ns&oc opa enivironmental statement volume 2, part 2

Beyond Green Developments North Sprowston & Old Catton

ES Volume 2: Technical Appendices

Appendix 5.1: Detailed Ecology Surveys:

- Designated Sites Report;

- Phase I Habitats, Hedgerow and Botany

Surveys Report;

- Badger, Brown Hare, Hedgehog & Harvest Mice

Report

- Bat Survey Report;

- Bird Survey Report;

- Invertebrate Survey Report; and

- Amphibians and Reptiles Surveys Report.

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / D

esig

nate

d S

ites / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / D

esig

nate

d S

ites / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

Author Alex Prendergast BSc (Hons) MSC MIEEM

Job No. 100368

Reviewed by Approved by Date

Initial Graham Hopkins Sam Phillips 5th

May 2011

Revision Graham Hopkins Danny Thomas 20th

September 2012

North Sprowston and Old Catton

Designated Sites

Report for Beyond Green

The Ecology Consultancy Thorpe House, 79 Thorpe Road, Norwich, NR1 1UA T. 01603 628408 E. [email protected] W. www.ecologyconsultancy.co.uk

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / D

esig

nate

d S

ites / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 2

Background 2

Site context and Status 2

Legislation and Planning Policy 2

2 METHODS 3

3 RESULTS 4

International Sites 4

Nationally Designated Sites 6

Crostwick Marsh SSSI 6

Non-Statutory Sites 7

4 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT IMPACTS 9

Potential Sources of Impacts 9

Groundwater Flows 9

Water Abstraction and Disposal 10

Recreational Disturbance 10

REFERENCES 11

APPENDIX 1: DESIGNATED SITES WITHIN 2KM 12

APPENDIX 2: SITE CITATIONS 15

APPENDIX 3: LEGISLATION & PLANNING POLICY 24

LIABILITY The Ecology Consultancy has prepared this report for the sole use of the commissioning party 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 without the prior written

permission of The Ecology Consultancy. 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 The Ecology Consultancy,

unless otherwise stated in the report.

COPYRIGHT © This report is the copyright of The Ecology Consultancy. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is

prohibited. The Ecology Consultancy is the trading name of Ecology Consultancy Ltd.

The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Designated Sites / Beyond Green

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ecology Consultancy was commissioned to carry out a suite of ecology surveys

for the North Sprowston and Old Catton development. The work is to contribute to

the Environmental Statement and Environmental Impact Assessment process.

This report presents the details of the designated sites within 2km of the survey area

as well as additional information on internationally designated sites across a wider

radius.

No statutory designated nature conservation sites were recorded within 2km of the

site. However, Crostwick Marsh is located just outside the 2km radius and this is a

component site of The Broads Ramsar site and Special Area of Conservation and the

Broadland Special Protection Area. At a national level it is designated as a Site of

Special Scientific Interest.

Eleven County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) are located either wholly or partially within the

2km search area. Two CWSs are close to the site boundary: Ladies Wood, Church

Carr & Springs CWS and Tollshill Wood CWS, the former is partly within the site

boundary and the latter is separated by the Wroxham Road.

An assessment of potential impacts from the development was undertaken and an

overview is included in this report Potential impacts included:

Changes to groundwater flows;

Impacts from water abstraction and water disposal; and

Increased density of residents resulting in increased recreational impacts.


2

1 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

1.1 The Ecology Consultancy was commissioned by Beyond Green to undertake a suite

of ecological surveys of a large land parcel to be developed as a proposed urban

extension of Norwich. These surveys are intended to provide the baseline description

of the site and to provide the technical data to support the Environmental Statement

and EIA process.

1.2 This report presents the results of a desktop search for designated sites within 2km

of the site boundary and provides an overview of potential impacts.

SITE CONTEXT AND STATUS

1.3 The development area covers approximately 200ha, as an arc along the north-east of

Norwich. The development area spans from approximately the boundary of Norwich

International Airport to the Wroxham Road, south of Spixworth and north of Old

Catton and Sprowston. To provide a wider landscape context for the work, a larger

area was included within the scope of the ecological work (a total of approximately

350ha) and this is referred to as the survey area.

1.4 The development area is predominantly arable farmland, with small blocks of

woodland and occasional parkland.

LEGISLATION AND PLANNING POLICY

1.5 Appendix 3 contains details of legislation and planning policy and is provided for

general guidance only. The Appendix includes:

Statutory and non-statutory designated sites

National Planning Policy


3

2 METHODS

2.1 Information regarding the present and historical ecological interest of the site and

within a further 2km radius was requested from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information

Service. In addition, a search was completed for statutory designated sites within a

2km radius of the site using the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the

Countryside (MAGIC) on-line mapping service (www.magic.gov.uk).

2.2 The following designations are referred to in the text with expanded accounts in

Appendix 3:

International Sites. These are sites covered by international conventions and

European directives. Those referred to here are:

o Ramsar sites; wetlands variously designated for habitats, birds, plants,

other animals or other significance such as cultural importance.

o Special Protection Area (SAC) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC);

together these are ‘European sites’ as defined by the EC Birds and

Habitats Directives respectively. The qualifying features of SPAs are birds

and for SACs the qualifying features are variously habitats, plants or non-

bird animals.

Statutory Sites. These are designated under national legislation, principally

the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended) relating to Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI). Other national designations include Local Nature

Reserves (National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949) and

National Parks (here, covered by The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act of

1988).

County Wildlife Sites are defined in local and structure plans under the Town

and Country Planning system and are a material consideration when

planning applications are being determined. The level of protection afforded

to these sites through local planning policies and development frameworks

may vary between counties.

http://www.magic.gov.uk/


4

3 RESULTS

INTERNATIONAL SITES

3.1 There are no ‘international sites’ within 2km of the site boundary (Appendix 1: Figure

1).

3.2 At the nearest point The Broads Ramsar Site, The Broads Special Area of

Conservation (SPA), and the Broadland Special Protection Area (SAC) are

approximately 2.9km north-east of the development area., The major part of these

international sites lies downstream of Wroxham, approximately 5.6km from the site

across open farmland.

3.3 All three international designated sites are composed of a large number of individual

component SSSI’s: 26 for Broadland SPA and 28 for The Broads Ramsar Site and

SAC, the furthest of which are more than 30km distant (Table 1). The component

sites not included in the Broadland SPA are: Damgate Marshes, Acle and Trinity

Broads.

Table 1. Distances from the development area to individual component SSSI’s of The Broads

Ramsar Site, The Broads SAC and the Broadland SPA.

Distance from

Project

Boundary (km)

Component SSSI

<5 Crostwick Marsh.

5-10 Bure Broads and Marshes.

10-15 Yare Broads and Marshes; Alderfen Broad; Broad Fen, Dilham; Ant

Broads and Marshes; Smallburgh Fen; Upton Broad and Marshes;

Ducan’s Marsh, Claxton; and Cantley Marshes.

15-20 Shallam Dyke Marshes; Thurne Ludham-Potter Heigham Marshes; Decoy

Carr; Acle Poplar Farm Meadows, Langley; Burgh Common and

Muckfleet Marshes; Limpenhoe Meadows; Calthorpe Broad; and Upper

Thurne Broads and Marshes ; Damgate Marshes, Acle; and Hardley

Flood.

20-25 Priory Meadows, Hickling; Halvergate Marshes; Hall Farm Fen, Hemsby;

Geldeston Meadows; Stanley and Alder Carrs, Aldeby.

20-25 Trinity Broads.

30-35 Barnby Broad and Marshes; Sprat's Water and Marshes, Carlton Colville.

3.4 The designated features of The Broads’ international sites (Table 2) are aquatic and

wetland species, including: vegetation types; assemblages of rare or named plant

species; assemblages of rare or named invertebrates; named animals other than

invertebrates and assemblages of breeding and wintering birds.


5

Table 2. Qualifying Features for The Broads’ international sites.

Qualifying Feature Relevant

International Site

Habitats

Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae; calcium-rich fen dominated by great fen sedge (saw

sedge); alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae).

The Broads Ramsar

Site.

The Broads SAC

Alkaline fens. The Broads Ramsar

Site

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.; natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-

type vegetation; Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-

silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae); and transition mires and quaking

bogs.

The Broads SAC

Plants and animals (other than birds)

Fen orchid Liparis loeselii; otter Lutra lutra; Desmoulin`s whorl snail

Vertigo moulinsiana; and the ramshorn snail Anisus vorticulus. The Broads Ramsar

Site

The Broads SAC

Outstanding assemblages of rare plants and invertebrates including

nine British Red Data Book plants and 136 British Red Data Book

invertebrates.

The Broads Ramsar

Site

Birds

Bewicks swan Cygnus Columbianus bewickii; gadwall Anas strepera

strepera; and wigeon Anas penelope. The Broads Ramsar

Site

Broadland SPA

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata. The Broads Ramsar

Site

Great bittern Botaurus stellaris; western marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus; hen harrier Circus cyaneus; whooper swan Cygnus cygnus; ruff Philomachus pugnax; pink footed geese; and shoveler.

A large assemblage of wintering wildfowl, additionally including

cormorant, great crested grebe, coot, bean goose, white-fronted

goose, teal, pochard and tufted duck.

Broadland SPA

3.5 Three additional international sites are located within a 20km radius of the Project

boundary (Table 3).


6

Table 3. Other international sites within 20km of the development area.

Distance from

Project

Boundary (km)

International Site Details

4.3 River Wensum

SAC.

Comprised of a single component site, the River

Wensum SSSI, this river flows for over 70km from

north-west Norfolk to the outskirts of the Norwich

conurbation. At its closest point it is approximately

4.3km distant, to the west. It is designated for aquatic

vegetation, fish and invertebrates.

11 Norfolk Valley

Fens SAC.

A designation with 14 component SSSI sites, the

closest of which is Buxton Heath SSSI 11km to the

north-west, but with others more than 50km distant.

All of the sites are spring-fed fens, with qualifying

features including vegetation and individual plant and

animal species.

19 Breydon Water

Ramsar Site and

Breydon Water

SPA.

Comprised of a single designated site, Breydon

Water SSSI, near to Great Yarmouth and 19km

distant at the closest point. It is a tidal wetland and

designated primarily for wetland birds, with a small

number of scarce plants also listed as qualifying

features.

NATIONALLY DESIGNATED SITES

3.6 There are no nationally designated sites within 2km of the proposed development

site. The nearest site is Crostwick Marsh SSSI (a component of the Broadland SPA

and The Broads SAC and Ramsar site) located 2.9km to the north.

3.7 The Broads National Park is located approximately 4.1km from the proposed

development. Although the Broads does not officially have a National Park

designation it was granted equivalent status in 1989 with an Authority set up to

manage the area. Mousehold Heath is a Local Nature Reserve some 1.9km south of

the Project boundary, separated by the Sprowston conurbation. It is remnant of a

formerly extensive heathland and supports heathland flora and fauna, most notably a

suite of rare and scare invertebrates, in particular bees and wasps.

3.8 Given its proximity, additional details of Crostwick Marsh SSSI are given below and

its citation is shown in Appendix 2.

CROSTWICK MARSH SSSI

3.9 As described by Doarkes (1995), the upper reaches of the Bure support soligenous

sloping fens dominated by rush pasture and fen meadow communities. Crostwick

Marsh itself is an area of unimproved meadow, species rich fen meadow & carr

woodland, situated in a tributary valley of the Bure. In places the valley is quite

steeply sloping, which has encouraged the development of a series of intergrading

vegetation types, from dry calcicolous vegetation on the upper slopes, through damp

grassland, species rich fen meadow & tall herb fen in the valley bottom. The valley

bottom tall herb fen is a topogenous sump wetland, and the remainder are thought to


7

be predominantly fed by calcium rich spring water seeping from the exposed Upper

Chalk on the valley slopes.

3.10 The dominant community on Crostwick Marshes is B9 (which is equivalent to the

NVC type M22 and consequently satisfies the criterion for the Annex I Alkaline Fen):

Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen meadow. This community is rare in

Broadland, and Crostwick Marshes supports approximately half of the total area.

Grasses, small sedges & abundant small herbs characterise the sward.

Approximately one-third of the area is woodland or scrub, most of which has

developed since 1946.

3.11 Visitor access is limited, with roadside parking for fewer than six cars and access

from nearby conurbations on foot being difficult. A public footpath runs through the

north part of the site.

NON-STATUTORY SITES

3.12 Eleven non-statutory County Wildlife Site (CWSs) are located within 2km of the site.

Four of these are only partially within the 2km search area and none are located

within the Proposed Development footprint (Table 4). Two are in close proximity to

the Project Area: Ladies Wood, Church Carr and Springs and Tollshill Wood.

3.13 Of particular note for their proximity to the site boundary are:

Ladies Wood, Church Carr and Springs. This site is approximately

300m east of the development area. It comprises small fishing lakes

and associated woodland and grassland habitat, including ancient

woodland parcels. It is not connected by surface watercourses to the

site but probably receives drainage from the eastern part of the site.

Dobb’s Beck flows northwards from the site.

Tollshill Wood. This CWS comprises a woodland block, which is

separated from the site by Wroxham Road.

3.14 A summary description for each of these sites is given below in Table 4. Location

maps and full descriptions of each CWS with are provided in Appendices 1 and 2

respectively.


8

Table 4. District Wildlife Sites within 2km of the development area.

Site Name (number) Proximity and

Location

Description

Tollshill Wood (2021). 0.02km, east. Ancient, broad-leaved semi-natural

woodland.

Ladies Wood, Church Carr &

Springs (1393).

0.3km east. Woodland (some of which is ancient),

grassland and standing water habitats.

Paine’s Yard Wood, The

Owlery & March Covert

(1392).

1.06km, east. Woodland, including abundant deadwood

and stored coppice.

Spixworth Meadows (1396). 1.17km, north. Damp semi-improved grassland.

Crostwick Common (South)

(1402).

1.3km, north. Tall herb or rank grassland with scrub.

Reservoir Meadow (1404). 1.47km, north. Damp alder Alnus glutinosa carr and semi-

improved, seasonally grazed grassland.

Fiddle Wood & Night

Plantation (1468).

1.67km,

south-west.

Broadleaved plantation woodland with

some.

Crostwick Common (North)

(1403).

1.77km, north. Woodland, scrub and fen.

Mousehold Heath &

ValleyValley Drive (1469).

1.95km, south. Former heathland, now mostly covered by

recent woodland.

Also designated as a Local Nature Reserve.

Racecourse Plantation

(2041).

1.95km,

south-east.

Commercially-managed coniferous

plantation and broad-leaved semi-natural

woodland.

Wroxham Hall Woods

(1406).

1.97km, north-

east.

A series of interconnected woodlands of

different woodland types.


9

4 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT IMPACTS

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF IMPACTS

4.1 The potential impacts of the development are most likely to result from:

Changes to groundwater flows;

Water abstraction and disposal; and / or

Recreation disturbance.

4.2 Impacts form groundwater flows are unlikely

GROUNDWATER FLOWS

4.3 The interception of rainwater by the development and its disposal to a SuDS network

may affect the designated sites to the north along Spixworth Beck.

4.4 The hydrogeological map of the area (1:125,000, BGS 1978 Northern East Anglia)

shows that the groundwater level in the Chalk aquifer at the site approximately

coincides with the base of the Norwich Crag and top of the Chalk and is at

approximately between 15m and 20m below ground level, which is equivalent to

about between 8m and 15m above OD. The groundwater flow direction across the

site indicated by the groundwater contours on the map is generally from the

southwest to the northeast towards an unnamed tributary of the Crostwick Beck that

is located approximately 1.0km to the east of the site. From there the unnamed

tributary flows in a generally northerly direction before its confluence with the

Crostwick Beck some 4km to the northeast of the site, after which the beck flows to

the east. The Crostwick Marsh SSSI is situated approximately 1km upstream (west)

from the confluence and approximately 2.9km north of the site.

4.5 Based on the hydrogeology it is considered that the major component of

groundwater flow from beneath the site area will travel north-east and any ground

and surface water interaction will take place either towards the un-named tributary or

further downstream in Crostwick Beck. The component of groundwater recharge

(infiltration) from below the site reaching the Crostwick Beck near or upstream of the

SSSI is anticipated to be very small, if not negligible.

4.6 In addition to this there is a thick unsaturated zone between the ground surface and

the groundwater table consisting of fine grained granular soils deposits comprising

Brickearth, Glacial Sand and Gravel and Norwich Crag that will provide major

attenuation of any potential contaminants in the surface water run-off from the site as

it move through any infiltration based SuDS scheme. Much of the runoff will be from

roofs and non-vehicular hard-standings such as paths, but despite this additional

safeguards will be provided where necessary such as sediment traps, settlement

ponds, petrol / oil interceptors and filtration reed beds in the basins.


10

WATER ABSTRACTION AND DISPOSAL

4.7 Issues relating to water abstraction and water disposal are considered within the

Water Cycle Study of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (Scot Wilson,

2010).

