great crested newt habitat assessment - east staffordshire application/627000/62… · a great...

Great Crested Newt Habitat Assessment

Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross

Report Reference: BG14.239

October 2014

P/2015/0128412.11.2015

Thorney Lanes, Hoar Cross October 2014

2

Brindle & Green Ecological Consultants specialise in delivering high quality and affordable ecological surveys and reports-tailored for their suitability for informing planning applications.

Brindle & Green surveyors have the necessary experience, technical ability, qualifications and accreditations to meet the high demands increasingly

enforced by Local Authorities and Natural England. Projects are undertaken against the recognised guidelines for the species or

habitats being studied. Brindle & Green reports are uniquely designed to provide the reader with the best possible understanding of our client’s proposals and to ensure that the information requested by the Local Planning Authority is easily found and

understood. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Managements (IEEM) Professional Issue Series 13, Guidance

for Ecological Report Writing.

www.brindlegreen.co.uk

Tel: 0800 222 9105

Head Office Brindle & Green

Limited Office 302

The Old Court House Saint Peters Churchyard

Derby. DE1 1NN

Sheffield Office Brindle & Green

Limited Horizon House Whiting Street

Sheffield. S8 9QR

Barnsley Office Brindle & Green

Limited Sergeants House

36 Edderthorpe Lane Barnsley. S73 9AT

Kent Office Brindle & Green

Limited 18 Sandy Lane

Sevenoaks Kent

TN13 3TP


3

Document Control

Report

Name

Signature

Date

Prepared by

Jack Roper

October 2014

Checked by

Chris Needham

October

2014

Approved by

Neil Crofts

October 2014

Revision Record

Liability Brindle & Green has prepared this report for the sole use of:

Peter Diffey & Associates Ltd. The report is in accordance with the agreement under which our services were performed. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the advice in this report or any other service provided by us. This report may not be relied upon by any other party except the person, company, agent or any third party for whom the report is intended without the prior written permission of Brindle & Green. The content of this report is, at least in part, based upon information provided by others and on the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested. Information obtained from any third party has not been independently verified by Brindle & Green unless otherwise stated in the report.

COPYRIGHT © This report is the copyright of Brindle & Green. Unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited.


4

Project Details

Project carried out by:

Brindle and Green Office 302 Old Court House Derby. DE1 1NN Head Office: 0800 222 9105 Email: [email protected] Website: www.brindlegreen.co.uk Project carried out for:

Peter Diffey & Associates Ltd 54 Woods Lane Burton-On-Trent Staffordshire DE15 9DB Tel: 01283 537609 [email protected] Project site:

Thorney Lanes Hoar Cross West Burton DE13 8QT Grid ref: SK 12527 23758


5

Contents 1 Summary ........................................................................................................... 6

2 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 8

3 Site Context ....................................................................................................... 9

4 Relevant Policy and Guidance ......................................................................... 12

5 Methodology .................................................................................................... 13

5.1 Desk Study ...................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Survey Methods .............................................................................................. 13

5.3 Surveyors ........................................................................................................ 14

5.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 14

5.5 Report Lifespan ............................................................................................... 14

6 Results ............................................................................................................ 15

7 Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 21

7.1 Data Search .................................................................................................... 21

7.2 Breeding Habitat .............................................................................................. 21

7.3 Hibernation Habitat .......................................................................................... 21

8 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 23

8.1 Breeding Habitat .............................................................................................. 23

8.2 Hibernation Habitat .......................................................................................... 23

References .............................................................................................................. 25

Appendices ............................................................................................................. 26

Appendix 1 .............................................................................................................. 27

Client supplied plans ............................................................................................... 27

Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................. 29

Ecological Data Search Information ........................................................................ 29


6

1 Summary 1.1

Brindle & Green have been commissioned by Peter Diffey & Associates Ltd to

undertake a Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) Habitat Assessment on land off

Thorney Lanes which can be found at Grid Reference SK 12527 23758. The purpose

of this assessment is to provide a preliminary appraisal of the sites suitability and

likelihood for supporting Great Crested Newts (GCNs). The survey provides detail on

the need for any additional, more detailed species surveys and any likely mitigation.

1.2

The project area is accessed via Thorney Lanes and is irregular in shape (approx.

