................................................................................................................................. 155.1 THE SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY STATUTORY DESIGNATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SEVERAL SITES THAT HAVE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN 10KM OF THE SITE. THESE ARE:.......................... 15SITE VISIT ........................................................................................................................................... 16CRICKET GROUND............................................................................................................................... 16GARDEN AREA .................................................................................................................................... 17TREE SURVEY FOR BATS ..................................................................................................................... 18BADGER SURVEY ................................................................................................................................ 18GREAT CRESTED NEWTS ..................................................................................................................... 18HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR REPTILES ................................................................................................. 18OTHER SPECIES ................................................................................................................................... 19

6.0 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 19ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF THE SITE ....................................................................................................... 19TREE SURVEY FOR BATS ..................................................................................................................... 20BADGERS ............................................................................................................................................ 20OTHER SPECIES ................................................................................................................................... 20ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS............................................................................................................ 21ECOSULIS LTD RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 22

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 227.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 23APPENDIX 1: PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................................................... 24APPENDIX 2: HABITAT MAP.......................................................................................................... 25



LIABILITIES: Whilst every effort has been made to guarantee the accuracy of this report, it should be noted that living creatures are capable of migration and whilst protected species may not have been located during the survey duration, their presence may be found on a site at a later date. The views and opinions contained within this document are based on a reasonable timeframe between the completion of the survey and the commencement of any works. If there is any delay between the commencement of works that may conflict with timeframes laid out within this document, or have the potential to allow the ingress of protected species, a suitably qualified ecologist should be consulted. It is the duty of care of the landowner/developer to act responsibly and comply with current environmental legislation if protected species are suspected or found prior to or during works.



Executive Summary

A PJC Consultancy Ltd was commissioned by JB Planning to undertake an ecological

assessment on land at Strumpshaw Road, Brundall, Norfolk. These surveys serve to

update and extend those carried out by Ecosulis Ltd in 2009.

B The extended Phase 1 survey found that there were no notable habitats onsite. The

site is not considered likely to support a population of protected species such as

reptiles or amphibias, but may be used by foraging badgers. There should be no

constraints on development in relation to protected species or habitats on site or

immediately within the local area.

C Several recommendations have been made in order to enhance the ecological value of

the site once developed. These focus on the use of native species to be incorporated

into landscaping designs in place of non-native ornamentals. Suitable bat and bird

boxes have also been recommended to be hung within mature trees on site.



1.0 Introduction

Background 1.1 PJC Consultancy Ltd was commissioned by JB Planning to undertake an extended

Phase 1 habitat survey, an external bat survey and habitat assessment for protected

species at land at Strumpshaw Road, Brundell, Norfolk.

1.2 Previously surveys had been undertaken on the cricket ground by Ecosulis Ltd in

December 2008. Update surveys were undertaken in October 2010 by PJC in order

to support a planning application.

1.3 Section 2 of this report sets out planning policies regarding nature conservation.

Section 3 sets out the methodologies of PJC surveys. Section 4 summarises results of

previous surveys at the site. Section 5 gives the results of the desk and field survey.

Discussions and implications for development are found in section 4 and conclusions

are given in section 6.

Site context and status

1.4 The site is located in Brundall, Norfolk (TG333078). The site is set within a small

residential area, which lies within a wider rural landscape. To the south of the site is a

small area of woodland, beyond which is the River Yare of the Norfolk Broads

wetland habitat. Residential buildings surround the rest of the site but agricultural

fields lie just beyond.

Description of the proposed development

1.5 The proposal is for the construction of multiple residential units and their associated

hard standing, landscaping and access roads.



2.0 Planning Policies

National policy with statutory backing – Biodiversity Action Plan

2.1 In 1994 the United Kingdom produced the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). This

sets out the national approach pursuant to the Convention on Biological Diversity

signed by this country and 150 others in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In the United

Kingdom, the approach has been to identify Priority Species and Habitats with action

plans and associated targets, prepared for these species and habitats. In addition to

Priority Species, the BAP included a list of ‘Species of Conservation Concern’.