RECREATIONAL DISTURBANCE

4.8 For the international sites, impacts from recreational disturbance cannot be easily

discounted and require more comprehensive consideration to determine impacts on

site integrity.

4.9 For the CWSs locally, impacts are likely to be relatively low due to several being in

private ownership and without public access or generally likely to be of lower

attractiveness to residents of the development. The restoration of Beeston Park is

likely to provide an attractive recreational resource for residents who may otherwise

visit local CWSs.


11

REFERENCES

Chris Blandford Associates (2008) Broadland District Landscape Assessment. Available

from: http://www.broadland.gov.uk/housing_and_planning/618.aspa accessed8th February

2010

Doarks, C. (1995) Fen Management Strategy. English Nature, Norwich.

Natural England (2009) Countryside Character. Volume 6: East of England. Available from:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/EoEcharacter_tcm6-5341.pdf

http://www.broadland.gov.uk/housing_and_planning/618.aspa%20accessed8th%20February%202010

http://www.broadland.gov.uk/housing_and_planning/618.aspa%20accessed8th%20February%202010

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/EoEcharacter_tcm6-5341.pdf


12

APPENDIX 1: DESIGNATED SITES WITHIN 2KM


13

Figure 1a: Location of County Wildlife Sites to the north of the proposed development area.


14

Figure 1b. Location of County Wildlife Sites to the south of the proposed development area.


15

APPENDIX 2: SITE CITATIONS


16

Table 5. Citation for Crostwick Marsh SSSI.


17

Table 6. Citations for County Wildlife Sites within 2km of the site boundary.

CWS

number

Name Description

1392 Paine’s Yard Wood, The Owlery & March Covert

Paine’s Yard Wood and The Owlery are varied woodlands of largely native species and of a varied structure, including abundant deadwood and stored coppice. Mature ash (Fraxinus excelsior) is a dominate species throughout, much of it arising from large coppice stools. Oak (Quercus robur) and birch (Betula pendula) are frequent and hazel (Corylus avellana) coppice dominates some areas; there are a number of non-native tree species in the canopy, including sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). Elm (Ulmus procera) occurs in occasional dense stands, mostly in the form of young suckers. Rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) also occurs on the southern boundary, whilst holly (Ilex aquifolium) and rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) are rare throughout. Ornamental conifer species occur to the north. In some areas, the ground flora is dominated by large stands of bluebell (Endymion non-scriptus), with bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), soft rush (Juncus effusus) male fern and broad buckler fern common throughout. A small clearing to the south is dominated by bracken, with Yorkshire fog and climbing corydalis being common. Elsewhere, wood avens, foxglove, herb Robert, honeysuckle, hedge woundwort and bramble occur. Wood melick is occasional throughout. A derelict pond occurs on the eastern boundary. Paine’s Yard Wood narrows dramatically to the north, where the woodland follows the parish boundary, which is marked by a bank and impressive oaks, which occur as pollards and coppice stools. A mature hedge also follows the boundary and links the wood with The Owlery. The hedge is composed of dense stands of blackthorn, with some elder and occasional ash coppice. Hedgerow plants include upright hedge parsley, cow parsley, ground ivy and bramble. The Owlery is a small area of woodland to the north of Paine’s Yard and linked to it by the hedge mentioned above. The Owlery contains mature beech, probably the remnants of a larger plantation, as well as mature ash. Bluebell dominates the ground layer, with frequent red campion and bramble, as well as occasional bracken. In March Covert, Oak (Quercus robur) dominates a tight canopy with chestnut (Aesculus sativa) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) also present. The shrub layer is mainly hazel (Corylus avellana) occasionally blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and holly (Ilex aquilinum). Bramble (Rubus fruticosus) dominates the ground floor with patches of primrose (Primula vulgaris). Information on March Covert is based on the 1985 habitat survey (NWT)

1406 Wroxham Hall Woods

This is a large area of interconnected woodlands covering a number of different woodland types. The site is situated on sandy soils in the gently rolling landscape of the Bure valley and includes old moat diggings. There is no obvious current management except the removal of dead and dangerous trees and replanting of some areas. Much of the woodland is used for game rearing and shooting. The southern part of Big Wood is an area of old coppiced hazel (Corylus avellana) and common lime (Tilia x vulgaris) with regenerating English elm (Ulmus procera), elsewhere the scrub layer is dominated by young sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). The ground flora is abundant dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis), red campion (Silene dioica) with nettle (Urtica dioica) and patches of low growing bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg) and locally frequent bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta). Other areas to the north west are dominated by oak (Quercus robur) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) with little ground flora. The south east part of this wood has been replanted in the last few years, mainly with oak and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa). The


18

CWS

number

Name Description

ground flora here also contains rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium). Furze Burnt in the south is much the same with Scot’s pine (Pinus sylvestris) and a ground flora with yellow archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon). Beech Clump is again oak/birch dominated with areas of dense regenerating Scot’s pine and a shrub layer of rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum) and ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea). The majority of Cut Plantation in the north is dense mature woodland with oak, beech and sweet chestnut. The banks of a steep-sided open area of old marl-diggings are dominated by bramble and bracken. Garden Plantation woodland contains a mixture of Scot’s pine, birch and larch (Larix decidua) with two groves of yew. On the northern edge of the woodland there is oak, sweet chestnut, beech, giant sequoias (Sequioadendron giganteum) and yew (Taxus baccata)

1393 Ladies Wood, Church Carr & Springs

This site has various woodland, grassland and standing water habitats. The lakes are generally species poor and fringed by sallow (Salix cinerea) dominated carr. There are two areas of marshy grassland and one improved grassland step. Apart from an area of lime (Tilia x vulgaris) coppice the woodlands are dominated by oak (Quercus robur) and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa). There has been some planting of deciduous trees throughout, otherwise no other discernible management. Part of this wood is ancient woodland. The majority of the site is oak dominated with a frequent sycamore understorey with occasional sweet chestnut, birch (Betula sp) and sallow. Hazel (Corylus avellana), elder (Sambucus nigra) and bird cherry (Prunus padus) further north form the shrub layer. The ground flora is dense bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus) with frequent raspberry (Rubus idaeus) in the south and abundant bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta). Wetter areas occur, dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus). At the southern narrow end is a dense area of sallow carr with undergrowth dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis), greater bulrush (Typha latifolia), yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus) and great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum). Adjacent and slightly north is mature common lime coppice with occasional oak. The ground flora is relatively species rich with abundant dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis), ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea), herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum), wood avens (Geum urbanum), frequent bramble (Rubus fruticosus) and occasional red campion (Silene dioica), red-currant (Ribes rubrum), primrose (Primula vulgaris) and bluebell. Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) becomes dominant further north, hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and elder form the shrub layer. Open area of uncut grassland which is dominated by grasses such as cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera) and false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) with hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium) and rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium). There is a large lake partly fringed by grey willow. Floating vegetation is restricted to yellow water-lily (Nuphar lutea). Marginal vegetation is scattered lesser pond-sedge (Carex acutiformis) with bulrush, great willowherb, brooklime (Veronica beccabunga) and celery-leaved buttercup (Ranunculus sceleratus). There are also two ponds. The marshy grassland with scattered sallow is dominated by branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum) with frequent great willowherb and redshank (Polygonum persicaria) with meadowsweet, marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre) and rosebay willowherb. It extends into a strip with hairy sedge (Carex hirta) and silverweed (Potentilla anserina), but is dominated by perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne), Yorkshire fog, hogweed and white clover (Trifolium repens) further north


19

CWS

number

Name Description

1396 Spixworth Meadows

This site contains two shallow valleys leading to a tributary of the River Bure. The majority is damp semi-improved grassland with areas crossed by water-logged mesotrophic ditches. To the south and east of the site there are areas of scrub and woodland. The meadows are grazed by horses and the site has informal access and is mainly used by local people. The western end of the site is damp grassland dominated by Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), annual meadow-grass (Poa annua), smooth meadow-grass (Poa pratensis), rough meadow-grass (Poa trivialis) and cock's-foot (Dactylis glomerata). Nettle (Urtica dioica) forms widespread patches with celery-leaved buttercup (Ranunculus sceleratus), white dead-nettle (Lamium album), red dead-nettle (Lamium purpureum), ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea), dog's mercury (Mercurialis perennis), common mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum) and germander speedwell (Veronica chamaedrys). Two drains run through this area, both are very overgrown with bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna). The dykes support reed (Phragmites australis), reed sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima), great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), fool's water-cress (Apium nodiflorum) and water-crowfoot (Ranunculus aquatilis). The area is bounded by oak (Quercus robur), hawthorn, lime (Tilia x vulgaris) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). There is a small area of fen to the north-east with soft rush (Juncus effusus), common valerian (Valeriana dioica), hairy sedge (Carex hirta), creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi) and common spotted-orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsii) occurring. Much of the remainder of the site to the east is wetter grassland crossed by numerous water-logged ditches. This area is not as heavily grazed as the west and has more structural diversity with many tussocky areas with a similar species composition but has abundant hairy sedge. Ditches support a rich flora with greater pond-sedge (Carex riparia), lesser pond-sedge (Carex acutiformis), soft rush, sharp-flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus), branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum), reed sweet-grass, lesser water-parsnip (Berula erecta), fool's water-cress and large bitter-cress (Cardamine amara). Oak and hawthorn form stands and woodland to the east and the north with alder (Alnus glutinosa) over holly (Ilex aquifolium), elder (Sambucus nigra), bramble and honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) and a ground flora of herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum), lesser celandine (Ranunculus ficaria) and bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta)

1402 Crostwick Common (South)

This site is situated on sandy soils containing many shallow hollows. Much of the site is tall herb or rank grassland with dense scrub although there is a small area of oak (Quercus robur) woodland. This is part of a common and is well used by visitors, particularly for walking dogs. A public footpath crosses the site. Present management seems to be restricted to path clearance and mowing near to the road. Open areas to the south are dominated by bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) whilst to the north they are dominated by Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) with bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), nettle (Urtica dioica), rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium) and ground-ivy (Glechoma hederacea). In some areas climbing corydalis (Corydalis claviculata), sheep's sorrel (Rumex acetosella) and bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) occur, often with scattered scrub consisting of gorse (Ulex europaeus) and broom (Cytisus scoparius). These open areas are surrounded by dense scrub of sloe blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), bramble, dog-rose (Rosa canina agg.) and young oak. In places tall birch (Betula pendula) and sycamore (Acer


20

CWS

number

Name Description

pseudoplatanus) occur. Hollows contain dense sloe and broom whilst crab apple (Malus sylvestris) is occasional across the site. To the north-west of the site there is a war memorial and here oak woodland has developed with semi-mature trees of around 50 years. There is no shrub layer and the ground flora is patchy with bramble

1403 Crostwick Common (North)

This site is situated in the valley and consists of woodland, scrub and fen type communities. It is part of the common and has a public footpath along the south and south western edges, and is used by local people for dog walking. A band of sycamore woodland occurs at the southern end with dense bird cherry (Prunus spinosa) scrub which continues along the eastern boundary with more frequent hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), and young oak. Along the stream, a tributary of the River Bure, mainly alder (Alnus glutinosa) and sallow (Salix cinerea) carr, with some oak (Quercus robur) and silver birch (Betula pendula) on higher ground. Down the centre of the site is a wide band of fen communities including reed sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima), common reed (Phragmites australis), sedge (Carex spp.), meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) along with marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris), bogbean (Menyanthes trifoliata) and marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris) further north. The fen has a large amount of litter build up and is beginning to dry out. Scrub is encroaching from the east and west with bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg)

1404 Reservoir Meadow

This site consists of damp alder (Alnus glutinosa) carr with semi-improved grassland with areas of tall rank common reed (Phragmites australis). The grassland is seasonally grazed and the whole site is used for shooting with a game rearing pen. A number of dykes cross the site; the main water-carrying dykes run west-east; there is a small lake. The seasonally grazed grassland has a mixed sward with areas of soft rush (Juncus effusus), sharp-flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus), hairy sedge (Carex hirta) and field wood-rush (Luzula campestris). Further north it also has areas of common reed with reed sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima) and nettle (Urtica dioica). On the south western edge is the damp alder carr woodland with some young ash (Fraxinus excelsior). The ground flora is dominated by nettle, herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum), bramble (Rubus fruticosus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The small lake has marginal reed, reed sweet-grass and branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum) while the deep dykes additionally have soft rush.

2021 Tollshill Wood

Ancient, broad-leaved semi-natural woodland situated on the parish boundary. It is under private ownership and is managed predominantly as high forest. Recent management has included ride creation, larch plantation clear-felling, and scattered under-planting with native, broad-leaved trees. Evidence of past management includes several large coppice regrowths. A huge hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata) on the western boundary are particularly notable. A former drive to Rackheath Hall forms the wood’s main ride, and at its eastern end the wood encompasses a section of the defunct parish boundary ditch. The wood is sited on former heathland east of Norwich and is generally dry in character, lying on light, acidic, sandy soils. There are open areas at the eastern end, one being created by treefall during the 1987 autumnal storm. The canopy is varied in structure and density, and is dominated by sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa), with frequent oak (Quercus robur) and beech (Fagus sylvatica). A small proportion of exotic


21

CWS

number

Name Description

conifers is interspersed throughout, including grand fir (Abies grandis) and Scot’s pine (Pinus sylvestris). There is an open, well-developed understorey and shrub layer in places, with seedling generation in evidence. Species include sweet chestnut, sycamore, and bird cherry (Prunus padus). The ground flora includes areas of dense bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), particularly along the rides, wood anemone (Anemone nemorosa), with bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) which are co-dominant in places. Patches of climbing corydalis (Corydalis claviculata) are dispersed throughout, with foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), wood avens (Geum urbanum), yellow pimpernel (Lysimachia nemorum), wood dock (Rumex sanguineus), red campion (Silene dioica), and hedge woundwort (Stachys sylvatica). Wild daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) is also known to occur. There are two open areas at the eastern end of the wood. One has been planted up with native broad-leaved trees, predominantly oak. Its periphery supports vestiges of a dry grassland flora which includes sheep’s sorrel (Rumex acetosella), with wood sage (Teucrium scorodonia), wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca), pignut (Conopodium majus) and primrose (Primula vulgaris) also occurring. The second area, adjacent to the parish boundary ditch, has remained open for a longer period and is dominated by bracken, with patches of colonising silver birch (Betula pendula), goat willow (Salix caprea) and grey willow (Salix cinerea)

2041 Racecourse Plantation

A moderately large area of commercially-managed coniferous plantation and broad-leaved semi-natural woodland, over dry, sandy, acidic soils on what was historically part of Mousehold Heath. There are remnants of a double earthbank along the parish boundary to the northeast. The woodland is privately owned; archery and quad-biking take place on-site. The site is predominantly a mosaic of coniferous plantations and broad-leaved semi-natural woodland, divided into compartments by a network of rides and informal footpaths. Compartments of uniform, even-aged conifers include Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), European larch (Larix decidua) and western red-cedar (Thuja plicata); together with Norway spruce (Picea abies), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and Corsican pine (Pinus nigra). The majority of broad-leaved woodland is even-aged and fairly recent. To the south, freely regenerating silver birch (Betula pendula) is interspersed with western hemlock-spruce (Tsuga heterophylla) and larch, with an understorey of goat willow (Salix caprea), sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa), oak (Quercus robur), Scots pine, and in places rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum). To the north, older, more established areas of broad-leaved semi-natural woodland are dominated by oak, birch and hazel (Corylus avellana). The ground layer is dominated by bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) in places and honeysuckle (Lonicera periclymenum) is abundant. Dryopteris ferns, including scaly male-fern (Dryopteris affinis), wood avens (Geum urbanum), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), three-nerved sandwort (Moehringia trinervia), wood forget-me-not (Myosotis sylvatica), sanicle (Sanicula europaea), common figwort (Scrophularia nodosa) and wood sage (Teucrium scorodonia) are among the species present. False brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) and giant fescue (Festuca gigantea) are occasional throughout. The extensive network of rides and paths hold the site’s main botanical interest and support components of a dry-heath and acidic grassland flora. The most significant rides are in the northwestern section. These are wide and damp in places; the most species-rich being bordered by regenerating broadleaves which are encroaching. Ling (Calluna vulgaris), bell heather (Erica cinerea) and cross-leaved heath (Erica