0.21 hectares) possessing two steel framed barns used to house cattle during the

winter. The immediate habitat curtailing these barns is largely made up of disturbed

soils and thick mud owing to the usage of agricultural vehicles on site. Tarmac scree

fronts the western section of the site. Lockers Rough Wood is sited adjacent to the

sites southern border and extends east. Large arable fields encompass the site, with

smaller areas of pastoral land included in the vicinity.

A network of six ponds was identified within 500m of the site via digital mapping

resources.

1.3

It is understood that planning proposals are for the creation of gardens, parking areas

and soak a ways to compliment an existing planning consent to convert the existing

barns on site to residential dwellings.


7

1.5

Following an assessment of all ponds within 500 meters and a walkover of the

proposed application site the recommendations are applicable:

Ecological Consideration

Recommendations Timing

GCN Breeding Habitat

A network of six ponds were identified within 500m of the project area. Following Habitat Suitability Index scoring, one pond was found to be of ‘average’ suitability for supporting breeding GCNs and is located 30m SW of the project area border at Grid ref: SK 12472 23763 All other ponds were justifiably dismissed from further evaluation due to one or more of the following reasons:

Water body showed signs of prolonged drought.

Barriers to dispersal through the presence of highways and arable fields.

GCN Hibernation Habitat

Habitats identified suitable and/or favoured for GCN hibernation were limited to the woodland, woodland edge, field margin and hedgerow habitats. Areas within the application site boundary were found to be of no suitability for hibernating GCNs and are subjected to regular heavy disturbance (agricultural machinery).

Mitigation

Whilst it is concluded that the likelihood of impacts on GCN are considered unlikely the very nature of most wildlife is that it is very transient. This report sets out important guidance that will aim to further reduce the likelihood of impacts on GCN and what to do in the unlikely event that GCN are found on site. Refer to chapter 8 for further information.


8

2 Introduction

2.1

Brindle & Green have been commissioned by Peter Differ & Associates Ltd to

undertake a Great Crested Newt Habitat Assessment on land land off Thorney Lanes

which can be found at Grid Reference SK 12527 23758. This survey has been

undertaken to identify baseline information on the ecological value of the site with

sole regards to its suitability and likelihood of supporting GCN populations. The

purpose of this assessment is to identify any likelihood that proposed works may

inadvertently cause damage, disturbance or harm to this protected species.

2.2

A Great Crested Newt Habitat Assessment of the site was carried out on the 21st

October 2014.

The purpose of this assessment is to clarify with some certainty whether the

proposed development work could have an impact on GCN populations and/or their

habitats. The purpose of this assessment is to identify any ecological constraints

relating to the proposed works. Current proposals include the creation of gardens,

parking areas and soak a ways to compliment the already granted planning

permission to convert existing barns on site to residential dwellings.

2.3

Results and recommendations contained within this report have been prepared by an

experienced ecologist and are therefore the view of Brindle & Green Limited. The

survey is based on information provided by our client, the development proposals,

the results of the desk study and our survey of the site. This report pertains to this

information only.

2.4 Zone of Influence

The zone of Influence is used to describe the geographic extent of potential impacts

of a proposed development. This is determined by the type of development proposed

in relation to individual species and their dependence on their habitat requirements,

mobility and distances from the site.


9

3 Site Context

3.1

Maps and aerial photographs were examined to assess the relationship of the

location and its connection to the surrounding environment and habitats beyond the

site boundaries. This is an important consideration as this relates to the potential of

the site to attract GCNs from outlying areas i.e. outlying breeding ponds.

Figure 1. Pond locations. Project area indicated via yellow star.

Pond 1

Pond 2

Pond 3

Pond 4

Pond 5

Pond 6


10

3.2

Aerial view of wider area.

Pond locations are sporadically located within a mosaic of large arable agricultural

fields. Wooded areas, tree lines and field margins do offer some limited connectivity

between ponds. The arable fields and highways are considered to act as dispersal

barriers for any GCN populations.

Figure 2.

Aerial view of surrounding landscape.

Pond locations highlighted with project area indicated via yellow star. Note extensive

mosaic of arable farmland and highways.

Pond 1

Pond 2

Pond 4

Pond 5

Pond 6 Pond 3


11

3.3

Aerial view of application area.

Tarmac scree can be identified to front the of the project area (west) with disturbed

soils and heavy mud as a consequence of agricultural machinery and cattle

movement comprising much of the site. Rank and sparse grassland vegetation exists

in the north and SE of the project area.

Figure 3.

Aerial view of project area.