Action plans have not been written for these species but they are still considered to be

at risk, and the government is committed to their conservation. The avoidance of

harm to such species is the key objective, rather than any aim to meet specific targets.

2.2 Some BAP habitats are found close to the site in the local area. To the south of the

site is a large extent of reedbed and floodplain grazing marsh. Both of these are

habitats for which action plans have been produced.

2.3 Several bat species are UK BAP species including, but not limited to, soprano

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), brown long eared bat (Plecotus auritus) and the

noctule (Nyctalus noctula). Other species such as stag beetles, hedgehogs and great

crested newts are all BAP species.

2.4 Under the CROW Act (2000) it is now the duty of every Government department in

carrying out its functions “to have regard, so far as it is consistent with the proper

exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biological diversity in

accordance with the Convention”.

National Planning Policy

2.5 National policy guidance is provided by Planning Policy Statement 9, Biological and

Geological Conservation (PPS 9, ODPM 08/2005), with the legislative provisions of

these policies provided in the accompanying Circular (ODPM 06/2005, DEFRA

01/2005). Together these documents address the issue of development planning with

respect to biodiversity conservation.



2.6 PPS 9, Paragraph 1(i) states:

“Development plan policies and planning decisions should be based upon up-to-date

information about the environmental characteristics of their areas. These

characteristics should include the relevant biodiversity…resources of the area. In

reviewing environmental characteristics local authorities should assess the potential

to sustain and enhance those resources.”

Local Plan

2.7 The land at Strumpshaw Road, Brundell comes under Broadland District Council.

There are several policies and aims regarding the environment within this area. These

are listed below:

Policy ENV1

“The environmental assets of the district, including the character and appearance of

the countryside and towns, villages and urban areas, will be protected and their

enhancement sought.”

Policy ENV3

“Developers will be expected to make adequate arrangements for future maintenance

of landscaped areas including management for nature conservation where

appropriate.”

Policy ENV5

“Where appropriate, natural or semi-natural features such as trees, woodland,

hedgerows, heathlands, and other areas rich in wildlife such as former railway land,

meadows and roadside verges will be protected, the establishment of new features

sought, and appropriate management promoted. Particular importance will be

attached to habitats referred to in the Norfolk biodiversity action plan and the targets

therein, and to features which provide or contribute to “reserves” or “corridors” for

wildlife in areas generally devoid of wildlife habitats. Where development is allowed

which would result in the unavoidable loss of important features, appropriate

measures will be required to conserve, as far as possible, the wildlife interest and

provide replacement or other compensating features.”



Policy ENV6

“Development in or near a site of special scientific interest or local nature reserve or

national nature reserve which would damage its special interest will not be

permitted. Particular attention will be paid to the list of operations likely to damage

defines by English nature for the sites of special scientific interest.”

Policy ENV7

“Development which would significantly adversely affect the wildlife interest of areas

of local nature conservation importance, including county wildlife sites and ancient

woodlands identified by English nature, or the value of regionally important

geological/geomorphological sites (RIGS), will not be permitted.”

Policy ENV9

“Important “Green Spaces” within the settlement limits are identified on the

proposal map, indicating those areas of visual, recreation or nature conservation

value in a neighbourhood. Development which will significantly adversely affect the

value of these areas will not be permitted.”

Policy ENV11

“Development will not be permitted on common land and town or village greens

unless the development is connected with and contributes to the use of the land as a

common or town or village green. Measures to maximise the use of commons and

town or village greens for public recreation and nature conservation will be

permitted where compatible with landscape and ecological considerations.”

Policy ENV24

“Development that would have a significant adverse impact on the quality or

character of the broads area will not be permitted.”

2.8 PJC have been instructed to undertake surveys to ensure that the site is fully

characterised and that features of nature conservation interest have been identified.

Additionally PJC have made recommendations for the enhancement for the site if

planning permission is granted.



3.0 Methodology

Desk Top Study 3.1 A desk top study search was completed using an internet-based mapping service

(www.magic.gov.uk) for statutory designated sites and two internet-based aerial

mapping services (www.multimap.com and maps.google.co.uk) were used to

understand the habitats present in and around the survey area and habitat linkages and

features (ponds, woodlands etc) within the wider landscape.