22

CWS

number

Name Description

tetralix) occur, with heath wood-rush (Luzula multiflora), heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile), heath milkwort (Polygala serpyllifolia) and heath-grass (Danthonia decumbens). Damp sections support frequent marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre), with glaucous sedge (Carex flacca), common yellow-sedge (Carex demissa), sharp-flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus), compact rush (Juncus conglomeratus), greater bird’s-foot- trefoil (Lotus uliginosus), chaffweed (Anagallis minima) and allseed (Radiola linoides). Other species of note in the rides include sweet vernal-grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), common knapweed (Centaurea nigra), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), sheep’s sorrel (Rumex acetosella) and heath speedwell (Veronica officinalis). Trailing tormentil (Potentilla anglica) is also known to occur. At the centre of the wood a quad-bike area, which has recently been extended, is delineated by raised earth bunds. These are being recolonised by broom (Cytisus scoparius ssp. scoparius) and birch with herbs, including common centaury (Centaurium erythraea) and heath speedwell. Ruderals cover much of the area. A small area adjacent to the northeast boundary has recently been planted with native broadleaves, and nearby woodland and scrub has regenerated over a small area which had previously been occupied by buildings. A small eutrophic pond occurs near the western boundary. It is overgrown by grey willow (Salix cinerea) and supports Cyperus sedge (Carex pseudocyperus) and gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus)

1469 Mousehold Heath & Valley Drive

This is a large and complex site of former heathland, now mostly covered by recent woodland. Some patches of acid grassland and heath remain. The boundary of the site also includes a number of sports pitches where the grass has been improved. Broadleaved semi-natural woodland dominates most of the site and is of varying ages, the youngest including abundant small clearings with tall acid scrub present. Mature and semi-mature oak (Quercus robur) and silver birch (Betula pendula) dominate naturally regenerated areas in a fairly low canopy. Towards the south and east along main roads and tracks much older trees are present, many clearly having been planted. These include large beech (Fagus sylvatica) and lime (Tilia x vulgaris) as well as older specimens of the previous species. The ground flora and shrub layer are generally both poorly developed and much bare ground is present. Shrubs present include scattered hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and elder (Sambucus nigra). Sheep's-fescue (Festuca ovina) is common in recently wooded areas. There are areas of tall acid scrub present throughout the site, including some patches which are particularly large. In these areas gorse dominates with broom (Cytisus scoparius) and other more neutral species such as hawthorn. Abundant silver birch and oak are nearly always present, and in places wild cherry (Prunus avium). The heathland areas are situated within the woodland towards the north of the site. They comprise predominately acid grassland with a small proportion covered by heather (Calluna vulgaris) and gorse (Ulex europaeus). There is often abundant small seedlings of heather present in the mown/rabbit grazed turf. Sheep's fescue is the dominant grass with hair-grass (Deschampsia flexuosa) on the barest ground growing with mosses and common sorrel (Rumex acetosa). Rosebay willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium) is present in areas cleared of trees. There are two small seasonally dry ponds present in this part of the site which contain reed (Phragmites australis) and soft-rush (Juncus effusus). The extreme southern end of the site also comprises acid grassland but lacks heather and often has richer areas with cock's-foot (Dactylis glomerata) and other species

1468 Fiddle A small broad leaved plantation woodland with some young and very


23

CWS

number

Name Description

Wood & Night Plantation

old coppice situated on light sandy neutral soil with urban surroundings. The wood is also situated on an incline from west to east which incorporates a variety of ridges, humps and hollows which assist drainage causing the ground to be fairly dry. The woodland has an even aged canopy composed mainly of abundant sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and frequent ash (Fraxinus excelsior). Also present are occasional hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and locally frequent sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa). There is one particular old coppiced example of the taller of these species in the middle of the wood. The understorey is of mixed age and constitutes both coppiced and regenerated small-leaved elm (Ulmus minor), especially in the north eastern corner. Other understorey species include frequent hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) and elder (Sambucus nigra) as well as occasional sycamore and lime (Tilia x vulgaris). The ground flora is fairly typical of such habitat displaying an abundance of ivy (Hedera helix) as well as areas of bramble (Rubus fruticosus) and common nettle (Urtica dioica). Wood avens (Geum urbanum) and dog's mercury (Mercurialis perennis) are also to be found in local abundance as well as herb robert (Geranium robertianum) and enchanter's-nightshade (Circaea lutetiana)


24

APPENDIX 3: LEGISLATION & PLANNING POLICY


25

Important Notice: This section contains details of legislation and planning policy applicable

in Britain only (i.e. not including the Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland or

the Channel Islands) and is provided for general guidance only. While every effort has been

made to ensure accuracy, this section should not be relied upon as a definitive statement

of the law.

NATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGISLATION AFFORDED TO HABITATS

Statutory Designations: National

Nationally important areas of special scientific interest, by reason of their flora, fauna, or

geological or physiographical features, are notified by the countryside agencies as

statutory Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) under the National Parks and Access to

the Countryside Act 1949 and latterly the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). As

well as underpinning other national designations (such as National Nature Reserves which

are declared by the countryside agencies under the same legislation), the system also

provides statutory protection for terrestrial and coastal sites which are important within a

European context (Natura 2000 network) and globally (such as Wetlands of International

Importance). See subsequent sections for details of these designations. Improved

provisions for the protection and management of SSSIs have been introduced by the

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (in England and Wales) and the Nature

Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) also provides for the making of

Limestone Pavement Orders, which prohibit the disturbance and removal of limestone from

such designated areas, and the designation of Marine Nature Reserves, for which byelaws

must be made to protect them.

Statutory Designations: International

Special Protection Areas (SPAs), together with Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) form

the Natura 2000 network. The Government is obliged to identify and classify SPAs under

the EC Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC (formerly 79/409/EEC)) on the

Conservation of Wild Birds). SPAs are areas of the most important habitat for rare (listed on

Annex I of the Directive) and migratory birds within the European Union. Protection

afforded SPAs in terrestrial areas and territorial marine waters out to 12 nautical miles (nm)

is given by The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010. The Offshore Marine

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended) provide a mechanism

for the designation and protection of SPAs in UK offshore waters (from 12‑200 nm).

The Government is obliged to identify and designate SACs under the EC Habitats Directive

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

and Flora). These are areas which have been identified as best representing the range and

variety of habitats and (non-bird) species listed on Annexes I and II to the Directive within


26

the European Union. SACs in terrestrial areas and territorial marine waters out to 12

nautical miles are protected under The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations

2010. The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as

amended) provide a mechanism for the designation and protection of SACs in UK offshore

waters (from 12‑200 nm).

Ramsar sites are designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance, agreed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971. The Convention covers all aspects of wetland

conservation and wise use, in particular recognizing wetlands as ecosystems that are

globally important for biodiversity conservation. Wetlands can include areas of marsh, fen,

peatland or water and may be natural or artificial, permanent or temporary. Wetlands may

also incorporate riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands. Ramsar sites are

underpinned through prior notification as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and as

such receive statutory protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

with further protection provided by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.

Policy statements have been issued by the Government in England and Wales highlighting

the special status of Ramsar sites. This effectively extends the level of protection to that

afforded to sites which have been designated under the EC Birds and Habitats Directives

as part of the Natura 2000 network (e.g. SACs & SPAs).

Statutory Designations: Local

Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 Local Nature Reserves

(LNRs) may be declared by local authorities after consultation with the relevant countryside

agency. LNRs are declared for sites holding special wildlife or geological interest at a local

level and are managed for nature conservation, and provide opportunities for research and

education and enjoyment of nature.

Non-Statutory Designations

Areas considered to be of local conservation interest may be designated by local

authorities as a Wildlife Site, under a variety of names such as County Wildlife Sites (CWS),

Listed Wildlife Sites (LWS), Local Nature Conservation-sites (LNCS), Sites of Biological

Importance (SBIs), Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), or Sites of Nature

Conservation Importance (SNCIs). The criteria for designation may vary between counties.

Together with the statutory designations, these are defined in local and structure plans

under the Town and Country Planning system and are a material consideration when

planning applications are being determined. The level of protection afforded to these sites

through local planning policies and development frameworks may vary between counties.

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997


27

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 are intended to protect ‘important’ countrys ide

hedgerows from destruction or damage. A hedgerow is considered important if (a) has

existed for 30 years or more; and (b) satisfies at least one of the criteria listed in Part II of

Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

Under the Regulations, it is against the law to remove or destroy certain hedgerows

without permission from the local planning authority. Hedgerows on or adjacent to

common land, village greens, SSSIs (including all terrestrial SACs, NNRs and SPAs), LNRs,

land used for agriculture or forestry and land used for the keeping or breeding of horses,

ponies or donkeys are covered by these regulations. Hedgerows 'within or marking the

boundary of the curtilage of a dwelling-house' are not.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The National Planning Policy Framework replaced PPS9 in April 2012 and emphasises the

need for sustainable development. The Framework specifies the need for protection of

designated sites and priority habitats and priority species. An emphasis is also made for

the need for ecological networks via preservation, restoration and re-creation. The

protection and recovery of priority species – that is those listed as UK Biodiversity Action

Plan priority species – is also listed as a requirement of planning policy. In determining

planning application, planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity

by ensuring that: designated sites are protected from adverse harm; there is appropriate

mitigation or compensation where significant harm cannot be avoided; opportunities to

incorporate biodiversity in and around developments are encouraged; planning permission

is refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats

including aged or veteran trees and also ancient woodland.

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / P

hase 1

Hab

itats

, Hed

gero

ws a

nd

Bota

ny S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / P

hase 1

Hab

itats

, Hed

gero

ws a

nd

Bota

ny S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

Author Jit Thacker BSc. (Hons) PhD & Alex Prendergast BSc(Hons)

MSc MIEEM

Job No. 100368



May 2011

Revision Graham Hopkins Rachel Saunders 20

th September 2012


Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Hedgerow Survey

and Botanical Survey


The Ecology Consultancy Thorpe House 79 Thorpe Road, Norwich NR1 1UA T. 01603 628408 E. [email protected] W. www.ecologyconsultancy.co.uk

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 2

Background 2

Site Context and Status 2

2 METHODOLOGY 3

Surveyors 3

Desktop Study 3

Field Surveys 3

Habitat and Species Designations 4

Constraints 5

3 RESULTS 6

Desktop Study 6

Phase 1 Habitats 6

Botanical Surveys 12

4 DISCUSSION 14

Species of Conservation Concern 14

Veteran Trees 14

Invasive Species 14

UK BAP Priority Species and Habitats 14

Nature Conservation Value 15

REFERENCES 16

APPENDIX 1: MAPS 17

APPENDIX 2: SPECIES INVENTORY 23

APPENDIX 3: LEGISLATION 28



or any other service provided by us. This report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior written permission

of The Ecology Consultancy. The content of this report is, at least in part, based upon information provided by others a nd 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 The Ecology Consultancy, unless otherwise stated in the

report.



The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Hedgerow Survey & Botanical Survey / Beyond Green

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ecology Consultancy was commissioned by Beyond Green to carry out a Phase

1 and botany survey of an area of proposed development land to the north-east of

Norwich, Norfolk. The work comprised a data search for records of noteworthy

habitats and species and field surveys including a Phase 1 survey, a formal

hedgerow survey, and a detailed botanical survey.

The desktop survey returned no records of veteran trees from the site but the site

boundary does overlap a block of ancient woodland and there are other blocks of

ancient woodland nearby.

The field surveys were undertaken over the course of the spring, summer and

autumn of 2010 and spring 2011.

No notable plants were recorded during the botanical surveys. Plant communities in

the main habitats consist of common and widespread species.

Invasive non-native species are present in some areas, principally Japanese

knotweed which is listed on schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended). It is an offence to cause it to grow in the wild.

The majority of the site to be arable cropland (154ha) interspersed with hedgerows.

The other Phase 1 habitats are: woodland (semi-natural broad-leaved (16.4ha) and

broad-leaved plantation (2.4ha)); improved grassland (7.7ha); amenity grassland

(0.7ha), parkland and scattered trees (12.4ha); hedgerows (11.05km); and three small

ponds.

Twenty-four of the site’s existing hedgerows were considered to meet the criteria to

qualify as BAP priority habitats. Fourteen hedgerows or sections of hedgerow were

evaluated as qualifying as ‘Important Hedgerows’ as defined by the Hedgerow

Regulations 1997. The total length of mapped hedgerows is 10.2km, with small

limited sections elsewhere to give a total of 11.05km

It is considered that the site contains four UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority

habitats, namely: parkland and wood-pasture, lowland mixed deciduous woodland,

hedgerow and one pond.


2

1 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND





and EIA process.

1.2 This report present the results of the Phase 1 habitat survey, additional botany

surveys and hedgerow surveys.

Site Context and Status

1.3 The development covers approximately 200ha, as an arc along the north-east of

Norwich, from approximately the boundary of Norwich International Airport to the

Wroxham Road, south of Spixworth and north of Old Catton and Sprowston. To

provide a wider landscape context for the work, a larger area was included within the

scope of the ecological work (a total of approximately 350ha) and this is referred to

as the survey area.

1.4 The survey and development areas largely comprise arable farmland with fields

separated by hedgerows and areas of other habitats including broadleaved

woodland and parkland. As described by Chris Blandford Associates (2008) the site

is within the Central North Norfolk Joint Character Area (National Character Area

number 78; English Nature, 1999). Its district character is ‘wooded estateland’,

straddling the Spixworth wooded estateland and the Rackheath and Salhouse

wooded estateland. The semi-natural vegetation cover is heath with, secondarily,

woodland. The suface geology is predominantly loam with some sand and gravel,

with an altitude range of approximately 20-40m.


3

2 METHODOLOGY

SURVEYORS

2.1 The surveys were carried out by Alex Prendergast BSc (Hons), MSc (The Ecology

Consultancy, Ecologist) and Dr Jit Thacker. Both are experienced field botanists and

Alex holds a level-5 Field Identification Skills Certificate from the Botanical Society of

the British Isles.

DESKTOP STUDY

2.2 Information regarding the present and historical botanical interest of the site and

within a further 2 km radius was requested from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information

Service (NBIS). The data provided by NBIS include:

Noteworthy species, including protected species, those of conservation

concern and species listed on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and veteran

trees. The absence of a species’ record does not necessarily denote absence,

rather it could be due to a lack of recorder effort locally.

Ancient woodland habitats.

FIELD SURVEYS

Walkover

2.3 Early in the spring of 2010 a walkover of the whole site was undertaken to gain

familiarity with the site and to identify key habitat areas for more detailed surveys.

Phase 1 Survey

2.4 The Phase 1 survey was carried out in accordance with JNCC methodology (JNCC

2010). Survey work was undertaken across the season to generate species

inventories for the principal habitat areas, and the formal Phase 1 mapping on

various dates in September 2010.

Hedgerows

2.5 The hedgerow survey was carried out following the hedgerow survey guidelines

(Defra, 1997) including counting woody species along an approximate 30m section.

Long hedgerows were surveyed at two or more sections, as were hedgerows that

changed in character over their length.

2.6 The surveys took place between the 4th and 16

th September 2010 and supplemented

in May 2011. A total of 89 hedgerows or hedgerow sections were surveyed in this

area.

2.7 The hedgerows were assessed for importance based on the Hedgerow Regulations

1997. Hedgerow importance is based on a variety of criteria including age, the


4

number of woody species, presence of bank or ditch and connectivity to other

habitat such as ponds or broadleaved woodland.

2.8 The presence of standard trees, and whether these were veterans, was recorded.

HABITAT AND SPECIES DESIGNATIONS

Phase 1 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan Habitats

2.9 The principal Phase 1 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority habitats

present are briefly defined below (Table 1; following JNCC (2010) and Maddock

(2011), respectively). All of the UK BAP priority habitats also correspond to a Norfolk

BAP priority habitat. The UK BAP priority habitats are defined as Habitats of Principal

Importance under the NERC (2006) Act.

Table 1. Summary of Phase 1 and UK and Norfolk BAP priority habitats definitions.

Classification Habitat name ( or

Norfolk BAP name)

Definition

Phase 1

Phase 1 Woodland: broad-

leaved, semi-

natural woodland

Broad-leaved woodland that does not obviously

originate from planting

Phase 1 Woodland: broad-

leaved plantation

Obviously planted woodland with 90% of broad-leaved

trees

Phase 1 Woodland: mixed

plantation

Obviously planted woodland with 10-90% of either

broad-leaved or conifer

Phase 1 Woodland:

coniferous

plantation

Obviously planted woodland with >90% of conifers

Phase 1 Woodland:

parkland and

scattered trees

Tree cover of <30%

Phase 1 Semi-improved

neutral grassland

Grassland that has been modified with fertilizer, grazing,

drainage etc with a less diverse composition that

unimproved grassland

Phase 1 Improved

grassland

Meadows and pastures heavily modified by fertilization,

grazing, etc.