Note limited habitat for hibernating GCNs with disturbed soils, heavy mud and tarmac

scree dominating site.


12

4 Relevant Policy and Guidance

4.1 General Policy

Articles of British wildlife and countryside legislation, policy guidance and both Local

and National Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are referred to. The articles of

legislation are:

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

Department for Communities and Local Government. National Planning

Policy Framework. March 2012

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

Land Drainage Act 1991

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

The United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan 2006

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)

4.2 Relevant Legislation

Two species of amphibians, the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) and the

Natterjack Toad (Bufo calamita), are fully protected under Schedule 5 of the wildlife

and countryside Act 1981. The legislation protects these amphibians and their place

of shelter or protection which may extend 500 metres from the breeding pond.

Areas of concern; work in the vicinity of still water bodies such as ditches and ponds.

This also applies to water bodies which can sometimes become dry in the summer

months.

Great crested newt site assessments are undertaken in accordance with:

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

Nature, Peterborough.

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.


13

5 Methodology

5.1 Desk Study

Data regarding any records of GCN populations was requested from the following

sources:

Consultee Requested Data Search Radius

Local Ecological Records Centre

Protected and notable species records

2km

5.2 Survey Methods

Ponds within 500m of the site that were not restricted by arable land and/or highways

(barriers to dispersal) or showed signs of prolonged drought were subjected to a

GCN Habitat Suitability Index scoring system. An HSI is a numerical index, between

0 and 1. 0 indicates unsuitable habitat, 1 represents optimal habitat. The HSI for the

GCN incorporates ten suitability indices, all of which are factors thought to affect

GCN.

The ten suitability indices are as follows:

SI1 = Location

SI2 = Pond Area

SI3 = Pond Drying

SI4 = Water Quality

SI5 = Shade

SI6 = Fowl

SI7 = Fish

SI8 = Ponds

SI9 = Terrestrial habitat

SI10 = Macrophytes


14

5.3 Surveyors

The survey was carried out by Jack Roper BSc (Hons), Ecologist.

Supervised by Chris Needham BSc (Hons) MSc, MCIEEM who has been a

professional ecologist for 15 years and is appropriately qualified (GCN License) and

experienced to undertake this kind of work.

5.4 Limitations

It should be noted that whilst every effort has been made to provide a comprehensive

description of the site, no investigation could ensure the complete characterisation

and prediction of the natural environment. The protected and notable species

assessment provides a preliminary view of the likelihood of these species occurring

on site, based upon the suitability of the habitats, know distribution of the species is

the local area and any direct evidence on site. It should not be taken as providing a

full and definitive survey of any protected species group.

5.5 Report Lifespan

Given the transient nature of the subject we would consider the survey results

contained to be accurate for 2 years.


15

6 Results

A total of five ponds were located within 500m of the project area using digital

mapping resources. Owing to a range of barriers to dispersal and/or evidence of

prolonged drought, only one of these ponds was deemed suitable to be subjected to

a GCN Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment.

Descriptions and evaluations of these ponds are as follows:

Pond 1

Approx. 30m SW of project area - Grid ref: SK 12472 23763

Description:

Pond 1 is located within the most western section of Locker’s Rough Wood. It is a

typically natural woodland hollow/pond with gradually sloping margins and areas of

raised banking. At the time of survey the water levels had receded from pre-season

levels, evident from observable tide marks and permeable surrounding substrate.

Owing to the fall in water levels, the pond had been divided into two at its narrowest

part. The more northerly section was heavily shaded whereas the southern section

was more exposed owing to its location at the woodland edge. Identifying the

presence or likely presence of aquatic vegetation is problematic outside of the GCN

breeding season due to vegetation die back. Submerged woodland debris was

abundant within the pond and it cannot be assumed that aquatic vegetation is not

present during the GCN breeding season.

The abundance of leaf litter, tree root systems and natural holes within Locker’s

Rough Wood provides optimal GCN hibernation habitat.

HIS evaluation:

As a consequence of observational results, Pond 1 was subjected to a GCN HSI

evaluation.