3.2 A 2km search was also completed using an internet-based database

(www.searchnbn.net) for recent protected species records. Records older than 10

years were not considered.

Field Survey 3.3 PJC ecologist Rob Styles BSc (Hons) undertook an extended Phase 1 habitat survey

on 7th October 2010, which included assessing the potential for any protected species

such as: great crested newts, reptiles, bats and badgers. The surveyors identified the

habitats present, following the standard ‘Phase 1 habitat survey’ auditing method

developed by the Nature Conservancy Council (NCC). The site was surveyed on foot

and the existing habitats and land uses were recorded on a map. In addition, the

dominant plant species in each habitat were recorded, as was any evidence of

protected species and the habitat suitability for reptiles and great crested newts. The

potential for the site to support protected species was also assessed and a badger

survey was undertaken.

Tree Survey for bats

3.4 The trees on site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats. The trees

were assessed visually for evidence of bats as well as for features which increase the

likelihood such as the following:

• Woodpecker holes, natural cracks and rot holes in trunks and branches

• Frost cracks

• Trunk and branch splits

• Hollow sections of trunk and branches

• Loose bark



• Cavities beneath old root buttresses and coppice stools

• Dense epicormic growth

• Dense ivy cover

3.5 Veteran trees typically exhibit many of these features and should usually be regarded

as sites with clear potential, but any tree which possesses one or more such feature,

may host bats. Any tree species can be suitable but oak and beech often seems to be

the preferred option. However, bats rarely restrict themselves to one tree.

3.6 Roosts of bats in trees may be identified from the following field signs:

• Black stains beneath cracks, splits and other features where bat dropping have

fallen

• Dark marks at entrance points where bats have rubbed against the wood and left

natural body oils

• Feeding remains beneath roosts, such as insect wings

• Chattering of bats

• Bat droppings under access points

• Scratch marks around a feature (cavity or split) caused by bat claws

• Urine stains below the entrance or end of split

• Large roosts or regularly used sites may produce an odour

• Flies around the entrance, attracted by the smell of guano

3.7 Trees were recorded as having high, medium or low potential following standard

practise where:

• High potential = upward developing holes, splits and crack and woodpecker

holes. Old trees with complex growth forms are of particular interest.

• Medium potential = downward developing holes, splits and cracks, features

which could support several bats or a group of bats.

• Low potential = ivy covering only, few or no holes, splits or crevices.

• Confirmed roosts = evidence of use by bats (bats chattering, seen flying in and

out of roost, presence of droppings etc)

Badger Survey

3.8 The evaluation of badger activity was based on methodology developed for the

National Survey of Badgers (Creswell et al., 1990) and includes searching for badger



field signs such as setts, badger pathways, tracks (pawprints), dung piles with latrines,

badger hairs and feeding signs such as snuffle holes.

3.9 During the survey, all habitat potentially suitable for badgers were systematically

examined for evidence of badger activity including:

• Setts: several sett types may be present within a social group territory, ranging

from a single hole to numerous interconnecting tunnels. Setts can be categorised

according to Table 1 below into main, annexe, subsidiary and outlier (Wilson et

al., 1997).

• Latrine sites: badgers characteristically deposit dung in pits, which may be

located along the boundaries and with the social group territory. These sites

serve as means of inter- and intra-group communication.

• Paths and runs: well used routes between setts and/or foraging areas. Often used

by generations of badgers.

• Snuffle holes: areas of disturbed vegetation often formed by badgers foraging for

ground dwelling invertebrates such as earthworms and larvae and the

underground storage organs of plants.

• Hair: often found among spoil and bedding outside entrances to setts or snagged

on fences (such as barbwire) along well-used runs.

• Footprints: easily distinguishable from other large mammal species. Often found

along paths and runs or in spoil outside sett entrances.

3.10 Particular attention was paid to areas where the vegetation and/or the topography

offered suitable sett sites such as embankments and wooded areas.