Phase 1 Ponds Open water lying beyond the limits of swamp or

emergent vegetation

Phase 1 Intact hedge,

species-rich

Entire and more-or-less stock proof, a diversity of native

woody species and good hedgerow bottom flora

Phase 1 Intact hedge,

species-poor

Entire and more-or-less tock proof, a low diversity of

native woody species and poor hedgerow bottom flora

Phase 1 Defunct hedge,

species rich

With gaps and not stock proof, a diversity of native

woody species and good hedgerow bottom flora

Phase 1 Defunct hedge,

species poor

With gaps and not stock proof, a low diversity of native

woody species and poor hedgerow bottom flora

Phase 1 Hedge and trees,

native species-rich

With trees, diversity of native flora

Phase 1 Hedge and trees,

native species-

poor

With trees, but a low diversity of native flora

Phase 1 Tall ruderal Stands of tall biennial or perennial dicotyledons

Phase 1 Amenity grassland Intensively managed and regularly mown grasslands

Phase 1 Arable Arable cropland

BAP priority habitats

UK BAP

Norfolk BAP

Lowland meadow

(lowland meadows

Most forms of unimproved neutral grassland in lowland

areas


5

Classification Habitat name ( or

Norfolk BAP name)

Definition

and pastures)

UK BAP

Norfolk BAP

Lowland mixed

deciduous

woodland

Most semi-natural woodland in eastern England

UK BAP

Norfolk BAP

Ponds Permanent and seasonal standing water bodies and

with species of high conservation importance such as

great crested newts, a rich fauna of noteworthy

invertebrates or plants or otherwise of high ecological

quality

UK BAP

Norfolk BAP

Hedgerows Any boundary line of trees or shrubs over 20m long and

less than 5m wide with gaps less that 20m wide and

consisting predominantly (i.e. 80% or more cover) of

native woody species

UK BAP

Norfolk BAP

Arable field

margins (Norfolk:

cereal field

margins)

Herbaceous strips or blocks around arable fields that

are managed specifically to provide benefits for wildlife,

such as cultivated low-input margins or those sown to

provide seed for birds

UK BAP

Norfolk BAP

Wood-pastures

and parkland

(Lowland wood-

pasture and

parkland)

Areas of scattered trees with a long-established

tradition of management and where the site is in good

condition

Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species

2.10 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority species are those listed in the UK BAP

and are also Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act (2006).

Species of Conservation Concern

2.11 Plants may be listed as threatened at different scales, with the relevant texts listing

species’ statuses being Cheffings & Farrell (2005) and Stace (2010). Norfolk scarcity

is an informal category based on assessments in Beckett & Bull (1999).

CONSTRAINTS

2.12 There were no constraints to the surveys, although it should be noted that some

areas around the buildings around Red Hall and Beeston Hall were not surveyed as

they are clearly residential. This exclusion applies to several ponds.


6

3 RESULTS

DESKTOP STUDY

Habitats

3.1 Three blocks of ancient woodland are present within 2km of the site (Appendix 1:

Figure 1a and 1b); none are within the site except for parts of Ladies Wood, Church

Carr and Springs.

Table 2. Ancient woodland blocks within 2km.

Site name (if known) County Wildlife Site

number

(if designated)

Location and distance

Ladies Wood, Church Carr

& Springs

1393 Part within north-east corner of site

boundary

Tollshill Wood 2021 20m, on opposite side of the

Wroxham Road

Sprowston Wood c. 50m of east boundary, largely

planted to conifer

Ortolan’s Wood 1.6km to north east, headwater of

Dobb’s Beck

Bulmer Coppice 1.8km to south-east, adjacent to the

Rackheath Road

3.2 No veteran trees were identified on site by the data search.

Protected or noteworthy vascular plants

3.3 No records of any plant species formally listed as being of conservation concern

were returned, although several records of basil thyme Clinopodium acinos were

returned from the vicinity of east Spixworth. Basil thyme is scarce in Norfolk, largely

restricted to the Breckland area (Beckett & Bull, 1999).

PHASE 1 HABITATS

3.4 The development area supports eight main Phase 1 habitats (Table 3). The principal

habitat is arable cropland which is separated by frequent hedgerows, with the other

habitats forming minor components.

Table 3. Summary of Phase 1 habitats.

Habitat Extent

(ha)

Occurrence

Arable fields 154 Throughout

Amenity grassland 0.7 Rugby club in centre of site; school playing fields to the

south of this

Woodland, broad-

leaved semi-natural

16.4 Present mainly to the east and north in small parcels,

mostly parts of Beeston Park.

Parkland and

scattered trees

12.4 Present in two main areas, Beeston Park and south of

Red Hall stables

Improved grassland 7.7 Mainly grazing to the north of Red Hall stables and Park

Farm

Broad-leaved

plantation woodland

2.4 A few small areas including some new planting at the

extreme south of the site.

Hedgerows 11.05km Throughout


7

Habitat Extent

(ha)

Occurrence

Line of trees 880m Throughout

Ponds <1ha Traditional ponds near Beeston Hall (5) and near south-

west boundary although some are outside of the site

boundary

3.5 Plantation woodland of all types together represents 3% of the survey area, and

semi-improved neutral grassland and tall ruderal both cover less than 1ha.

Arable

3.6 The majority of the development land is arable. Arable plants associated with this

habitat on the site include common species such as field pansy Viola arvensis,

common chickweed Stellaria media, common cudweed Filago vulgaris, cleavers

Galium aparine, field poppy Papaver rhoeas, petty spurge Euphorbia peplus, white

campion Silene latifolia, common field speedwell Veronica persica and fat hen

Chenopodium album. The only arable species of note was green field speedwell

Veronica agrestis which is listed as ‘Least Concern’ (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005) but is

decreasing nationally. Green field speedwell Veronica agrestis was recorded as

several plants on a single small section of arable margin close to North Walsham

Road.

3.7 All arable fields on the site were assessed for their bryophyte floras. Attention was

focused on field corners and margins, and which are known to be of greater value to

bryophytes. Much of the site was species-poor for bryophytes with only three very

common taxa (Brachythecium rutabulum, Kindbergia praelonga and Bryum rubens)

recorded from most fields. Other species recorded in low numbers across the site

include Pohlia melanodon, Funaria hygrometrica and Ceratodon purpureus. All are

common species.

3.8 Species associated with tracks and field entrances include Bryum argenteum and

Bryum dichotomum (the latter particularly around TG251137, near Beeston Lane).

3.9 A headland of overwintered cereal stubble along Quaker Lane (TG235142) was found

to support a richer arable bryophyte community than elsewhere on the site including

Bryum argenteum, Bryum dichotomum, Bryum rubens, Didymodon insulanus,

Ceratodon purpureus, Pohlia melanodon, Barbula convoluta, and Phascum

cuspidatum. Although bryophytes are present here in greater quantities than

anywhere else on the site these are all common species.

3.10 Overwintered stubble is a valuable habitat for bryophytes as they complete much of

their life cycle over the winter months while conditions are moister and while there is

less competition from other plants. It is now an increasingly rare habitat as winter


8

wheat and other autumn-sown crops become more popular. Overwintered stubble is

also a valuable habitat for certain arable weeds, arable invertebrates and birds.

3.11 This headland of overwintered stubble coincides with an area of soil which is

significantly sandier than much of the site. Much of the survey area is occupied by

heavy clay-rich soils, with the lighter sandier soils present on the higher ground.

Substrate is a significant factor in determining a site’s biodiversity, particularly

regarding bryophytes. Lighter soils retain fewer nutrients; therefore crops and weeds

are less competitive allowing the shorter bryophytes, and other specialist plants

growing alongside them, to thrive.

3.12 Associated with many of the arable fields are fallow field margins and hedgerows

containing mature trees.

Amenity grassland

3.13 Two large areas – the rugby club in the centre of the site and school playing fields to

its immediate south - consist of amenity grassland, totalling 22ha in area. These are

of minimal botanical interest being dominated by a sown mix of hard-wearing

grasses, mainly perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne and occasional established

weeds such as ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata and daisy Bellis perennis. Both

areas include some buildings, and the school site has an area of Astroturf. The

school site has a number of tree-lined avenues, but neither of the sites is fringed by

Important Hedgerows as defined under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997...

Semi-natural broadleaved woodland

3.14 Semi-natural broadleaved woodland is scattered across the site, particularly in the

east, making up a total of 17ha. Some of this shows evidence of being of some age,

with ancient oaks and areas of former hazel coppice which are remnants of a former

woodland management. Most of the woodland on the site is plantation. The ground

flora is typically species-poor, probably due to heavy replanting in much of the

woodland, and in many sections sycamore is present at high frequency.

3.15 No assessment was made of the site’s value to locally important bramble species

(e.g. the near locally endemic Rubus iceniensis) which are known to be present

nearby; however, habitats within woodlands, particularly on their edges, are suitable

for notable bramble species. All brambles were recorded as an aggregate.

Totalling 6.6 ha, there is an arc of woodland south of Park Farm (centred on

TG25571329; ‘Foxburrow Plantation’). It is likely that this is derived from

ancient woodland but has been replanted, possibly several times. There are

large numbers of ancient pedunculate oaks Quercus robur in these blocks,

particularly area 11. Other trees include sweet chestnut Castanea sativum,


9

hornbeam Carpinus betulus, and ash Fraxinus excelsior, and (in area 13) a

few conifers. Understoreys consist of elder Sambucus nigra, holly Ilex

aquifolium, hazel in parts of area 11 formerly coppiced), field maple Acer

campestre and Wych elm Ulmus glabra, with the invasive non-native

rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum present in area 10. Ground flora is

sparse but dominated by bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. with red campion

Silene dioica, bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta, sanicle Sanicula europaea,

star-of-Bethlehem Ornithogalum angustifolium, dog’s mercury Mercurialis

perennis, wood meadow-grass Poa nemoralis, lily-of-the-valley Convallaria

majalis, broad buckler-fern Dryopteris dilatata and ivy Hedera helix. (These

areas include Foxburrow and Spanish Plantations, and are all part of Beeston

Park). It is considered that the lily-of the valley is likely to be a garden escape

or otherwise introduced in this instance. The invasive garden form of yellow

archangel Lamiastrum galeobdolon ssp argentatum is present close to the

cottage adjoining the wood.

A block of woodland to the west of Park Farm (Shrubbery Plantation of

Beeston Park), totalling 2.6ha (TG24591399). Area 8 is open broadleaved

woodland. The northern end includes mature pedunculate oaks, among them

standing dying specimens. Sweet chestnut (several ancient specimens

included) and hazel also occur, and undergrowth is choked with nettle Urtica

dioica, bramble, and bracken Pteridium aquilinum, with foxgloves Digitalis

purpurea occasional where there is more light. Towards the south (area 9) the

woodland becomes younger and more dense, and is mainly hazel and elder,

although there are still ancient pedunculate oak and sweet chestnuts.

Rhododendron occurs, and there are a few fir (Abies sp) trees.

Sprowston Plantation is semi-natural broadleaved woodland totalling 1.7ha.

The northern section is former hazel coppice with oak standards and

occasional ash, holly and elder. A central belt is dominated by dense

sycamore c. 20 years old, as a result there is little ground flora although dog’s

mercury and three-nerved sandwort Moehringia trinervia are present. The

southern section is more hazel coppice and is quite dense, although oak

standards are still present (TG26001306).

Lawn Plantation, south of Red Hall. 1.1ha (TG24731366). The southern

section has some ancient oak and sweet chestnuts. Understorey of ash,

hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, sycamore and elder. Ground flora consists of

little more than dense bramble. The northern half also has beech Fagus


10

sylvatica and occasional Scots pine Pinus silvestris and fir. There is some

dead wood, including some standing and some dying trees.

Parts of Coopersholes Plantation (TG26211335), particularly the southern

section of this area are of semi-natural broadleaved woodland, which totals

1.1 ha. It is quite open, with silver birch Betula pendula, holly, yew Taxus

baccata, hazel and field maple and some mature oaks. Ground flora includes

abundant bluebell and occasional hybrid bluebell Hyacinthoides

×massartiana, wood avens Geum urbanum, bramble, ground ivy Glechoma

hederacea, red campion and bracken. The northern section (TG25941368) is

separated from area 18 by an area of obvious mixed plantation. Area 15 is

about 1.1 ha in area and mainly consists of young sycamore with occasional

mature oaks. Nettle and bramble dominate the very dense ground flora. Some

hazel and planted cypresses are also present.

A small area at TG25791441 is former hazel coppice, long unmanaged. This is

one of the better fragments of ancient woodland on the site. It includes

ancient oaks with ash, field maple, hazel and hawthorn also present,

especially at the edges of the block. Ramsons Allium ursinum, bluebells,

wood false-brome Brachypodium sylvaticum, remote sedge Carex remota,

ground ivy and red campion are present in the ground flora.

There is small area of mature woodland with closed canopy at TG25311413.

Includes some large pedunculate oaks, and Wych elm and sweet chestnut.

Northern edge has a planted row of cypresses and a water-filled ditch (poor

quality with no aquatic plants, water turbid). Eastern end of the block is more

open with sycamore and some limited ground flora (ground ivy, red campion,

nettle).

A small area at TG24951427 includes a few mature oaks and lots of sweet

chestnut, both mature and younger. Ground flora is poor, bramble and nettle

only seen. Edge of feature has elm, including some dead specimens,

hawthorn and holly.

A small section at TG25041375 is dominated by mature oaks with some

younger sycamore. Understorey consists of holly, elder, sycamore,

rhododendron and Wych elm. Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus, bramble and

ivy are present in ground flora.


11

Parkland and scattered trees

3.16 Several areas of improved grazing with scattered ancient trees exist in the survey

area. Based on apparent age, these are likely to meet UK BAP priority habitat criteria

(Maddock, 2011):

Immediately south of Red Hall at about TG24841372, where horse-grazed

fields contain veteran oaks and sweet chestnuts, including some dying.

Beeston Park, at TG25701376, where sheep grazing contains scattered

veteran pedunculate oak and beech. The grassland is an example of semi-

improved mesotrophic grassland allied to the National Vegetation

Classification (NVC) community MG1 (Arrhenatherum elatius grassland -

Urtica dioica sub-community). The sward is dominated by tall/rank/coarse

grasses dominated by false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius, cock's-foot

Dactylis glomerata and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus. Herbs are few, with the

main species being nettle and broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius. Rarer

species include meadow fox-tail Alopecurus pratensis, cat's-ear Hypochaeris

radicata, lesser trefoil Trifolium dubium and germander speedwell Veronica

chamaedrys. A distinct more disturbed community including frequent greater

plantain Plantago major, daisy, perennial ryegrass, and white clover Trifolium

repens is present along the road verge.

A further smaller section (TG26091330), with pedunculate oak and beech

veterans.

Improved grassland

3.17 Improved grazing is scattered throughout the site. The main areas are associated

with Red Hall, and are present to its immediate north, (centred around TG25051409,

totalling 7.7 ha) with a further small section to its southwest (0.8 ha). Further areas

are to be found immediately north of Park Farm (totalling 3.5 ha). These areas are

dominated by perennial rye grass and have no ecological interest.

Plantation woodland - broadleaved

3.18 Several small sections of broadleaved plantation fringe the site:

A small (0.7ha) young holly plantation at TG25421413.

2ha of c. 15 years old plantation. Includes hazel, pedunculate oak, bird

cherry Prunus padus, guelder-rose Viburnum opulus, silver birch, hawthorn,

bramble and grey willow Salix cinerea, with a large patch of amenity grassland

in the middle. TG24791262.


12

Aspen Populus tremula plantation, c.0.25ha at TG24171357.

Ponds

3.19 The Phase 1 survey found no significant ponds within the wider arable landscape,

except for two hedgerow ponds to the west and south-west of the site. A single pond

was present at the very north-east corner of Beeston Park, surrounded by trees and

shrubs and without aquatic vegetation.

Hedgerows

3.20 Twenty-six hedgerows or hedgerow lengths were mapped, with a total length of

10.2km, with small limited sections elsewhere to give a total of 11.05km.

3.21 The majority are generally intact and many contain oak trees, some of which are likely

to be ancient. The ground flora associated with the hedgerows was species-poor.

The woody species found most frequently is hawthorn, followed by blackthorn

Prunus spinosa, field maple, hazel and holly. The dominant climbing species are

bramble and ivy but hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium, honeysuckle Lonicera

periclymenum and hops Humulus lupulus were also recorded.

3.22 Twenty-four of the site’s existing hedgerows were considered to meet the criteria to

qualify as BAP habitats (Appendix 1: Figure 3).

3.23 Fourteen hedgerows or sections of hedgerow were evaluated as qualifying as

‘Important Hedgerows’ as defined by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (Appendix 1:

Figure 4).

BOTANICAL SURVEYS

3.24 The arable weed flora was generally poor and consisted of common and widespread

species. The most diverse area for arable weeds was area 71 (TG25311429), where

plants included green field-speedwell, wall speedwell Veronica. arvensis, common

field speedwell V. persica, smooth tare Vicia tetrasperma, field pansy, black-grass

Alopecurus myosuroides, common fiddleneck Amsinckia micrantha and scarlet

pimpernel Anagallis arvensis. These are mostly very widespread and common

species, although green field-speedwell is generally uncommon at a county scale

(Beckett & Bull, 1999).