The suitability indices scores attributed to Pond 1 are as follows:

SI1 - Location = 1

SI2 - Pond Area = 0.8

SI3 - Pond Drying = 0.5

SI4 - Water Quality = 0.5

SI5 - Shade = 0.4

SI6 - Fowl = 1

SI7 - Fish = 1


16

SI8 - Ponds = 0.39

SI9 - Terrestrial habitat = 0.67

SI10 - Macrophytes = n/a (May – September only)

HSI Score = 0.67 = ‘Average’

Pond 2

Approx. 90m SE of project area - Grid ref: SK 12563 23645

Description:

Pond 2 is located within a natural protrusion of Locker’s Rough Wood towards the SE

corner. Pond 2 was found to be dried up with successional vegetation and firm

substrate indicating prolonged drought.

As a consequence of these observational findings no further survey efforts were

targeted to Pond 2.

Pond 3

Approx. 105m NW of project area - Grid ref: SK 12457 23883

Description:

Pond 3 is located adjacent to Thorney Lanes road which divides the project area and

this water body. Thorney Lanes road can assumed to be a barrier to dispersal for any

GCN populations.

Pond 3 is a typical pastoral pond bordered my immature trees. The pond is largely

unshaded with sloping margins and some evidence of aquatic vegetation; it can be

deemed suitable for supporting GCNs. The field in which the pond is located is

currently used for grazing practices and bordered by mature hedgerows and

scattered trees with connected woodland to the west (approx. 245m). These habitats

considered optimal hibernation grounds for GCNs.

It is confidently assessed that any GCN populations within Pond 3 will seek

hibernation refugia within the bordering hedgerows, root systems and woodland;

avoiding any dispersal to the east i.e. over Thorney Lanes road.


targeted to Pond 3.


17

Pond 4

Approx. 270m SW of project area - Grid ref: SK 12388 23499

Description:

Pond 4 is located adjacent to Abbots Bromley road which divides the project area

and this water body. In addition, an extensive arable field is situated between pond 4

and the project area. Abbots Bromley road and arable field systems can assumed to

be barriers to dispersal for any GCN populations.

The land encompassing Pond 4 possesses a range of nearby optimal hibernation

sites, including tree root systems, hedgerows and woodland.


hibernation refugia within the bordering root systems, hedgerows and woodland;

avoiding any dispersal to the north i.e. over Abbots Bromley road and arable field

systems.


targeted to Pond 4.

Pond 5

Approx. 450m E of project area - Grid ref: SK 13009 23754

Description:

Pond 5 is located within a small section of woodland within a mosaic of arable filed

systems. The substantial distance between Pond 5 and arable field systems can be

assumed to be barriers to dispersal for any GCN populations.


sites, including tree root systems, hedgerows, woodland and pastoral land to east.



avoiding any dispersal to the west i.e. navigating through arable field systems.


targeted to Pond 5.


18

Pond 6

Approx. 120m N of project area - Grid ref: SK 12593 23901

Description:

Pond 6 is located within a private residential garden and as such an assessment of

the water could not be achieved. The arable field adjacent to the SW of Pond 6 can

be assumed to a barrier to dispersal for any GCN populations.


sites, including tree root systems, hedgerows and pastoral land.



avoiding any dispersal to the south and attempts to hibernate within the poor and

limited habitats within the project area.


targeted to Pond 6.


19

6.3. Site Photographs

Photograph 1 Pond 1 (northern section) Water levels have receded from pre-autumn levels. Largely shaded with sloping margins. Presence of aquatic vegetation could not be confidently assessed due to survey timing.

Photograph 2 Pond 1 (southern section) Water levels have receded from pre-autumn levels. More exposed due to woodland edge location. Presence of aquatic vegetation could not be confidently assessed due to survey timing.

Photograph 3 Pond 2 Firm substrate and signs of successional plant growth indicate prolonged drought.


20

Photograph 4 Pond 3 Pond found to be suitable for supporting GCNs. The adjacent Thorney Lanes road (east) acts as dispersal barrier. Highly suitable GCN hibernation habitat to the NW (away from project area).

Photograph 5 Project area Tarmac scree fronts the site with disturbed soils and heavy mud comprising much of the habitat in site. Hard standing and sparse rank vegetation also form areas of the exposed project area.

Photograph 6 Project area Typical sparse grassland within SE corner of project area. Habitat can also be found in the north of the site. Deemed low in its potential to support hibernating GCNs.


21

7 Impact Assessment

7.1 Data Search

The data search returned by Staffordshire Ecological Records Centre identified a

single record of a hibernating female GCN approximately 1719m SE of the protected

species. The study area itself, and land immediately curtailing it, was not found to

contain any records of any relevance.

