Bat-survey.co.uk Page 1

Great Crested Newt Scoping Survey, J C Bamford Excavators Limited Land at, JCB Headquarters, ROCESTER, Staffordshire, ST14 5EZ.

Map Ref SK 1009 3860

11th February 2014.

S. Christopher Smith MRICS MSc CEnv. Suite D,

4/5 Market Street, TAMWORTH,

Staffs. B79 7LU

01827 310475 Mobile 07967 636115

Natural England License Number CLS 02741 E mail; chris@bat-survey.co.uk ©Tamworth Property Services.

P/2014/00228

Received 24/02/14

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 2

Contents. Summary. Page 2. Introduction. Page 3. Legislation. Page 4. Methodology. Page 6. Limitations. Page 7. Results. Page 7. Conclusion. Page 10. Recommendations. Page 10.

1. Summary

• This report was commissioned by JCB in respect of proposed works on land adjacent to the JCB demonstration area in the southern section of the site boundary. The survey was undertaken to ascertain if there are any statutory constraints to proposed works in respect of great crested newts.

• The walkover and data search survey identified eight ponds within a 500m radius of the proposed site boundary, three of these were assessed using a Habitat Suitability Index assessment.

• The objective of the walkover survey was to assess the habitat provided within the local landscape for its suitability for Great Crested Newt and to provide advice as to the requirements to protect any animals from the proposed development and as such to comply with the relevant legislation.

• The Habitat Suitability Index for the ponds was average at one pond where water pollution is currently an issue and below average at the other ponds within the development site.

• The surveyor believes it is unlikely that Great Crested Newts will be disturbed by the development of the golf course.

• Habitat improvement through greater connectivity.

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 3

2. Introduction. This report has been prepared of JCB. It provides the result of a walk-over survey and site assessment of land within JCB for great crested newt Triturus cristatus in respect of proposed works to facilitate the development of the area as a golf course for the use of JCB. A Habitat Suitability Index assessment of ponds within the site boundary was undertaken to assess the likelihood of great crested newt (GCN) being present within ponds and associated habitats and whether they pose a statutory constraint to the proposed works.

The study area is located to the west of Rocester, Uttoxeter, Staffordshire (Central Grid Ref. SK 093 385). Habitats within the south of the site comprise of patches of broad-leaved woodland, arable fields, hedgerows and a woodland that is highlighted in as a bluebell wood and is included in the Staffordshire Ecological records. Great crested newts are protected under British law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and are classified as European Protected species under The Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 1994. This makes it an offence to intentionally capture, kill or injure a great crested newt or to damage or destroy any place used for breeding, rest or shelter. The legislation extends to both breeding ponds as well as terrestrial habitat. Licences in respect of European protected species affected by development can be granted under Regulation 44(2)(e) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 licences can only be issued if Natural England are satisfied that:

• There is no satisfactory alternative and • The action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of

the species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Aerial imaging was consulted to assess the site in relation to its context in the wider landscape. An aerial image of the site is shown in Figure 1 below.

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 4

Figure 1: Aerial image of the site

As shown in the aerial image above, the site is connected to the wider landscape by way of hedgerows and sections of woodland.

3. Legislation Before any development proposals take place measures must be taken to ensure that the legislation concerning great crested newts is not breached as a result of works. GCN are afforded full protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

Under Regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 it is illegal to:

• Deliberately capture, injure or kill any wild animal of a European Protected Species (EPS),

• Deliberately disturb wild animals of an EPS (affecting ability to survive, breed or rear young) – disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young,

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 5

• Deliberately disturb wild animals of an EPS (impairing ability to migrate or hibernate) – disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely to impair their ability in the case of hibernating or migratory species to hibernate or migrate,

• Deliberately disturb wild animals of an EPS (affecting local distribution and abundance) – disturbance of animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong,

• Deliberately disturb wild animals of an EPS (whilst occupying a structure of place used for shelter or protection) – intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection,

• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a wild animal an EPS. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is legal to:

• Recklessly or intentionally kill, injures or take any wild animals included in Schedule 5.

• Recklessly or intentionally damage or destroy, or obstruct access to any structure or place which any wild animal included in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection,

• Recklessly or intentionally disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection.