3.25 Woodland floras were generally poor, with no clear indicators of ancient woodland

present. The arc of woodland south of Park Farm contained the most diverse

woodland community on the site (TG25571329; areas 10-13), and included veteran

oaks and sweet chestnuts, and ground flora such as broad buckler fern, dog’s

mercury and lily-of-the-valley. In this area of woodland and elsewhere, invasive non-


13

native species were present, including rhododendron and snowberry. Sycamore is

widespread in the woodland blocks.

3.26 The flora of arable margins was generally poor and consisted of common and

widespread species with high nutrient requirements like false oat-grass and cock’s

foot. Des Etangs' St John's-wort Hypericum x desetangsii was found in the margin of

an arable field at TG25261362, and common yellow sedge Carex viridula ssp

oedocarpa in the margin adjacent to the arable field at TG24911337. Both these taxa

are relatively uncommon in Norfolk. In general the margins of fields adjacent to the

disused road Church Lane are the most interesting botanically.


14

4 DISCUSSION

SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN

4.1 The site is of lower botanical diversity than would be expected for such an extensive

area, much of which is probably attributable to current and historic agricultural

practices.

4.2 No species of conservation concern were recorded during the habitat and botanical

survey.

VETERAN TREES

4.3 Mature and veteran trees are widespread through the study area, both along

hedgerows and within blocks of parkland. The National Planning Policy Framework

(DfCLG, 2012; paragraph 118,) states:

‚Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or

deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of

aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and

benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.‛

INVASIVE SPECIES

4.4 Invasive non-native species were found in several areas, principally in woodland

areas. These include rhododendron, sycamore and snowberry.

UK BAP PRIORITY SPECIES AND HABITATS

4.5 Against the criteria for identifying BAP habitats it is considered that four habitats

qualify as UK BAP priority habitats, namely:

Wood-pastures and parkland. There are three blocks of this habitat, one

associated with Red Hall, one with Park Farm, and one further east at

Beeston Hall.

Lowland mixed deciduous woodland. The block of semi-natural broad-

leaved woodland forming an arc to the south of Park Farm (Foxburrow

and Spanish Plantations) and the block immediately to the west of Park

Farm (Shrubbery Plantation) are the principal important areas of

woodland.

Hedgerow. The majority of intact hedgerows qualify as UK and Norfolk

BAP priority habitat.


15

Pond. One pond, Pond 6, supported common toad Bufo bufo which is a

UK BAP priority species and therefore this pond qualifies as a UK BAP

pond (Maddock 2011).

4.6 The areas of other Phase 1 habitats potentially corresponding to a BAP habitat fail on

one or more criteria. Thus it is considered that the site does not contain the following

BAP habitats:

Lowland meadow. Most grassland on the site is heavily modified and

classed as improved. One area is semi-improved only, but is not close to

unimproved.

Ponds. The other ponds do not qualify, lacking vegetation or species of

note.

Arable field margins. These do not appear to be specifically managed for

wildlife and lack the features of value to associated flora and fauna of

value.

4.7 Further, it should be noted that not all units of any particular Phase 1 habitat

necessarily qualify as BAP.

NATURE CONSERVATION VALUE

4.8 The principal habitats and plants within the site are summarised below (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of the ecological value of habitats and botanical features.

Feature Status Occurrence and additional comment

Habitats:

Wood pasture

and parkland

UK and Norfolk BAP

priority habitat

Three areas, including two large blocks,

totalling 14 ha. Veteran oak, beech and sweet

chestnut.

Lowland mixed

deciduous

woodland

UK and Norfolk BAP

priority habitat

17 ha of mixed quality woodland. Some blocks

show evidence of modification, including non-

native species. Many veteran native trees

present, and evidence of former coppice

management.

Hedgerow Important Hedgerows

BAP priority habitat

hedgerows

Occur throughout the site.

Mature trees Identified as

important in the

National Planning

Policy Framework

Widespread in hedgerows

Ponds UK BAP priority

habitat

One pond qualifies as a UK BAP habitat on the

basis it supports a UK BAP priority species

(common toad)


16

REFERENCES

Beckett, G. & Bull, A. (1999) A Flora of Norfolk. Gillian Beckett, Norfolk.

Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (2005) Species Status No. 7: The Vascular Plant Red Data List

for Great Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Chris Blandford Associates (2008) Broadland District Landscape Assessment. Available

from: http://www.broadland.gov.uk/housing_and_planning/618.aspa

DfCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local

Government, London.

Defra (2007) Hedgerow Survey Handbook. Defra, London.

English Nature (1999) JCA 78: Central North Norfolk. Available from:

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...org.../JCA078_evidence.pdf

JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Joint Nature Conservation Committee,

Peterborough.

Maddock, A. (2011) UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. Available

from:

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/UKBAPPriorityHabitatDescriptionsfinalAllhabitats2008102

2.pdf

Stace, C.A. (2010) New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition), Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/UKBAPPriorityHabitatDescriptionsfinalAllhabitats20081022.pdf

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/library/UKBAPPriorityHabitatDescriptionsfinalAllhabitats20081022.pdf


17

APPENDIX 1: MAPS


18

Figure 1a. Desktop search map (north).


19

Figure 1b. Desktop search map (south).


20

Figure 2. Phase 1 habitat map.


21

Figure 3. Hedgerows qualifying as UK BAP priority hedgerows.


22

Figure 4. Hedgerows classes as ‘Important Hedgerows’ (Hedgerow Regulations 1997).


23

APPENDIX 2: SPECIES INVENTORY


24

Table 5. Inventory of plant species and abundances.

Scientific Name Common Name

Acer campestre Field Maple

Acer platanoides Norway Maple

Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore

Achillea millefolium Yarrow

Agrostis capillaris Common Bent

Alliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard

Allium ursinum Ramsons

Alopecurus myosuroides Black-grass

Amsinkia micrantha Common fiddleneck

Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernell

Anisantha sterilis Barren Brome

Anthiscus caucaulis Bur chervil

Anthriscus sylvestris Cow Parsley

Aphanes arvensis agg. Parsley-piert

Arabidopsis thalliana Thale Cress

Arctium minus Lesser Burdock

Arrhenatherum elatius False Oat-grass

Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort

Arum maculatum Lords-and-Ladies

Bellis perennis Daisy

Betula pendula Silver Birch

Betula pubescens Downy Birch

Brachypodium sylvaticum Wood False-brome

Brassica nigra Black Mustard

Bromus commutatus Meadow Brome

Bromus hordeaceus Soft-brome

Bryonia dioica White Bryony

Buddleja davidii Butterfly-bush

Calystegia sepium Hedge Bindweed

Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's-purse

Cardamine hirsuta Hairy Bitter-cress

Carex pendula Pendulous Sedge

Carex remota Remote Sedge

Carex viridula subsp. oedocarpa Common Yellow-sedge

Carpinus betulus Hornbeam

Castanea sativa Sweet Chestnut

Centaurea nigra Common Knapweed

Cerastium fontanum Common Mouse-ear

Cerastium glomeratum Sticky Mouse-ear

Cerastium tomentosum Snow-in-summer

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Lawson's Cypress

Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay Williowherb

Chelidonium majus Greater Celandine

Chenopodium album Fat-hen

Cirsium arvense Creeping Thistle

Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle

Claytonia perfoliata Springbeauty

Convallaria majalis Lily-of-the-valley

Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed

Coronopus didymus Lesser Swine-cress

Corylus avellana Hazel

Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn


25


Crocosmia pottsii x aurea = C. x crocosmiiflora Montbretia

Dactylis glomerata Cock's-foot

Digitalis purpurea Foxglove

Dryopteris dilatata Broad Buckler-fern

Dryopteris filix-mas Male-fern

Epilobium hirsutum Great Willowherb

Euphorbia peplus Petty Spurge

Fagus sylvatica Beech

Fallopia japonica Japanese Knotweed

Festuca rubra Red Fescue

Filago vulgaris Common Cudweed

Galium aparine Cleavers

Geranium molle Dove's-foot Crane's-bill

Geranium robertianum Herb-Robert

Geum urbanum Wood Avens

Glechoma hederacea Ground-ivy

Hedera helix Common Ivy

Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed

Hieracium agg. Hawkweed

Holcus lanatus Yorkshire-fog

Hordeum murinum Wall Barley

Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell

Hyacinthoides non-scripta x hispanica = H. x massartiana Hybrid Bluebell

Hypericum perforatum Perforate St John's-wort

Hypericum perforatum x maculatum = H. x desetangsii Des Etangs' St John's-wort

Hypochaeris radicata Cat's-ear

Ilex aquifolium Holly

Juncus bufonius Toad Rush

Lactuca virosa Great Lettuce

Lamiastrum galeobdolon subsp. argentatum Yellow Archangel

Lamium album White Dead-nettle

Lamium purpureum Red Dead-nettle

Lapsana communis Nipplewort

Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy

Ligustrum vulgare Wild Privet

Lonicera periclymenum Honeysuckle

Lotus pedunculatus Greater Bird's-foot-trefoil

Luzula campestris Field Wood-rush

Lycopus europaeus Gypsywort

Malus domestica Apple

Matricaria discoidea Pineappleweed

Matricaria recutita Scented Mayweed

Medicago lupulina Black Medick

Mercurialis perennis Dog's Mercury

Moehringia trinervia Three-nerved Sandwort

Myosotis arvensis Field Forget-me-not

Myosotis sylvatica Wood Forget-me-not

Narcissus agg. Narcissus

Ornithogalum angustifolium Star-of-Bethlehem

Oxalis articulata Pink Sorrel

Papaver rhoeas Common Poppy

Petasites fragrans Winter Heliotrope

Phleum pratense Timothy

Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Plantain

Plantago major Greater Plantain


26


Poa annua Annual Meadow-grass

Poa nemoralis Wood Meadow-grass

Poa pratensis Smooth Meadow-grass

Poa pratensis agg. Meadow-grass

Poa trivialis Rough Meadow-grass

Polygonum aviculare Knotgrass

Populus tremula Aspen

Potentilla sterilis Barren Strawberry

Prunus avium Wild Cherry

Prunus cerasifera Cherry Plum

Prunus laurocerasus Cherry Laurel

Prunus padus Bird Cherry

Prunus spinosa Blackthorn

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken

Quercus robur Pedunculate Oak

Ranunculus acris Meadow Buttercup

Ranunculus ficaria Lesser Celandine

Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup

Rhododendron ponticum Rhododendron

Ribes rubrum Red Currant

Ribes uva-crispa Gooseberry

Rosa arvensis Field-rose

Rosa canina Dog Rose

Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble

Rumex acetosa Sorrel

Rumex crispus Curled Dock

Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved Dock

Rumex sanguineus Wood Dock

Salix caprea Goat Willow

Salix cinerea Grey Willow

Salix fragilis Crack-willow

Sambucus nigra Elder

Sanicula europaea Sanicle

Scrophularia nodosa Common Figwort

Senecio jacobaea Common Ragwort

Senecio vulgaris Groundsel

Silene dioica Red Campion

Silene latifolia White Campion

Sisymbrium officinale Hedge Mustard

Sonchus asper Prickly Sow-thistle

Sonchus oleraceus Smooth Sow-thistle

Sorbus aucuparia Rowan

Stachys sylvatica Hedge Woundwort

Stellaria holostea Greater Stitchwort

Stellaria media Common Chickweed

Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry

Tamus communis Black Bryony

Taraxacum agg. Dandelion

Taxus baccata Yew

Tilia platyphyllos x cordata = T. x europaea Lime

Trifolium pratense Red Clover

Trifolium repens White Clover

Tripleurospermum inodorum Scentless Mayweed

Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat

Ulmus glabra Wych Elm


27


Ulmus minor Small-leaved Elm

Ulmus procera x minor Hybrid Elm

Urtica dioica Common Nettle

Urtica urens Small Nettle

Veronica agrestis Green Field-speedwell

Veronica arvensis Wall Speedwell

Veronica chamaedrys Germander Speedwell

Veronica persica Common Field-speedwell

Viburnum opulus Guelder-rose

Vicia sativa Common Vetch

Vicia tetrasperma Smooth Tare

Vinca minor Lesser Periwinkle

Viola arvensis Field Pansy

Viola riviniana Common Dog-violet


28

APPENDIX 3: LEGISLATION


29





of the law.

A NATIONAL LEGISLATION AFFORDED TO SPECIES

Plants

With certain exceptions, all wild plants are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended). This makes it an offence for an ‘unauthorised’ person to

intentionally (or recklessly in Scotland) uproot wild plants. An authorised person can be the

owner of the land on which the action is taken, or anybody authorised by them.

Certain rare species of plant, for example some species of orchid, are also fully protected

under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This prohibits

any person:

Intentionally (or recklessly in Scotland) picking, uprooting or destruction of any wild

Schedule 8 species (or seed or spore attached to any such wild plant in Scotland

only)

Selling, offering or exposing for sale, or possessing or transporting for the purpose

of sale, any wild live or dead Schedule 8 plant species or part thereof

In addition to the UK legislation outlined above, several plant species are fully protected

under Schedule 5 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as

amended). These are species of European importance. Regulation 45 makes it an offence

to:

Deliberately pick, collect, cut, uproot or destroy a wild Schedule 5 species

Be in possession of, or control, transport, sell or exchange, or offer for sale or

exchange any wild live or dead Schedule 5 species or anything derived from such a

plant.

How is the legislation pertaining to protected plants liable to affect development

works?


30

A European Protected Species (EPS) Licence issued by the relevant countryside agency

(e.g. Natural England) will be required for works liable to affect species of plant listed under

The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). The licence is to

allow derogation from the relevant legislation but also to enable appropriate mitigation

measures to be put in place and their efficacy to be monitored.

Invasive Plant Species

Certain species of plant, including Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica, giant hogweed

Heracleum mantegazzianum and Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera are listed on

Part II of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in respect to

Section 14(2). Such species are generally non-natives whose establishment or spread in

the wild may be detrimental to native wildlife. Inclusion on Part II of Schedule 9 therefore

makes it an offence to plant or otherwise cause these species to grow in the wild.

How is the legislation pertaining to invasive plants liable to affect development

works?

Although it is not an offence to have these plants on your land per se, it is an offence to

cause these species to grow in the wild. Therefore, if they are present on site and

development activities (for example movement of spoil, disposal of cut waste or vehicular

movements) have the potential to cause the further spread of these species to new areas,

it will be necessary to ensure appropriate measures are in place to prevent this happening

prior to the commencement of works.

B NATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LEGISLATION AFFORDED TO HABITATS

Non-Statutory Designations

Areas considered to be of local conservation interest may be designated by local

authorities as a Wildlife Site, under a variety of names such as County Wildlife Sites (CWS),

Listed Wildlife Sites (LWS), Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS), Sites of Biological

Importance (SBIs), Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), or Sites of Nature

Conservation Importance (SNCIs). The criteria for designation may vary between counties.

Together with the statutory designations, these are defined in local and structure plans

under the Town and Country Planning system and are a material consideration when

planning applications are being determined. The level of protection afforded to these sites

through local planning policies and development frameworks may vary between counties.


31

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 are intended to protect ‘important’ countryside

hedgerows from destruction or damage. A hedgerow is considered important if (a) has

existed for 30 years or more; and (b) satisfies at least one of the criteria listed in Part II of

Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

Under the Regulations, it is against the law to remove or destroy certain hedgerows

without permission from the local planning authority. Hedgerows on or adjacent to

common land, village greens, SSSIs (including all terrestrial SACs, NNRs and SPAs), LNRs,

land used for agriculture or forestry and land used for the keeping or breeding of horses,

ponies or donkeys are covered by these regulations. Hedgerows 'within or marking the

boundary of the curtilage of a dwelling-house' are not.

UK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

In 1994 the UK Government published its response to the Convention on Biological

Diversity that it signed along with over 150 other nations at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Biodiversity – the UK Action Plan (HM Government 1994) and subsequent publications

(e.g. UK Steering Group 1995) set out a programme for the national Biodiversity Action

Plan (BAP), including the development of targets for biodiversity, and the techniques and

actions necessary to achieve them. The national BAP includes lists of species that are of

conservation concern, either because they are rare in an international or national context or

have undergone serious declines in their populations in recent years. Species Action Plans

have been prepared or are in preparation for a many of these species, whilst Habitat Action

Plans are being produced for important or characteristic habitats identified in the plan.