7.2 Breeding Habitat

GCN migrate from their hibernation grounds to water bodies in spring (February –

March) for breeding. GCN use ponds and an assortment of other standing water

bodies for these purposes. GCNs require water bodies that allows them to enter / exit

via sloping margins or objects (usually vegetation) that can be used as ladders. They

lay their eggs on dead leaves and submerged aquatic vegetation so ponds that have

submerged aquatic vegetation is more attractive to them.

Current development proposals will be limited to project area boundaries. As such,

physical disturbance or damage to any potential GCN breeding habitat i.e. ponds, will

be avoided.

Pond 1 is located 30m SW of the project area and as such run offs and soak away

design during and post construction should consider should any negative impacts

upon this potential GCN breeding pond.

7.3 Hibernation Habitat

GCN migrate from their breeding grounds to terrestrial habitats in late

summer/autumn in order to undergo their hibernation. GCN will utilise tree root

systems, dense vegetation, mammal burrows, deadwood etc. as their hibernacula.

GCN require resting sites affording them protection from predation, frost and

flooding. Woodland, hedgerows and dry stone walls are considered ideal hibernation

and connectivity resources for GCN.

Current development proposals will be limited to project area boundaries. As such,

physical disturbance or damage to any optimal GCN hibernation habitat e.g.

woodland, field margins and hedgerows will be avoided.


22

The application area (habitats within boundary) offers no potential regarding GCN

hibernacula. The area largely consists of disturbed soils and heavy mud owing to the

regular use of agricultural machinery and cattle movement on-site. Loose tarmac

scree borders the western section of the site, again, damaged by agricultural

machinery.

The habitats within the project area are assessed to be negligible to low in their

potential for supporting hibernating GCNs

Locker’s Rough Wood adjacent to the south of the project area and extending east

offers optimal hibernation grounds for GCNs. In addition the field margins,

hedgerows and tree lines in the wider area provide highly suitable GCN hibernacula

opportunities.


23

8 Recommendations

Current design proposals were considered when assessing suitable

recommendations for this project.

8.1 Breeding Habitat

Pond 1 was attributed a HSI score of ‘Average’ with regards to its potential for

supporting GCNs. As a consequence, rational measures should be incorporated into

any on site construction to avoid any unlawful impacts on this protected species.

Any run off from the site construction site should be manipulated and maintained so

that it does not leach into Pond 1; carrying with it any harmful effluent.

It is understood that soak a ways will need to be established to facilitate the

development of two dwellings on site. These soak a ways should be designed in a

manner which avoids adverse impacts on Pond 1. Adverse impacts can be

categorised as causing pond water level fluctuation and disrupting water quality.

8.2 Hibernation Habitat

Locker’s Rough Wood is located directly adjacent (south) to the project area. This

woodland was considered to be optimum hibernation habitat for any GCN

populations in the area. Consequently, rational measures should be incorporated into

any on site construction to avoid any unlawful impacts on this protected species

through the disturbance of woodland and woodland edge habitats.

Ordinarily the establishment of buffer zones between woodland edge and

constructions would be incorporated, however it is understood that such areas seek

to be converted into garden. As such, reasonable avoidance measures should be

carried out to reduce disturbance to woodland edge habitats.

Avoidance measures should be classified as the following:

Limiting any use of heavy machinery in these areas

Avoiding the placement of heavy materials in these areas

Avoiding damage to any nearby tree root systems


24

Where possible, work to these areas should be conducted outside of the GCN

hibernation period (October – February inclusive)

Furthermore, in the unlikely event that GCNs are encountered on site then works in

that area must stop immediately and advice from a suitably qualified ecologist or

Natural England sought.


25

References Bell, S. McGillivary, D. (2006) Environmental Law. 6th ed. Oxford University Press. Byron, H (2000) Biodiversity and Environmental Impact Assessment: A Good Practice Guide for Road Schemes. The RSPB, WWF-UK, English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts, Sandy. English Nature. (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey (2003). JNCC. Sutherland, W.J. (1996) Ecological Census Techniques. Cambridge University Press. Treweek, J. (1999) Ecological Impact Assessment. Blackwell Science. Williams, C. (2010) Biodiversity for Low and Zero Carbon Buildings, A Technical Guide for New Build. Riba Publishing.


26

Appendices

Appendix 1

Client supplied plans

Appendix 2

Ecological Data Search Information


30

great crested newt habitat assessment - east staffordshire application/627000/62… · a great...

Documents