If GCN are considered to be using habitats (terrestrial or aquatic) on site and impacts upon the species cannot be avoided a European Protected Species Licence from Natural England is required in order to allow proposals to derogate from the Legislation (Licenses cannot be obtained to provide protection against offences under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)). As part of the application process a number of ‘Tests’ have to be met by the application. Natural England Guidance Note: European Protected Species and the Planning Process – Natural England’s Application of the ‘Three Tests’ to Licence Applications (March 2011) states: “In determining whether or not to grant a licence Natural England must apply the requirements of Regulation 535 of the Regulations and, in particular, the three tests set out in sub-paragraphs (2)(e), (9)(a) and (9)(b)6.

(1) Regulation 53(2)(e) states: a licence can be granted for the purposes of “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”.

(2) Regulation 53(9)(a) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”

(3) Regulation 53(9)(b) states: the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied “that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.”

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 6

Conservation status is defined as “the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long term distribution and abundance of its population within its territory”. It is assessed as favourable when:

• population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and

• The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and

• There is, or will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long term basis.

4. Methodology. This methodology assesses ponds against ten pre-determined criteria producing a score which indicates suitability for great crested newt occupation.

The Habitat Suitability Index provides a measure of the likely suitability that a waterbody has for supporting newts (Oldham et al 2002). In general, ponds with a higher score are more likely to support great crested newts than those with a lower score, and there is a positive correlation between HSI scores and ponds with newts recorded. Ten separate attributes are assessed for each pond:

• Geographic location

• Pond area

• Pond drying

• Water quality

• Shade

• Presence of water-fowl

• Presence of fish

• Number of linked ponds

• Terrestrial habitat

• Macrophytic coverage

A score is assigned according to the most appropriate criteria level set within each attribute and a total score calculated of between 0 and 1. Pond suitability is then determined according to the scale shown below.

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 7

HSI SCORE POND SUITABILITY <0.5 Poor 0.5 – 0.59 Below Average 0.6 – 0.69 Average 0.7 – 0.79 Good >0.8 Excellent

5. Limitations

Access was only possible to ponds 1, 2 and 9 at the time of the survey on the 9th July 2013. No access was possible to ponds 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 although a Habitat Suitability Index was possible on pond 3 from within the grounds of the JCB site boundary.

6. Results.

The locations and description of ponds within 500m of the application site are shown in Figure 2 and described in Table 4. Ponds 1, 2 and 8 were within the application site boundary and ponds 3 – 7 were located within 500m of the proposed site boundary.

Descriptions of each pond can be seen in Table 4, however access was not available for all ponds and therefore some ponds are only described from a distance or by using Ariel photos. Ponds within the site boundary (see Figure2) Pond 1 - A small pond located within Hugh Wood, broadleaved section of woodland adjacent the south western aspect of the current demonstration area. The pond was heavily shaded on all aspects by trees with high level of leaf litter and dead braches within the pond leading to poor water quality. The pond was nearly dry with a low water level at the time of the survey. The pond was connected to other areas of woodland by well-established hedgerows. Pond 2 – A small pond situated within the north eastern corner of woodland approximately 300m north of pond 1. The pond was heavily by broadleaved woodland with dense ground cover present throughout the woodland. Due to the vegetation over at the time of the survey the HSI could only be undertaken from the nearest view point possible. The pond was connected to other areas of woodland by well-established hedgerows. Pond 8 – A large fishing lake of considerable size with sporadic tree cover around the periphery of the pond. Wooden fishing platforms were present around the pond with usage by water fowl observed during the survey, carp were also observed near the pond surface. Habitats surrounding the pond edge comprised of short mown well maintained grass. A narrow wooded tree line was present along the eastern boundary which also bordered the A5030. Ponds off-site but within 500m of the proposed works Pond 3 – Although off-site this pond could be viewed from the site boundary along a hedgerow. The pond was approximately 160m² and partially shaded along the southern boundary. Marginal vegetation could be observed although species composition could not be determined from distance. This pond suffers from both surface runoff and ground seepage from the scrap metal yard to the northeast of the pond. There was oil seen on the surface of the water.