LOCAL BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN

The UK plan also encourages the production of local Biodiversity Action Plans at the

County or District level. Specific Habitat Action Plans HAPs and Species Action Plans

SAPs listed in the Norfolk LBAP which are of potential relevance to this site include:

Ancient/or species rich hedgerows

Cereal field margins

Lowland wood pasture and parkland

Ponds


32














No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

ad

ger, B

row

n H

are

, Hed

gehog

& H

arv

est M

ice a

nd

Surv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

ad

ger, B

row

n H

are

, Hed

gehog

& H

arv

est M

ice a

nd

Surv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

Author Tracy Simpson BSc (Hons) MSc MIEEM

Job No. 100368


Initial Graham Hopkins Sam Phillips 5

th May 2011

Revision Jit Thacker Graham Hopkins 22nd September 2012


Badger, Brown Hare, Hedgehog and

Harvest Mice Surveys



No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

ad

ger, B

row

n H

are

, Hed

gehog

& H

arv

est M

ice a

nd

Surv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 2

Background 2



2 METHODS 3

Survey Overview and Personnel 3

Badgers 3

Brown Hare 3

Harvest Mouse 3

3 RESULTS 4

Desktop Results 4

Field Surveys 5

4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6

Overview 6

Evaluation 6

Mitigation and Enhancement 6

REFERENCES 7

APPENDIX 1: MAPS 8











The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Badger, Brown Hare, Hedgehog & Harvest Mice / Beyond Green

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


for the proposed North Sprowston and Old Catton project. The work is to contribute

to the Environmental Statement and Environmental Impact Assessment process.

This report presents the evidence for the use of the site by badger, brown hare and,

harvest mouse and hedgehog. These species are either legally protected or UK

Biodiversity Action Plan priority species.

The data search returned a single record of badger from within 2km some 1km to the

north. Records of brown hare were sporadic, from nearby farmland, and hedgehog

records were from the areas of residential housing to the south. No records of

harvest mice were returned.

Systematic surveys for badger failed to find any evidence. A systematic survey for

brown hare recorded only two individuals, from outside of the development

boundary, but incidental records were made of three individuals from fields east of

the Wroxham Road. Searches for harvest mice concentrated on the areas considered

to be of greatest potential, but no nests were found. Hedgehogs were not observed

during any visits.

It is concluded that the site is of local importance only for brown hare and hedgehog,

with the populations being small. It is considered that harvest mouse and badger are

not present.


2

1 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND





and Environmental Impact Assessment process.

1.2 This report presents the methodologies and results of surveys for noteworthy

terrestrial mammals (excluding bats) wihin the site, namely: badger Meles meles,

hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus, brown hare Lepus europaeus and harvest mouse

Micromys minutus.




Wroxham Road, south of Spixworth and north of Old Catton and Sprowston.

1.4 The survey and development areas largely comprises arable farmland with fields


woodland and parkland. The composition of the survey area comprised: arable (78%)

with other habitats as minor components: amenity grassland (6%), semi-natural

broadleaved woodland (5%), parkland and scattered trees (4%) and improved

grassland (4%). Planted woodland of all types together represents 3% of the survey

area, and semi-improved neutral grassland and tall ruderal both cover less than 1 ha.


1.5 Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act and harvest mouse,

brown hare and hedgehog are all UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species, and

consequently, Species of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and

Rural Communities Act.



Details of national legislation afforded to species


UK Biodiversity Action Plans


3

2 METHODS

SURVEY OVERVIEW AND PERSONNEL

2.1 Systematic surveys were undertaken for badger, brown hare and harvest mice but

only incidental recording attempted for hedgehog. However, any observations made

by surveyors at other times were also recorded and are reported here. The

systematic surveys were undertaken in the autumn of 2010 and the incidental

recording during March 2010-September 2012, although most visits were in the

period March 2010-April 2011.

2.2 The personnel for systematic species surveys were: Dr Jit Thacker (badgers) and Dr

Graham Hopkins (brown hare and harvest mouse).

BADGERS

2.3 The survey for badgers was undertaken over several days in October 2010. In

autumn, badger activity is generally high but the vegetation has died-back enough for

a thorough search of an area. The habitat within the development boundary and a

wider survey area was searched systematically for evidence of badger activity in the

form of setts, droppings, pathways, snuffle holes, hair and footprints. Methods follow

Harris et al. (1992).

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

offered suitable sett sites. Areas with dense ground cover (hedgerows, scrub,

woodland etc.) were examined closely. If the vegetation precluded a thorough

examination of an area, the perimeter of the area was examined in order to detect

paths or other signs suggestive of a sett concealed within the vegetation.

BROWN HARE

2.5 A systematic survey for brown hares was undertaken on 21st

September 2010. This

comprised a walkover of the site along field boundaries and scanning fields for

individuals.

HARVEST MOUSE

2.6 The areas of habitat most likely to support harvest mouse were searched

systematically on 12th October 2010, for a total of five hours. These areas were

selected on the basis of experience gained over earlier surveys and were

predominantly areas of rough, tall herbage in close association with undisturbed

areas of scrub, woodland or large hedgerows. The principal search areas were the

edges of the woodland south Beeston Park and along the field margins adjacent to

Church Lane.

2.7 The search comprised a careful examination of tussocks for signs of nests (cf

Mammal Society undated).


4

3 RESULTS

DESKTOP RESULTS

Badger

3.1 A single record of badger was returned by the data search, from a location more than

1km north of the development boundary.

Brown Hare, Harvest Mouse and Hedgehog

3.2 A small number of records of brown hare were returned from disparate locations

across the arable areas within the search radius. Records of hedgehog were returned

from the urban fringe of Norwich (see Table 1 and Appendix 1: Figure 1). No records

of harvest mouse were returned.

Table 1. Records of terrestrial mammals (excluding bats) recorded within 2km of the

development site.

Common name Scientific name Grid

reference

Location

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG235113 Sprowston

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG2511 Sprowston Churchyard

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG242119 Colindeep Lane sprowston


Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG2316 Frettenham


Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG281129 Rackheath

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG2312 Old Catton



Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG256107 Bewit Road, Sprowston

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG254153 B1150 Spixworth



Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG2516 Crostwick

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus TG254153 Spixworth

Badger Meles meles Confidential Near Spixworth

Brown Hare Lepus europaeus TG2414 Spixworth

Brown Hare Lepus europaeus TG281129 Rackheath

Brown Hare Lepus europaeus TG2114 Horsham St Faith and Newton

St Faith

Brown Hare Lepus europaeus TG2416 Beck Farm Frettenham


Brown Hare Lepus europaeus TG215126 Hellesdon


Brown Hare Lepus europaeus TG258125 Sprowston

Brown Hare Lepus europaeus TG2416 Beck Farm Frettenham


5

FIELD SURVEYS

Badger

3.3 No evidence of badgers was found during either the systematic survey or during

incidental recording.

Brown Hare, Harvest Mouse & Hedgehog

3.4 No evidence of harvest mice was found and no records of hedgehog were made.

3.5 Brown hare were recorded from fields along the north of the survey area (but outside

of the development boundary) only during the systematic survey, with two individuals

in cereal stubble east of the Buxton Road. Incidental records of hare were made

within the development boundary as follows: singleton east of the North Walsham

Road (13th May 2010); singleton north of the Wroxham Road (11

th October 2011). and

a singleton in Beeston Park (13th April 2012);


6

4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OVERVIEW

4.1 The only species of noteworthy mammal recorded during the field surveys was

brown hare. Realistically it is likely that hedgehog is also present, given the proximity

of the desktop records and the presence of suitable habitat.

4.2 No evidence of badgers was found on the site, thus they are not believed to be

present. The paucity of desk top records further suggests that they are absent

locally.

4.3 It is likely that harvest mouse is absent, based on the absence of any evidence during

the field survey. Harvest mice are elusive; however, the limited extent of suitable

habitat together with the absence of desk top records does suggest that they are

unlikely to be present.

EVALUATION

4.4 Only low numbers of brown hare were recorded and it is considered likely that the

local population is small. It is considered that the population is of local significance

only. Hedgehogs are likely to be present but only in numbers of local significance.

Both species are widespread and common in suitable habitat (NNNS, 2011).

4.5 It is considered that the site is of negligible significance for harvest mouse and

badger.

MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT

4.6 With respect to brown hares there is little on-site enhancement or mitigation that is

feasible. Brown hare is a species of open grassland and is unlikely to continue to

reside locally. If off-site mitigation is considered appropriate then this would

comprise the provision of grass leys in association with arable fields. The restoration

of Beeston Park may provide some suitable habitat, although disturbance from

visitors will probably reduce its value for brown hare.

4.7 It is not considered that any mitigation is required for badger or harvest mouse, but

re-survey for badger would be prudent before the development of individual land

parcels.

4.8 It is likely that hedgehog could continue to reside locally and within the completed

development if provided with suitable cover, foraging habitat and access to semi-

natural areas.


7

REFERENCES

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Jefferies, D. (1989) Surveying Badgers. Occasional

Publication of the Mammal Society No 9. The Mammal Society, London.

Mammal Society (undated) Harvest Mouse Follow-Up Survey. Instructions for

Surveyors. Mammal Society, London.

NNNS (2011) Bird and Mammal Report 2010. Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’

Society, Norwich.


8

APPENDIX 1: MAPS


9

Figure 1. Local records of badger, brown hare and hedgehog (desktop records and survey work

for the project 2010-2012).


10



11





of the law.


The objective of the EC Habitats Directive1 is to conserve the various species of plant and

animal which are considered rare across Europe. The Directive is transposed into UK law

by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (formerly The Conservation

(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)) and The Offshore Marine

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended).

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is a key piece of national legislation

which implements the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural

Habitats (Bern Convention) and implements the species protection obligations of Council

Directive 2009/147/EC (formerly 79/409/EEC) on the Conservation of Wild Birds (EC Birds

Directive) in Great Britain.

Since the passing of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, various amendments have been

made, details of which can be found on www.opsi.gov.uk. Key amendments have been

made through the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act (2000) and Nature


Other legislative Acts affording protection to wildlife and their habitats include:

Deer Act 1991

Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000

Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

Species and species groups that are protected or otherwise regulated under the

aforementioned domestic and European legislation, and that are most likely to be affected

1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/


12

by development activities, include herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles), badger, bats,

birds, dormouse, invasive plant species, otter, plants, red squirrel, water vole and white

clawed crayfish.

Badger

Badgers Meles meles receive protection under The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which

consolidates the previous Badger Acts of 1973 and 1991. The Act makes it an offence to:

Wilfully kill, injure, take, or attempt to kill, injure or take a badger

Cruelly ill-treat a badger, including use of tongs and digging

Possess or control a dead badger or any part thereof

Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a badger sett2 or

any part thereof

Intentionally or recklessly disturb3 a badger when it is occupying a badger sett

Intentionally or recklessly cause a dog to enter a badger sett

Sell or offers for sale, possesses or has under his control, a live badger

How is the legislation pertaining to badgers liable to affect development works?

A Development Licence4 will be required from the relevant countryside agency (e.g. Natural

England) for any development works liable to affect an active badger sett, or to disturb

badgers whilst in the sett. Depending on the nature of the works and the specifics of the

sett and its environs, badgers could be disturbed by work near the sett even if there is no

direct interference or damage to the sett itself. The countryside agencies have issued

guidelines on what constitutes a licensable activity. N.B. there is no provision in law for the

2 A badger sett is defined in the legislation as "any structure or place which displays signs indicating current

use by a badger". This includes seasonally used setts. Natural England (2009) have issued guidance on what is

likely to constitute current use of a badger sett: www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG17_tcm6-11815.pdf

3 For guidance on what constitutes disturbance and other licensing queries, see Natural England (2007)

Badgers & Development: A Guide to Best Practice and Licensing. www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/badgers-

dev-guidance_tcm6-4057.pdf, Natural England (2009) Interpretation of ‘Disturbance’ in relation to badgers

occupying a sett www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG16_tcm6-11814.pdf, Scottish Natural Heritage

(2002) Badgers & Development.

www.snh.org.uk/publications/online/wildlife/badgersanddevelopment/default.asp and Countryside Council for

Wales (undated) Badgers: A Guide for Developers. www.ccw.gov.uk.

4 Natural England will only consider issuing a licence where detailed planning permission (if applicable to

operation) has already been granted

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG17_tcm6-11815.pdf

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/badgers-dev-guidance_tcm6-4057.pdf

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/badgers-dev-guidance_tcm6-4057.pdf

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG16_tcm6-11814.pdf

http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/online/wildlife/badgersanddevelopment/default.asp

http://www.ccw.gov.uk/


13

capture of badgers for development purposes and therefore it is not possible to obtain a

licence to translocate badgers from one area to another.


All wild mammals are protected against intentional acts of cruelty under the above

legislation. This makes it an offence to:

Mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag

or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.

To avoid possible contravention, due care and attention should be taken when carrying out

works (for example operations near burrows or nests) with the potential to affect any wild

mammal in this way, regardless of whether they are legally protected through other

conservation legislation or not.

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL COMMUNITIES ACT 2006 AND THE

BIODIVERSITY DUTY

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force on 1st

October 2006. Section 40 of the Act requires all public bodies to have regard to

biodiversity conservation when carrying out their functions. This is commonly referred to as

the ‘biodiversity duty’.

Section 41 of the Act (Section 42 in Wales) requires the Secretary of State to publish a list

of habitats and species which are of ‘principal importance for the conservation of

biodiversity.’ This list is intended to assist decision makers such as public bodies in

implementing their duty under Section 40 of the Act. Under the Act these habitats and

species are regarded as a material consideration in determining planning applications. A

developer must show that their protection has been adequately addressed within a

development proposal.










14






County or District level. Specific Habitat Action Plans HAPs and Species Action Plans

SAPs listed in the Norfolk LBAP which are of potential relevance to this site include:

Brown hare Lepus europaeus

Great crested newt Triturus cristatus

Linnet Carduelis cannabina

Barn owl Tyto alba

Turtle dove Streptopelia turtur

Song thrush Turdus philomelos

Grey Partridge Perdix perdix

Ancient/or species rich hedgerows














No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

ird S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

ird S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

Author Jerry Kinsley BSc (Hons)

Job No. 100368



May 2011

Revision Alex Prendergast Graham Hopkins 20th

September 2012


Bird Surveys


The Ecology Consultancy Thorpe House, 79 Thorpe Road, Norwich NR1 1UA T. 01603 628408 E. [email protected] W. www.ecologyconsultancy.co.uk

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

ird S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1 INTRODUCTION 6

Background 6



2 METHODS 7

Personnel 7

Desktop Search 7

Breeding Bird Surveys 7

Wintering Bird Surveys 7

Conservation Statuses 8

Evaluation 8

3 RESULTS 9

Data Search 9

Breeding Birds 10

Wintering Birds 10

4 EVALUATION 12

Breeding Birds 12

Wintering Birds 13

5 DISCUSSION 14

OvervIew 14

Off-Site Mitigation 14

On-Site Mitigation 15

REFERENCES 16

APPENDIX 1: FIGURES 18

APPENDIX 2: DATA SEARCH RESULTS 23











The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Birds / Beyond Green

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


for the proposed North-east Norwich urban extension. The work is to contribute to


This report summarises the results of bird surveys undertaken during 2010-11:

breeding birds from April to June 2010 and wintering birds from November 2010-

March 2011.The surveys included the entire development area and then a broader

survey area (of approximately 200ha and 350ha respectively).

The birds of conservation concern included species with UK Biodiversity Action Plan

priority species status (UK BAP) and species on either the Red list or Amber list.

The breeding bird survey reported 37 species as present but not necessarily

breeding. Species of conservation concern breeding in the wider survey area but not

in the development area were: linnet (Red list) and probably cuckoo (with two calling

birds). Species recorded but probably not breeding (across the wider survey area but

not necessarily in the development area) were: starling (Red list); green woodpecker

(Amber list); lesser-spotted woodpecker (Red list); mistle thrush (Amber list); stock

dove (Amber list); and willow warbler (Amber list).

Breeding within the development area were: dunnock (1 pair; UK BAP, Amber list);

skylark (6 pairs; UK BAP, Red list); song thrush (2 pairs; UK BAP, Red list);

whitethroat (7 pairs; Amber list); yellowhammer (1 pair; UK BAP, Red list); and house

sparrow (UK BAP, Red list) were nesting in nearby houses but foraging on the site.

During the wintering bird survey a total of 39 species were recorded across the whole

survey area, of which 19 have either Red or Amber listing and 6 also having UK BAP

priority species status. The occurrence of wintering farmland birds was sporadic with

areas of regular activity principally along field margins in the western part of the

Proposed Development. No substantial flocks were noted.

When compared against published densities of birds on farmland of various types the

densities of the breeding species are low. Likewise the site has low numbers of

wintering birds, with few flocks of note and a low diversity.

It is not considered that individual areas are of disproportionate importance for birds,

with potentially suitable vacant habitat for most species being widespread through

the site.


5

It is considered that the development area is of Low significance for its birds, in terms

of the individual breeding and over-wintering species and for the whole assemblage

of breeding and over-wintering species.

Off-site mitigation is appropriate for the farmland species, including new hedgerow

planting and implementation of measures to create new see-rich arable margins and

skylark nesting plots in established crops. The restoration of Beeston Park will also

create new areas of habitat for birds of woodland edge and hedgerow habitats.


6

1 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND






1.2 This report presents the results for a suite of breeding and wintering bird surveys

undertaken across the development area and a broader survey area.




Wroxham Road, south of Spixworth and north of Old Catton and Sprowston.