Habitat Assessment for Reptiles

3.11 Habitat surveys were undertaken on 7th October 2010 to assess the potential of the site

to hold populations of reptile species. This involved looking for the presence of

factors that would increase the suitability of the site for reptiles such as:

• Scrub and grassland (long sward) mosaic across the site;

• Features that can be potential hibernation sites for common reptiles such as

log piles;

• Grass tussocks within the grassland that can act as shelter and burrowing

sites;

• Water bodies or damp places on site (grass snakes);

• Compost heaps or decaying vegetation (slow worms);



• Features that can act as refugia on the ground such as disused roofing felt.

Habitat Assessment for Great Crested Newts

3.12 Habitat surveys were carried out on the 7th October 2010 to assess the potential of the

site to hold great crested newts (Triturus cristatus). This involved looking at the

wider landscape using Google Maps and Nature on the Map to look at types of habitat

in the wider landscape. This also involved looking for the presence of factors that

would increase the suitability of the site for great crested newts such as:

• The presence of suitable breeding places (water bodies) on site and within

500m of the site in the wider landscape;

• Habitat connectivity between ponds (if present) in the wider landscape and

on site;

• The condition of the ponds and whether there were factors that would render

them unsuitable for GCN’s such as fish;

• Land uses surrounding the site that may effect the potential of the site to hold

GCN’s such as agriculture;

• Type of suitable habitat on site such as scrub/grassland mosaic;

• Patches of woodland in the wider landscape that can provide terrestrial

habitat;

• Any barriers between known populations of GCN’s such as motorways and

roads;

• Hibernation features on site for great crested newts such as log and rubble

piles.

Other Species 3.13 The site was inspected for indications of the presence of protected species as follows:

• Relevant habitat for dormice such as dense deciduous woodland, coppice and

thick shrubbery

• The presence of suitable freshwater habitat for white-clawed crayfish

• The presence of ditches for water voles

• The presence of fresh water stream/rivers for otters

• Suitable nesting places for birds

• Other potential protected species

3.14 The likelihood of occurrence is ranked as follows and relies on the current survey:



• Unlikely – while presence cannot be absolutely discounted, the site includes

very limited or poor quality habitat for a particular species or species group.

The site may also be outside or peripheral to known national range for a

species

• Low – on-site habitat of poor to moderate quality for a given species/species

group. Presence cannot be discounted on the basis of national distribution,

nature of surrounding habitats, habitat fragmentation, recent on-site

disturbance etc

• Medium – on-site habitat of moderate quality, providing all of the known

key-requirements of given species/species group. Factors limiting the

likelihood of occurrence may include small habitat area, habitat severance

and fragmentation, disturbance

• High – on site habitat of high quality for a given species/species group. Good

quality surrounding habitat and good connectivity

• Present – presence confirmed from the current survey or by recent, confirmed

records

3.15 The purpose of this assessment is to identify whether more comprehensive species

surveys for protected species, great crested newts, reptiles or habitats (Phase 2) are to

be recommended.

4.0 Summary of previous ecological surveys by Ecosulis Ltd

Habitat 4.1 Ecosulis reported that the habitats that were present on site included: amenity

grassland, scattered trees, buildings, hard-standing and hedgerows. These habitats

were considered to be common and widespread throughout the UK.

4.2 There were two large ponds present off site with associated wet woodland located to

the south of the site. These ponds and their associated habitats were considered to be

of value at the district level. These ponds were also considered to have the potential to

support otters and water voles. The habitats, which are present on site, were not

considered to support such species.

4.3 There were no protected flora species present on site and there were no invasive plant

species recorded at the time of the survey.



Bats

4.4 There were several buildings present on site, these consisted of: pavilion, score hut,

storage shed, umpires changing room and wooden shed with flat felt roof. These were

all noted to have negligible potential to support roosting bats.

4.5 Several trees were recorded on site; these were mainly comprised of mature sycamore

trees. All were noted as having low potential to support roosting bats apart from one

of the mature sycamore tree, which was in a state of decay located along the south-

western boundary.