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 8

Pond 4 – Off-site with trees shading the south and south eastern aspects of the pond. The pond could only be viewed using Ariel photos. Land use surrounding the pond comprised of grazing pasture to the east and arable farmland to the west. Pond 5 - Small pond situated within the end of a hedgerow surrounded by grazing pasture. The pond could only be viewed using Ariel photos. The pond is situated north of the highway and isolated in the landscape with poor connectivity to areas of suitable habitat GCN. Pond 6 – The pond was located within the north eastern edge of a section of broadleaved woodland the western side of adjacent the south western aspect of the current demonstration area. The pond was heavily shaded on all aspects by trees with high level of leaf litter and dead braches within the pond leading to poor water quality. The pond was nearly dry with a low water level at the time of the survey. The pond was connected to other areas of woodland by well-established hedgerows. Pond 7 – A large fishing lake with a small area of woodland on the eastern aspect of the pond. Hedgerows connect the pond to the wider area with arable and grazing pasture present surrounding the pond. Figure 2: Pond Location Plan

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 9

The results of the HSI assessment of all accessible ponds are detailed below.

Pond 1 – HSI score = 0.46 (poor suitability)

Pond 2 – HSI score = 0.55 (below average)

Pond 3 – HSI score = 0.62 (average)(good suitability until water quality is considered due to the pollution problems from the adjacent scrap yard HSI score without water quality assessment 0.79).

Pond 8 - HSI score = 0.32 (poor suitability)

Pond 4 – 7, No access

Terrestrial Habitats

The majority of the site offers intensively managed fields which provides sub-optimal terrestrial habitat for great crested newts. The longer semi-improved and improved grassland provides limited habitat for foraging whilst hedgerows and trees provide shelter and connectivity within the site.

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 10

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 11

Bat-survey.co.uk Page 12

7. Conclusion

During the walkover survey on the 9th

It is considered pond 9 (large fishing lake) stocked with numerous fish including carp would remove the chance for a viable population of GCN with this pond.

July 2013 it was considered the site provided a poor possibility to support great crested newts. Although pond 1 and pond 2 scored poor (0.46) and below average (0.55) respectively the woodland habitat and hedgerows provide habitat suitable for GCN. Pond 3 just off-site provided a HSI score of 0.62 (average suitability) and is well connected to the two on-site ponds (pond 1 and 2) by well- established hedgerows. The improvement of this area will raise the suitability of the land for GCN. The two other on site ponds (ponds 1 and pond 2) have low HSI scores the nearest pond from the site boundary (pond 3) has average suitability to support GCN. The scrap yard has since the date of the survey been acquired by JC Bamford Excavators Limited and the scrap yard use is being ceased. The proposal is for the site to be cleared and re-developed. This will improve the suitability of the pond for GCN, the surveyor believes to an HSI of around 0.79. Improvements to the established hedgerows connecting it to the on-site habitats and ponds in the future with the development of the golf course would be of benefit to the potential use of the site by GCN.

The creation of the new woodlands around the boundaries of the golf course will create new habitat for GCN with connectivity to the ponds outside of the ownership of JCB.

8. Recommendations Around the ponds on site the works to create the golf course will be largely in an area that will cause the least ecological impact within the site boundary between Ponds 1, 2 and 3 the only sites where there is any potential for GCN use. Such areas of lower impact will be within arable or pasture fields which provide limited places of shelter or rest for this species. There will be some disturbance in the woodland due to felling and soil translocation but the suitability for GCN is considered to be low due to the low connectivity with good pond habitat.

The completed golf course and removal of the polluted ground from the scrap yard will improve the HSI for pond 3 to above average. Greater connectivity across the golf course through extended woodlands, hedgerow retentions and new ditches will improve the habitat for GCN. The surveyor recommends that new refuges are created adjacent to ponds 1, 2 and 3 within the site to further improve habitat suitability for GCN

From the results of the site walkover and pond assessment it is not possible to absolutely determine the presence/absence of great crested newt in the survey area but it is consider to be low, below average at present and does not warrant the undertaking of a presence/absence survey during the optimum period for surveying this species between April – June 2014.