1.5 Appendix 2 contains details of legislation, planning policy and Biodiversity Action

Plans (BAPs) relating to reptiles, and is provided for general guidance only. The

Appendix includes:

Details of national legislation afforded to birds


UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans


7

2 METHODS

PERSONNEL

2.1. The breeding bird survey was undertaken by Jon Clifton (Anglian Lepidopterists

Supplies: Jon is a respected naturalist, based in North Norfolk, who regularly

undertakes professional bird surveys across the UK.

2.2. The wintering bird survey was by Jerry Kinsley (Ecologist, The Ecology Consultancy):

Jerry has over twenty years experience of bird study in Norfolk and is the senior field

ornithologist for The Ecology Consultancy.

DESKTOP SEARCH

2.3. Information on birds from the site and within a 2km search radius from the site

boundary was obtained from the Norfolk Biological Information Service (NBIS),

BREEDING BIRD SURVEYS

2.4. Protocols for breeding bird surveys are based on an adaptation of standard transect

surveys techniques such as breeding bird survey and common bird census

(Marchant, 1983). Six visits were made at intervals between 29th April and 17

th June

2010.

2.5. A transect route was walked over the sites, visiting all areas of habitat potentially

used by nesting birds. In practice this route followed hedgerows and woodland

edges and was determined during an initial survey, and was maintained in

subsequent surveys order to provide consistency. The direction in which the survey

route was walked was alternated between visits to ensure coverage of survey

sections over different time periods. The transect route encompassed all habitat

types present on site.

2.6. The site was divided into two transect routes separated by the North Walsham Road:

east and west survey sections (Appendix 1, Figure 1). Both the east and west survey

sections were visited six times each over the survey period.

2.7. Every effort was made to avoid duplication of records therefore all sightings/counts

should be viewed as minimums.

2.8. Notes were made of any additional signs of breeding or territorial behaviour, for

example presence of familial groups, juveniles, food carrying or feeding attempts,

calling/singing or territorial mobbing behaviour.

WINTERING BIRD SURVEYS

2.9. A transect route was walked over the sites, visiting all areas of habitat potentially

used by wintering birds. In practice this route followed hedgerows and woodland

edges and was determined during an initial survey, and was maintained in


8

subsequent surveys order to provide consistency. The direction in which the survey

route was walked was alternated between visits to ensure coverage of survey

sections over different time periods.

2.10. The site was divided into two transect routes divided by the North Walsham Road:

east and west survey sections (Appendix 1, Figure 1). Both the east and west survey

sections were visited six times each over the survey period.

2.11. Every effort was made to avoid duplication of records therefore all sightings/counts

should be viewed as minimums.

CONSERVATION STATUSES

2.12. Two categories of conservation status are used:

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority species status is taken from the

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP, 2009) and Norfolk BAP status is taken

from Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership (2012).

Red/Amber listing is taken from the list of Birds of Conservation Concern

(Eaton et al., 2009) and is assigned according to the level of threat

experienced by species, using criteria such as the magnitude of recent

declines in population size and overall population size and distribution. Red

list species are of greater conservation concern than amber species. This is

not a formal consideration within planning policy but it does denote the

conservation value of species and is used for assigning site value.

EVALUATION

2.13. The evaluation of the significance of bird species and assemblages is adapted from

(Percival, 2007) (Table 1).

Table 1. Value of bird species and assemblages.

Value Criteria

Very high Qualifying species of an SPA or notified interest of a SSSI

Species present in internationally important numbers (>1%

biogeography/flyway population)

High Species that contribute to the integrity of an SPA or SSSI but which are not

cited as species for which the site is designated (SPAs) or notified (SSSIs).

Ecologically sensitive species such as rare birds (<300 breeding pairs in the

UK) and the following birds of prey: golden eagle, white-tailed eagle, red

kite, honey buzzard, osprey, marsh harrier and hen harrier

Species present in nationally important numbers (>1% UK population)

Species listed in Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive or Schedule 1 of the

Wildlife And Countryside Act

(Regularly-occurring relevant migratory species which are either rare or

vulnerable, or warrant species consideration on account of the proximity of

migration routes, or breeding, moulting, wintering or staging areas in

relation to the proposed wind farm)

Medium Species present in regionally important numbers (>1% regional population)

Species occurring within SPAs and SSSIs but not crucial to integrity of sites

Low,

equivalent to

Lower

Any other species of conservation interest, e.g. species listed in Birds of

Conservation Concern (see Eaton et al. 2007) not covered above, both UK

and local Biodiversity Action Plan species


9

3 RESULTS

DATA SEARCH

3.1. The data search carried out included an extensive list of species of conservation

concern. Many of the species are unlikely to be present as resident populations or

regular visitors to the site, being variously rare vagrants, passage migrants or wetland

species recorded incidentally and resident elsewhere within Norfolk. Table 2 lists the

farmland birds and those of the wider countryside that are of conservation concern

and potentially present as breeding species.

Table 2. Records of noteworthy birds recorded within 2km of the site and potentially breeding

(farmland, ‘wider countryside’ and woodland species).

Common name Scientific name UK BAP priority

species

Red/Amber status

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Amber

Stock Pigeon Columba oenas Amber

European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur UK BAP priority

species

Red

Cuckoo Cuculus canorus UK BAP priority

species

Red

Barn Owl Tyto alba Red

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Amber

Green Woodpecker Picus viridis Amber

Lesser Spotted

Woodpecker

Dendrocopos minor UK BAP priority

species

Red

Skylark Alauda arvensis UK BAP priority

species

Red

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Amber

House Martin Delichon urbicum Amber

Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Amber

Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos

Amber

Whinchat Saxicola rubetra Amber

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos UK BAP priority

species

Red

Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus Amber

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus

Amber

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata UK BAP priority

species

Red

Starling Sturnus vulgaris UK BAP priority

species

Red

House Sparrow Passer domesticus UK BAP priority

species

Red

Common Linnet Carduelis cannabina UK BAP priority

species

Red

Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula UK BAP priority

species

Amber


10

BREEDING BIRDS

3.2. Across the whole survey area a total of 37 species were recorded, of which nine are

BAP priority species and 15 have either Red or Amber listing (Table 3). As breeding

species with territories within the development area, there are five species of

conservation concern of which four are UK BAP priority species.

3.3. Breeding in the wider survey area but not in development area were:

Linnet (Red list) and probably cuckoo (with two calling birds).

3.4. Species recorded but probably not breeding (across the wider survey area but not

necessarily in the development area) were:

Starling (Red list); green woodpecker (Amber list); lesser-spotted

woodpecker (Red list); mistle thrush (Amber list); stock dove Columba oenas

(Amber list); and willow warbler (Amber list).

3.5. Locations of the territories for the birds of conservation concern species are

presented as Appendix 1: Figures 1a & b.

Table 3. UK BAP and Red/Amber listed species recorded during the breeding bird surveys

(where no numbers are shown then the species is probably not breeding).

Common name Territories

BAP status Red/Amber list

status

Dunnock Prunella modularis 1 UK BAP priority

species

Amber

House Sparrow 1 colony UK BAP priority

species

Red

Skylark 6 UK BAP priority

species

Norfolk BAP species

Red

Song Thrush 2 UK BAP priority

species

Norfolk BAP species

Red

Whitethroat Sylvia communis 7 Amber

Yellowhammer Emberiza citronella

1 UK BAP priority

species

Red

WINTERING BIRDS

3.6. During the wintering bird survey a total of 39 species were recorded across the whole

survey area, of which 19 have either Red or Amber listing and 6 also having UK BAP

priority species status (Table 4). The occurrence of wintering farmland birds was

sporadic with areas of regular activity principally along field margins in the western

part of the development area. No substantial flocks were noted with, for example, the

largest flock of passerines comprised eight skylarks.


11

Table 4. UK BAP and Red/Amber listed species recorded during the wintering bird surveys.

Common name Development

area

BAP status Red/Amber

status

Black-headed gull

Chroicocephalus ridibundus

102 Amber

Common gull Larus canus 4 Amber

Kestrel 2 Amber

Starling 20 UK BAP priority

species

Red

Dunnock 10 Amber

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris 9 Red

Green woodpecker 4 Amber

Herring gull Larus argentatus 30 UK BAP priority

species

Red

House sparrow 4 UK BAP priority

species

Red

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 32 Amber

Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus

8 Amber

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 1 Amber

Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis 2 Amber

Mistle thrush 1 Amber

Redwing Turdus iliacus 9 Red

Skylark 8 UK BAP priority

species

Norfolk BAP

species

Red

Song thrush 3 UK BAP priority

species

Norfolk BAP

species

Red

Woodcock Scolopax rusticola 1 Amber

Yellowhammer 2 UK BAP priority

species

Red


12

4 EVALUATION

BREEDING BIRDS

4.1 In developing an evaluation of the site for birds, as a breeding assemblage and for

individual species, reference is made to their national conservation status,

occurrence as breeding species in the survey area and national and local population

status. All of the species are considered to be at least fairly common in Norfolk,

although with substantial declines in population sizes at a national level.

4.2 Comparable data on the densities of species in different habitats are taken from

Newson et al. (2005). The densities of all the important breeding species are

summarised below (Table 5) and in all cases the densities in suitable habitat are very

low.

Table 5. Densities of breeding birds of conservation concern and published densities (from

Newson et al., 2005).

Common

name

Territories in

development

area

National

population

size (Bailie et al., 2012)

Status in

Norfolk

(NNNS

2011)

Observed

densities

per km2

Densities in

mixed

grass/tilled

farmland &

tilled farmland

farmland per

km2

House

Sparrow

1 colony 11.9-14.8

million

territories

1994-2000

Common

resident

Not

calculated

60.6 & 26.2

Dunnock 1 2.1 million

territories

1994-2000

Common

resident

0.5 23.7 & 16.6

Skylark 6 1.7 million

territories in

2000

Common

resident

3 9.7 & 18.9

Song thrush 2 1.4 million

territories in

2000

Common

resident

1 7.2 & 2.8

Whitethroat 7 931

thousand

territories in

2000

Common

summer

visitor

3.5 14.4 & 15.3

Yellowhammer 1 792

thousand

territories in

200

Common

resident

0.5 24.4 & 24.8

4.3 For each species the site is considered to be of only Low significance (following

Percival 2007). The entire assemblage is likewise considered to be of Low

significance.


13

WINTERING BIRDS

4.4 The total numbers of overwintering birds was considered to be relatively low and

without particularly significant species. For example, the peak counts recorded from

the survey area are presented in Table 6 with comparable data for peak counts

recorded elsewhere in Norfolk.

Table 6. Comparison of wintering bird numbers with literature examples (from NNNS, 2011)

Common name Maximum

count

Example counts reported elsewhere

Black-headed gull 158 3500 birds at an overnight roost at Wroxham Broad

Common gull 6 3500 birds at an overnight roost at Wroxham Broad

Kestrel 4 Typically present as singletons at individual sites

Starling 34 1328 birds reported in a flock near Norwich and

flocks of 10000 birds regularly reported

Dunnock 13 Flocks infrequent with maximum count comprising

singleton birds

Fieldfare 11 Flocks of 500 birds reported from inland sites

Green Woodpecker 7 No counts of wintering birds, but no major numbers

are likely anywhere

Herring gull 46 300 birds at an inland roost in Cranwich

House Sparrow 4 Flocks of 20+ birds reported at several sites

Lapwing 42 Counts of over 27000 birds reported at overnight

roosts in The Broads

Lesser black-

backed gull

10 Inland flocks of 500+ birds regularly reported

Mallard 2 Counts of 100+ at numerous roost sites in The

Broads

Meadow pipit 2 Largest flocks at coastal areas, but with 150+ birds

regularly reported

Mistle thrush 1 Flocks of over 20birds in inland areas

Redwing 13 Largest inland flock of 1441 birds, with regular flocks

of 100+ birds

Skylark 10 Present as flocks with significant inland numbers

being 150 and 250

Song Thrush 4 In coastal areas flocks of up to 150 birds

Whitethroat 7 Unlikely to overwinter, present as small migrating

flocks in autumn

Woodcock 1 Widespread in low numbers with flocks of 10+ birds

being noteworthy

Yellowhammer 2 Flocks of 30+ birds reported from inland areas

4.5 None of the species are considered to be present in significant numbers and the

entire assemblage of birds is relatively species poor. The assemblage is considered

to be of Low value.


14

5 DISCUSSION

OVERVIEW

5.1 Overall the site is considered to be of Low significance for its birds, with the numbers

of both breeding and overwintering species being low.

5.2 It is not thought that any individual areas are of particular significance for these

species, and that apparently suitable areas of unoccupied potential habitat are

present across the site.

5.3 Two factors are proposed as reasons for its relatively low value: First, the agricultural

habitat lacks many of the features for which farmland birds are associated, such as

wide weed-rich arable margins and overwintering stubbles. Second, at least towards

the southern boundary the site appears to be disturbed by dog walkers and probably

predation by cats from nearby housing.

5.4 Although the site does support species of conservation concern it is emphasised that

the numbers are low and of low significance in a district or wider context. Although

the presence of UK BAP priority species is a material planning consideration it is

proposed that enhancement measures are implemented, both within the completed

development and as of-site measures.

OFF-SITE MITIGATION

5.5 Off-site mitigation is probably the only viable option for several of the species

recorded as breeding and as overwintering species, principally: skylark and

yellowhammer (Winspear & Davies, 2005).

5.6 The Farmland Bird Package of the RSPB (2009) provides a range of measures to

enhance bird habitats on farmland and to reverse the decline of key species including

skylark and yellowhammer. These are:

Providing skylark plots in winter cereals, with 20 per 100ha as a standard

density, equivalent to 18 plots to be created; and the

Creation of a network of insect-rich habitats across the farm using one or

more of the unfertilised conservation headlands on 1% of farmland,

equivalent to the creation of 2ha.

5.7 Further measures include additional hedgerow planting to replace lengths lost to the

development. New hedgerows should have a composition of species similar to

examples of species-rich hedgerows locally and include standard oak Quercus robur

and other trees at intervals. As far as possible new hedgerows should aim to increase


15

landscape connectivity by linking existing areas of semi-natural habitat that are

currently isolated.

5.8 The restoration of Beeston Park will also provide significant new habitat for birds of

woodland edge and open areas. Although parts may be subject to too much

recreational disturbance to be of value to skylarks, it is realistic to consider this a

significant enhancement for yellowhammer, linnet and whitethroat.

ON-SITE MITIGATION

5.9 A number of the species recorded are regularly found in urban habitats and along the

urban fringe interface, such as house sparrow, dunnock and mistle and song

thrushes. Potentially, a net increase in the local numbers of these species could be

achieved via the provision of suitable greenspace, sensitive inclusion of woodland

edge and hedgerow areas, as well as appropriate soft landscaping in association

with houses. Among the key measures are the use of appropriate plants in planting

schemes, primarily native species and others of recognised wildlife value; a key

feature of these plants should be that they are used as host plants by insects of value

to fledgling birds, such as aphids and moth caterpillars. Options for such

enhancements including green roofs and green walls are provided by Gunnell et al.

(2012).

5.10 Specific measure for birds also include bird boxes. It is recommended that swift

boxes would be particularly suitable here, in response to the recent Norfolk

Biodiversity Action Plan for swifts (RSPB, 2012). Generic guidance on the design and

erection of such boxes is available from Swift Conservation (2012).


16

REFERENCES

Baillie, S.R., Marchant, J.H., Leech, D.I., Renwick, A.R., Eglington, S.M., Joys, A.C.,

Noble, D.G., Barimore, C., Conway, G.J., Downie, I.S., Risely, K. & Robinson, R.A.

(2012). BirdTrends 2011. BTO Research Report No. 609. BTO, Thetford.

Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J.,

Gibbons, D.W., Evans, A. & Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3:

the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of

Man. British Birds 102, 296-341.

Gunnell, K., Grant, G. & Williams, C. (2012) Landscape and Urban Design for Bats

and Biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Marchant, J.H. (1983) Common Birds Census Instructions. BTO, Tring.

Newson, S.E., Woodburn, R.J.W., Noble, D.G., Bailie, S.R. & Gregory, R.D. (2005)

Evaluating the Breeding Bird Survey for producing national population size and

density estimates. Bird Study 52, 42-54.

NNNS (2011) Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report 2010. Norfolk and Norwich

Naturalists’ Society, Norwich.

Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership (2012) Species Action Plans. Available at:

http://www.norfolkbiodiversitypartnership.org.uk

Percival, S.M. (2007) Predicting the effects of wind farms on birds in the UK: the

development of an objective assessment method. In: de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. and

M. Ferrer (eds.) Birds and Wind Farms. Madrid: Quercus, pp. 137-152.

RSPB (2009) Farmland Bird Package. Available at:

http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/advice/conservation/package/index.aspx

RSPB (2012) Swifts (Apus apus) – Species Action Plan. Available at:

http://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/actionplans/speciesactionplans/swift.aspx

Swift Conservation (2012) Swift Bricks: Cheap and Easy!. Available at: http://swift-

conservation.org/swift_bricks.htm

http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/farming/advice/conservation/package/index.aspx

http://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/actionplans/speciesactionplans/swift.aspx


17

UK BAP (2009) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Available at:

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5155

Winspear, R. & Davies, G. (2005) A Management Guide to Birds of Lowland

Farmland. RPSB, Sandy.