Badgers

4.6 No signs of badgers were found to be present on site at the time of the survey.

However, the amenity grassland did present good foraging habitat for badgers.

Great crested newts

4.7 The habitat on site was deemed unsuitable for amphibians due to the large proportion

of heavily managed amenity grassland that was present on site.

4.8 There were two ponds present offsite by the southern boundary. Pond 1 was

approximately 10m adjacent to the southern boundary and was found to have a HSI

score of 0.51. Pond 2 was located approximately 50m from the southern boundary

and was found to have a HSI score of 0.51. Both of these ponds fell into the ‘below

average’ category for great crested newts according to HSI criteria.



5.0 Results

Desktop Study

5.1 The site is not located within any statutory designations. However, there are several

sites that have designations within 10km of the site. These are:

• The Broads SAC1 - approximately 0.1km south of the site;

• Broadland RAMSAR - approximately 0.1km south of the site;

• Broadland SPA2 - approximately 0.1km south of the site;

• Norfolk Broads Authority – approximately 0.1km south of the site;

• Mid Yare NNR3 – approximately 0.1km south of the site;

• Yare Broads and Marshes SSSI4 – approximately 0.1km south of the site;

• Brundell Church Fen LNR5 – approximately 1.2km west of the site;

• Howe’s Meadow SNCI6 – approximately 2km north-west of the site;

• High Noon Farm SNCI6 – approximately 0.6km north-east of the site.

5.2 There several protected species records held within the local area such as: water vole

(Arvicola amphibius), badger (Meles meles), great crested newt (Triturus cristatus),

otter (Lutra lutra), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), brown long-eared bat

(Plecotus auritus), Daubenton’s bat (Myotis daubentoni), serotine (Eptesicus serotinus)

and noctule (Nyctalus noctula) within 2km of the site. Other records of protected

species includes: common lizard (Lacerta vivipara), grass snake (Natrix natrix), osprey

(Pandion haliaetus), goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), barn owl (Tyto alba), swallow

(Hirundo rustica), bittern (Botaurus stellaris), marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus),

merlin (Falco columbarius), hobby (Falco subbuteo), peregrine falcon (Falco

peregrinus), spotted crake (Porzana porzana), lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), ruff

(Philomachus pugnax), jack snipe (Lymnocryptes minimus), woodcock (Scolopax

rusticola), long-eared owl (Asio otus), kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), lesser-spotted

woodpecker (Dendrocopos minor), nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos), black

redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros), Cetti’s warbler (Cettia cetti), grasshopper warbler

(Locustella naevia) and spotted flycatcher (Muscicapa striata).There were several

records of BAP species such as: hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus), brown hare (Lepus

europaeus), bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula), linnet (Carduelis cannabina), bittern

1 SAC – Special Area of Conservation 2 SPA – Special Protection Area 3 NNR – National Nature Reserve 4 SSSI – Site of Special Scientific Importance 5 LNR – Local Nature Reserve 6 SNCI – Site of Nature Conservation Interest



(Botaurus stellaris), sky lark (Alauda arvensis), song thrush (Turdus philomelos) and a

beetle (Lacornis oblongis) all within 2km of the site.

Site visit Please refer to Habitat Phase 1 Map

5.3 The habitats on site are common and widespread throughout the UK. The site as a

whole is comprised of two separate areas, which support similar habitat types. The

cricket ground is separated from the garden a fence line.

Cricket ground 5.4 The cricket ground is comprised almost entirely of improved amenity grassland,

however small areas of hard-standing surrounds several of the sites buildings. The

amenity grassland is dominated by perennial rye grass (Loliun perenne), but other

species are present in places such as white clover, (Trifolium repens), ribwort plantain

(Plantago lanceolata), dandelion (Taraxacum spp) and perennial daisy (Bellis

perennis). The edges of the grassland still remain short, but support several more

species where the habitat meets the fence. Species found here include annual meadow

grass (Poa annua), lesser stitchwort (Stellaria graminea), common nettle (Urtica

dioca), red deadnettle (Lamium purpereum), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and

yarrow (Achilea millefolium).

5.5 Several mature trees are scattered along the northern boundary of the cricket ground.

Species here include sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), cypress (Cupressus sp), larch

(Larus sp) and beech (Fagus sylvaticus).

5.6 Immediately off-site to the east in a hedgerow comprised of a number of woody

species including beech, yew (Taxus baccata), holly (Ilex aquifolium), bramble

(Rubus fruiticosus) and cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus).

5.7 A beech hedgerow runs along the southern boundary of the site, and this area also

supports a number of understorey species. Species here include: herb Robert

(Geranium robertianum), creeping buttercup (Rununculus repens), lesser stitchwort

and field forget-me-not (Myosotis arvensis). Immediately south of the hedgerow, but

not incorporated within are two mature trees, a single variegated maple (Acer spp)

and a species of cherry (Prunus spp).



5.8 A small area of scattered trees stand to the west of the cricket ground. Species here

are cypress and sycamore.

Garden area 5.9 The main extent of the garden area is amenity grassland, but there are mature tree

lines surrounding the site’s periphery and small areas of ornamental planting. The

amenity grassland is comprised of similar species to that of the cricket ground. It is

dominated by perennial rye-grass, annual meadow-grass and includes species such as

the perennial daisy, white clover and dandelions.

5.10 A hedgerow separates the garden from the cricket ground. This hedgerow is

comprised of several species including holly, bramble, cherry laurel, yew, sycamore

and hazel (Corylus avellanas). Ground flora along this hedgerow includes common

nettle, creeping buttercup, ivy (Hedera helix) and woody nightshade (Solanum

dulcamara).

5.11 Within the amenity grassland is a small grassy bank, which supports cocksfoot

(Dactylis glomerata), greater plantain (Plantago major), common field speedwell

(Veronia persica) and a line of apple trees (Malus spp), at the end of which is a

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).

5.12 Along the southern boundary of the site is a row of cypress trees with single ash

(Fraxinus excelsior) and horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum).

5.13 Along the western boundary of the garden is a hedgerow comprised of mature cherry

(Prunus spp) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). Other species that were recorded

within this hedgerow include dog rose (Rosa canina) and ivy.

5.14 A cluster of cypress trees stand in the southeastern corner of the garden. Also within

this area is black nightshade, nettle and a large amount of creeping buttercup.

5.15 A mature oak tree stands to the northwestern corner of the garden.



Tree survey for bats

5.16 The majority of trees on site are not considered suitable to support roosting bats.

However three individual trees on site are considered to have some potential to

support roosting bats. This is due to trees supporting such features as cavities and

split branches. One tree is located to the northwest of the cricket ground, this is a

mature sycamore with medium potential. A second sycamore, located along the

western boundary of the cricket ground has similar features, which give it medium

potential to support bats. The third tree is a horse chestnut located along the southern

boundary of the garden and is considered to have low potential to support roosting

bats.

5.17 The trees and hedgerows on site are likely to provide foraging habitat and linear

navigation routes for bats. Off site habitats, such as the ponds and wet woodland are

considered to be high quality habitats for foraging bats.

Badger survey 5.18 No badger setts or latrines were found on site during the survey. The site supports

habitat that is considered suitable for foraging by badgers, however no confirmed

signs of badger activity were recorded during the survey. Small amounts of digging

within the cricket ground may have been snuffle holes, caused by foraging badgers,

but there was no other evidence to suggest badger activity on site.

Great crested newts 5.19 The habitat on site was not considered suitable to support amphibians as it is mainly

comprised of heavily managed amenity grassland. Amphibians are more likely to use

woodland habitat to the south of the site, as neither parts of the site contain features

that would provide adequate shelter to be of significant value.

Habitat assessment for reptiles 5.20 The habitats on site are not considered suitable to support reptiles. The heavily

managed amenity grassland is unlikely to hold sufficient foraging opportunities to

support common reptiles.

5.21 The habitats on site do not hold sufficient refuge opportunities for reptiles and so are

unlikely to support reptiles during the winter months.



Other species 5.22 Breeding birds may use some of the mature vegetation on site as nesting habitat

during the breeding season (March to September).

5.23 The habitats on site are not considered suitable to support a population of dormice.

The hedgerows and associated habitats on site do not support a rich variety of species

which would be required to support a population of dormice on site.

5.24 There is a lack of suitable habitat on site to support water voles or otters. However, it

is noted that off site habitats do support features which are favoured by water voles

and otters.

5.25 The buildings on site are unlikely to support roosting bats. Apart from the pavilion

building and the score hut, the other buildings are all small wooden sheds. The

pavilion building and the score hut also do not have roof voids. All buildings on site

do not provide features which are considered suitable to support roosting bats.

6.0 Discussion

Ecological value of the site 6.1 The site as a whole is comprised of habitats that are common and widespread

throughout the UK. The habitats are considered to be of value at site level only with

some of the mature trees on site having intrinsic value. The value of the habitat is

largely limited to the foraging habitat that the amenity grassland offers for badgers

and the nesting habitat that the mature trees and hedgerow vegetation on site offers to

breeding birds.

6.2 The hedgerows and tree lines on site may offer good quality foraging and navigation

features for bats. It is recommended that the external tree lines and hedgerows are

retained where possible. However a large line of cypress trees that form the southern

boundary of the garden should be replaced. This hedge line currently offers no

ecological value to the site and casts large amount of shade on the understorey

causing limited opportunities for growth. It would be more beneficial to replace these

trees with a mix of native hedging species such as beech, hazel, field maple (Acer

campestre), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), crab



apple (Malus sylvestris), elder (Sambucus nigra), dogwood (Cornus sanguinea),

guelder rose (Viburnum opulus) and wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana).

Tree survey for bats

6.3 Three trees on site were considered to have some potential to support roosting bats.

Two mature sycamore trees within the cricket ground have a medium potential to

support bats. These are situated at the boundaries of the site and so it is recommended

that they are retained. A single horse chestnut on the southern boundary of the garden

has a low potential to support roosting bats. There are few crevices that are easily

accessible by bats that are present on the sycamores. It is recommended that these

trees are retained within the landscaping schemes. If these trees are to be affected by

the development, further ecological consultation should be sought.

Badgers 6.4 There are no resident badgers on site and no setts or latrines were recorded during the

time of the survey. Badgers may use the site for foraging; however potential foraging

signs recorded were small in number.

6.5 Any development on site is not considered likely to have an adverse impact on the

conservation status of badgers within the local area.

Other species

6.6 The site may support nesting birds during the breeding season (March – September).

However the features most likely to support nesting birds are the mixed tree lines and

hedgerows around the boundary of the site. These are likely to be retained in

landscaping plans. If these are to be removed it is recommended that works are

carried out outside of the breeding season.

6.7 The site is not likely to support reptiles due to a lack of good quality suitable habitat;

most reptiles thrive in areas of rough grassland, of which there is very little on site.

6.8 The site is not likely to support any other protected species and so development on

site should not be constrained. Although there are ponds in the nearby area, these

have been assessed for their suitability to support great crested newts and are

considered below-average.



Ecological enhancements 6.9 Whilst the development is unlikely to have a significant impact to the ecology of the

area, several recommended enhancements can be made to the landscape design which

will help to minimise any impacts that the development does have and may improve

the ecological value of the site.

6.10 To ensure that any new development does not have an effect on the surrounding

habitat, especially that of the wet woodland and ponds to the south of the site,

lighting schemes should be carefully designed. Ensuring that lighting is focused away

from any off site habitats, habitat edges, tree lines and hedgerows is considered to be

increasingly important in design schemes. Lighting is known to disturb bats and

cause bats to change their flight path and behaviour, lighting is also thought to affect

otters and water voles foraging behaviour. Buffering lights or angling them so they do

not spill into landscape features should be considered as part of the design.

6.11 The use of native mixed hedging has already been discussed (see section 6.2). A

mixture of these native species will increase the foraging opportunities available to

badgers in the local area.

6.12 Any drainage requirements such as SUDS can be used to enhance the site for local

wildlife. Drainage features on site can be planted to enhance the ecological value of

the development. Species of local provenance should be used. Suitable species may

include: common reed (Phragmites australis), branched burr-reed (Sparganium

erectum), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and lesser pond sedge (Carex

acutiformis).

6.13 The use of wildflower seed mixtures and native bulb species throughout the site will

increase the value of the site for a range of important invertebrates.

6.14 Bird boxes may be hung on mature trees to increase the number of breeding

opportunities available throughout the site. Recommended boxes include:

• Schwegler 1N Deep Nest Box – gives added protection from predators

• Shcwegler 1B Bird Box – general purpose bird box suitable for common

species.



6.15 Installation of bat box into mature trees will also increase the number of roosting

opportunities throughout the site and may augment the conservation of the local bat

population. Suitable boxes include:

• Schwegler 2F – Simulates natural crevices and attracts crevice dwellers.

• Schwegler 1FD – A larger version of the 2F

• Schwegler 1FW – This box is suitable for maternity or hibernation roosts.

6.16 Use of simple measures such as log piles and brash piles can be used to enhance the

site. Log and brash piles can be used in association with the hedgerows around the

site. These stacked can provide good opportunities for local wildlife such as common

amphibians, reptiles and hedgehogs, which can use them as hibernacula’s, for shelter

or for foraging for grubs and dead wood favouring invertebrates.

Ecosulis Ltd Results 6.17 The findings of surveys by Ecosulis Ltd concur with those presented in this report.

These surveys cover the cricket ground area of the site. PJC’s surveys have

considered the site as a whole, which includes the cricket ground and the back garden

plot.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The habitats found on site are common and widespread throughout the UK and are

considered to be of ecological value at a site level only. It is recommended that linear

habitat features at the boundary of the site be retained or replaced with native hedging

species. These will provide good habitat for a number of species.

7.2 The development is unlikely to have any significant impacts on the biodiversity of

the local area. If the recommended enhancements are implemented within the

landscape designs, the ecological value of the site may be increased by the

development.

7.3 Recommended ecological enhancements have been described within this report and

include the use of native hedge and tree species, planting of native seed mixtures and

the installation of bird and bat boxes throughout the site.



8.0 References

CIRIA C567 (2005) working with wildlife – site guide. CIRIA, London.

Cresswell, P., Harris, S. and Jefferies, D.J. (1990). The history, distribution, status

and habitat requirements of the badger in Britain. Nature Conservation Council,

Peterborough.

Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.

Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat

Conservation Trust, London.

English Nature (1994) Species Conservation Handbook. English Nature,

Peterborough.

Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature 2001.

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk

Langton, T.E.S., Beckett, C.L., and Foster, J.P. (2001) Great Crested Newt

Conservation Handbook. Froglife, Halesworth.

Neal, E. and Cheeseman, C. (1996) Badgers. T & A D Poyser Ltd. London.

Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability

of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10

(4), 143-155.

Internet resources:

Magic Interactive Map: www.magic.gov.uk

Multimap: www.multimap.com

NBN Gateway: www.searchnbn.net



Appendix 1: Photographs

Photograph 1: The extent of improved amenity grassland habitat present on the cricket ground

Photograph 2: Medium bat potential sycamore at northwest of cricket ground

Photograph 3: Southern beech hedgerow of cricket ground with mature trees behind and within the hedgerow

Photograph 4: Medium potential sycamore to west of cricket ground

Photograph 5: Cypress species hedge to south of garden area. This photograph also shows the extent of amenity grassland on site.

Photograph 6: Low potential Chestnut species present to the south of the garden area



Appendix 2: Habitat Map



PJC Consultancy Ltd

Chapter House

Priesthawes Farm

Hailsham Road

Polegate, East Sussex

Tel. 01323 776 155

Fax. 01323 768 244

www.pjcconsultancy.com

Author: Rob Styles BSc (Hons), Ecologist

Approved for PJC by: Alexia Tamblyn MA (Oxon) MSc MIEEM FRGS,

Managing Director

Date: 18/10/10

extended phase 1 survey habitat assessment for reptiles ......executive summary a pjc consultancy...

Documents