18

APPENDIX 1: FIGURES


19

Figure 1a & b. Territories of birds of conservation concern: UK BAP species and Red /

Amber list species.


20


21

Figure 2 a & b. Wintering birds of conservation concern: UK BAP species and Red /

Amber list species.


22


23

APPENDIX 2: DATA SEARCH RESULTS


24

Table 7. Data Search Results from NBIS (February 2011).

Scientific name Common name Grid

reference

Location Date

Alopochen aegyptiacus Egyptian Goose TG2415 Spixworth 01/06/2006

Bubo bubo Eurasian Eagle Owl TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

01/04/2002

Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan TG2415 Spixworth 24/11/2004

Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan TG2211 Old Catton 08/02/2003

Cygnus columbianus subsp. bewickii

Cygnus columbianus subsp.

bewickii

TG2211 Old Catton 11/12/2007

Cygnus columbianus subsp. bewickii

Cygnus columbianus subsp.

bewickii

TG2415 Spixworth 07/02/2008

Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 13/04/2008

Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed Goose TG2211 Old Catton 12/12/2005

Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed Goose TG2415 Spixworth 19/11/2008



Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed Goose TG2113 Norwich Airport 02/11/2007


Tadorna ferruginea Ruddy Shelduck TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 31/08/2002

Anas strepera Gadwall TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 05/11/2002

Anas strepera Gadwall TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 22/12/2008

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 22/08/2002

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 05/09/2002

Anas querquedula Garganey TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 16/08/2002

Alectoris rufa Red-legged Partridge TG2516 Crostwick Common 14/01/2003

Alectoris rufa Red-legged Partridge TG2415 Spixworth 08/02/2005

Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant TG2415 Spixworth 23/10/2002

Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant TG2415 Spixworth 26/09/2004

Botaurus stellaris Great Bittern TG2114 Horsham St Faiths 15/02/2007

Botaurus stellaris Great Bittern TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 01/02/2003

Milvus migrans Black Kite TG2114 Horsham St Faiths 17/06/2003

Milvus milvus Red Kite TG2713 Rackheath 05/07/2006

Milvus milvus Red Kite TG2713 Rackheath 20/02/2006

Circus aeruginosus Eurasian Marsh Harrier TG2113 Norwich Airport 25/11/2006

Circus aeruginosus Eurasian Marsh Harrier TG2415 Spixworth 26/08/2004

Circus cyaneus Hen Harrier TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

28/10/2005

Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrowhawk TG2211 Old Catton 10/04/2005


Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrowhawk TG2415 Spixworth 13/12/2003









Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrowhawk TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

01/08/2004




Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrowhawk TG2415 Spixworth 01/04/2002

Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrowhawk TG235113 Sprowston, over

garden

04/09/2007


25


reference

Location Date

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard TG2516 Crostwick Common 17/10/2008

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard TG2713 Rackheath 21/08/2008




Buteo buteo Common Buzzard TG2211 Old Catton 09/03/2004

Pandion haliaetus Osprey TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 30/05/2004

Pandion haliaetus Osprey TG2113 Norwich Airport 15/07/2002




Falco tinnunculus Common Kestrel TG2211 Old Catton 01/07/2002

Falco columbarius Merlin TG2113 Norwich Airport 27/01/2002

Falco columbarius Merlin TG2113 Norwich Airport 21/09/2005

Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby TG2211 Old Catton 03/09/2006

Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby TG2113 Norwich Airport 18/05/2005

Falco subbuteo Eurasian Hobby TG2415 Spixworth 05/09/2007

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon TG2211 Old Catton 17/09/2005

Rallus aquaticus Water Rail TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 22/10/2008

Rallus aquaticus Water Rail TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 24/02/2003

Grus grus Common Crane TG2113 Norwich Airport 18/11/2008

Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing TG2516 Crostwick Common 01/05/2005

Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing TG2113 Norwich Airport 07/01/2005

Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing TG2516 Crostwick Common 01/05/2004

Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing TG2415 Spixworth 19/01/2006

Lymnocryptes minimus Jack Snipe TG2412 Sprowston 02/11/2008

Scolopax rusticola Eurasian Woodcock TG2410 Norwich Barrack Street 14/11/2007

Scolopax rusticola Eurasian Woodcock TG2713 Rackheath 07/12/2008

Scolopax rusticola Eurasian Woodcock TG2211 Old Catton 23/11/2008

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel TG2113 Norwich Airport 20/08/2007

Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 06/08/2003

Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 25/08/2003

Larus fuscus Lesser Black-backed Gull TG2713 Rackheath 28/08/2003

Larus fuscus subsp. graellsii Larus fuscus subsp. graellsii TG2113 Norwich Airport 01/06/2008

Columba oenas Stock Pigeon TG2415 Spixworth 23/02/2005

Columba oenas Stock Pigeon TG2211 Old Catton 01/06/2008

Columba palumbus Common Wood Pigeon TG2114 Horsham St Faiths 29/10/2002

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared Dove TG235113 Sprowston 10/01/2009

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared Dove TG2415 Spixworth 20/11/2002

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared Dove TG2415 Spixworth 04/11/2003

Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove TG2516 Crostwick Common 20/05/2002


Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 11/06/2005




Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 30/05/2004




Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove TG2415 Spixworth 09/06/2003

Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

01/07/2005

Streptopelia turtur European Turtle Dove TG2114 Horsham St Faiths 13/05/2004


26


reference

Location Date

Cuculus canorus Cuckoo TG2312 20/05/2003

Tyto alba Barn Owl TG2114 Horsham St Faiths 01/11/2004


Tyto alba Barn Owl TG2516 Crostwick Common 01/01/2008

Tyto alba Barn Owl TG2415 Spixworth 01/02/2004

Tyto alba Barn Owl TG2415 Spixworth 01/01/2008

Tyto alba Barn Owl TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 01/01/2005


Tyto alba Barn Owl TG2713 Rackheath 01/01/2008

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2415 Spixworth 01/06/2003

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2312 May 2003

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2211 Old Catton 12/07/2002

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2412 Sprowston 01/01/2008

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2713 Rackheath 05/11/2005



Athene noctua Little Owl TG2415 Spixworth 01/01/2008

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2113 Norwich Airport 27/05/2002

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2113 Norwich Airport 05/07/2003

Athene noctua Little Owl TG2713 Rackheath 01/01/2005

Strix aluco Tawny Owl TG2516 Crostwick Common 01/01/2007

Strix aluco Tawny Owl TG2211 Old Catton 01/01/2007




Strix aluco Tawny Owl TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

01/01/2006


Heath

03/09/2002


Strix aluco Tawny Owl TG2312 May 2003


Heath

01/03/2004

Strix aluco Tawny Owl TG2415 Spixworth 01/01/2004




Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl TG2113 Norwich Airport 07/01/2002

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl TG2114 Horsham St Faiths 21/02/2002



Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 01/01/2003




Jynx torquilla Eurasian Wryneck TG2415 Spixworth 02/05/2008

Jynx torquilla Wryneck TG2211 Deer Park 08/05/2001

Picus viridis Green Woodpecker TG2412 Sprowston 01/01/2008


Picus viridis Green Woodpecker TG2415 Spixworth 01/06/2003



Picus viridis Green Woodpecker TG2211 Old Catton 01/06/2008




27


reference

Location Date


Picus viridis Green Woodpecker TG2713 Rackheath 01/09/2002




















Dendrocopos major Great Spotted Woodpecker TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

01/08/2004

Dendrocopos major Great Spotted Woodpecker TG2211 Old Catton 01/07/2002

Dendrocopos major Great Spotted Woodpecker TG2412 Sprowston 05/04/2003


Dendrocopos major Great Spotted Woodpecker TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

01/07/2003
















Dendrocopos minor Lesser Spotted Woodpecker TG2511 Golf Course 2000

Alauda arvensis Skylark TG2415 Spixworth 21/02/2005

Alauda arvensis Skylark TG2415 Spixworth 21/02/2002

Alauda arvensis Skylark TG2412 Sprowston 10/01/2006

Alauda arvensis Skylark TG269118 White House Farm,

Sprowson

12/07/2008


Sprowson

18/07/2007


Sprowson

16/07/2007


Sprowson

09/08/2006



28


reference

Location Date


Alauda arvensis Skylark TG2113 Norwich Airport 01/03/2002

Riparia riparia Sand Martin TG2415 Spixworth 01/06/2003

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow TG2713 Rackheath 07/04/2007

Delichon urbicum House Martin TG2211 Old Catton 01/06/2003





Delichon urbicum House Martin TG2412 Sprowston 01/06/2003




Delichon urbicum House Martin TG2415 Spixworth 01/06/2003


Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail TG2412 Sprowston 24/02/2007

Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail TG2211 Old Catton 23/11/2008

Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail TG2412 Sprowston 01/08/2004

Motacilla alba Pied Wagtail TG2113 Norwich Airport 08/01/2005

Motacilla alba Pied Wagtail TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 28/03/2005

Motacilla alba Pied Wagtail TG2415 Spixworth 19/01/2003

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian Waxwing TG2412 Sprowston 13/01/2003




Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian Waxwing TG2211 Old Catton 12/11/2008

Bombycilla garrulus Bohemian Waxwing TG2713 Rackheath 15/01/2006

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren TG2412 Sprowston 05/04/2003

Luscinia megarhynchos Common Nightingale TG2211 Old Catton 01/06/2008



Saxicola rubetra Whinchat TG2415 Spixworth 01/10/2003

Saxicola rubetra Whinchat TG2113 Norwich Airport 03/09/2005


Saxicola rubetra Whinchat TG2415 Spixworth 02/10/2002




Saxicola torquata Stonechat TG2415 Spixworth 04/10/2002

Saxicola torquata Stonechat TG2113 Norwich Airport 24/10/2006



Oenanthe oenanthe Northern Wheatear TG2113 Norwich Airport 18/05/2005




Oenanthe oenanthe Northern Wheatear TG2415 Spixworth 06/09/2002

Oenanthe oenanthe Northern Wheatear TG2211 Old Catton 18/09/2002

Turdus torquatus Ring Ouzel TG2211 Old Catton 08/05/2007

Turdus pilaris Fieldfare TG2211 Old Catton 06/11/2008

Turdus pilaris Fieldfare TG2412 Sprowston 12/01/2005

Turdus pilaris Fieldfare TG2415 Spixworth 02/01/2006



29


reference

Location Date


Turdus pilaris Fieldfare TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

02/11/2006

Turdus philomelos Song Thrush TG2312 07/02/2000

Turdus philomelos Song Thrush TG2312 2001

Turdus philomelos Song Thrush TG2211 Old Catton 01/06/2002

Turdus philomelos Song Thrush TG2312 May 2000

Turdus iliacus Redwing TG2211 Old Catton 18/01/2002

Turdus iliacus Redwing TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 26/03/2002

Turdus iliacus Redwing TG2415 Spixworth 18/03/2004

Turdus viscivorus Mistle Thrush TG2211 Old Catton 25/11/2005

Cettia cetti Cetti's Warbler TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 01/04/2003









Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler TG2211 Old Catton 18/09/2005

Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

30/05/2007

Sitta europaea Wood Nuthatch TG2211 Old Catton 01/02/2002

Sitta europaea Wood Nuthatch TG2211 Old Catton 19/03/2002

Garrulus glandarius Eurasian Jay TG2211 Old Catton 29/03/2002

Pica pica Black-billed Magpie TG235113 Sprowston 11/01/2009

Pica pica Black-billed Magpie TG235113 Sprowston 10/01/2009

Pica pica Black-billed Magpie TG235113 Sprowston, on

gatepost

05/09/2007

Corvus monedula Eurasian Jackdaw TG235113 Sprowston, in garden 16/08/2008

Corvus frugilegus Rook TG2211 Old Catton 01/04/2002

Corvus frugilegus Rook TG2415 Spixworth 21/02/2005




Corvus frugilegus Rook TG2415 Spixworth 13/07/2004

Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling TG2412 Sprowston 10/01/2006

Passer domesticus House Sparrow TG2211 Old Catton 01/07/2002

Passer domesticus House Sparrow TG2113 Norwich Airport 26/07/2004

Fringilla montifringilla Brambling TG2713 Rackheath 28/03/2004

Fringilla montifringilla Brambling TG2211 Old Catton 18/11/2008

Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch TG235113 Sprowston 28/06/2008

Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch TG235113 sprowston 22/02/2009

Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch TG235113 Sprowston, in garden 03/09/2007

Carduelis spinus Eurasian Siskin TG2215 East Ruston Mown Fen 29/12/2006

Carduelis spinus Eurasian Siskin TG2516 Crostwick Common 31/12/2007

Carduelis cannabina Linnet TG2312 March 2002

Carduelis cannabina Linnet TG2113 September

1997

Carduelis cannabina Common Linnet TG2415 Spixworth 01/01/2002

Carduelis cannabina Common Linnet TG2211 Old Catton 01/03/2002

Carduelis cannabina Linnet TG2314 January 2002

Carduelis cannabina Common Linnet TG2415 Spixworth 22/01/2005

Pyrrhula pyrrhula Common Bullfinch TG2516 Crostwick Common 16/06/2002


30


reference

Location Date




Pyrrhula pyrrhula Common Bullfinch TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

01/01/2005


Coccothraustes coccothraustes

Hawfinch TG2410 Norwich Mousehold

Heath

12/10/2005

Coccothraustes coccothraustes

Hawfinch TG2412 Sprowston 06/11/2004

Plectrophenax nivalis Snow Bunting TG2211 Old Catton 29/12/2005

Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer TG2314 1997

Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer TG2412 Sprowston 26/01/2005

Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer TG2412 Sprowston 01/07/2004



Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer TG2211 Old Catton 26/12/2008

Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer TG2415 Spixworth 01/06/2006





Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer TG2211 Old Catton 18/03/2002





31



32





of the law.





(Natural Habitats, &c.

) Regulations 1994 (as amended)) and The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats,

&c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended).














clawed crayfish.




33

Explanatory notes relating to species protected under The Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations 2010 (which includes smooth snake, sand lizard, great crested newt

and natterjack toad), all bat species, otter, and some plant species) are given below. These

should be read in conjunction with the relevant species sections that follow.

In the Directive, the term ‘deliberate’ is interpreted as being somewhat wider

than intentional and may be thought of as including an element of recklessness.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 does not define the

act of ‘migration’ and therefore, as a precaution, it is recommended that short

distance movement of animals for e.g. foraging, breeding or dispersal purposes

are also considered.

In order to obtain a European Protected Species Mitigation (EPSM) licence, the

application must demonstrate that it meets all of the following three ‘tests’: i) the

action(s) are necessary for the purpose of preserving public health or safety or

other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social

or economic nature and beneficial consequence of primary importance for the

environment; ii) that there is no satisfactory alternative and iii) that the action

authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species concerned

at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Birds

With certain exceptions, all birds, their nests and eggs are protected under Sections 1-8 of

the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Among other things, this makes it an

offence to:

Intentionally (or recklessly in Scotland) kill, injure or take any wild bird

Intentionally (or recklessly in Scotland) take, damage or destroy (or, in Scotland,

otherwise interfere with) the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built

Intentionally take or destroy an egg of any wild bird

Sell, offer or expose for sale, have in his possession or transport for the purpose of

sale any wild bird (dead or alive) or bird egg or part thereof.

In Scotland only, intentionally or recklessly obstruct or prevent any wild bird from

using its nest

Certain species of bird, for example the barn owl, black redstart, hobby, bittern and

kingfisher receive additional special protection under Schedule 1 of the Act and Annex 1 of

the European Community Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (2009/147/EC). This

affords them protection against:


34

Intentional or reckless disturbance while it is building a nest or is in, on or near a

nest containing eggs or young

Intentional or reckless disturbance of dependent young of such a bird

In Scotland only, intentional or reckless disturbance whilst lekking

In Scotland only, intentional or reckless harassment

How is the legislation pertaining to birds liable to affect development works?

To avoid contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), works

should be planned to avoid the possibility of killing or injuring any wild bird, or damaging or

destroying their nests. The most effective way to reduce the likelihood of nest destruction

in particular is to undertake work outside the main bird nesting season which typically runs

from March to August2. Where this is not feasible, it will be necessary to have any areas of

suitable habitat thoroughly checked for nests prior to vegetation clearance.

Those species of bird listed on Schedule 1 are additionally protected against disturbance

during the nesting season. Thus, it will be necessary to ensure that no potentially

disturbing works are undertaken in the vicinity of the nest. The most effective way to avoid

disturbance is to postpone works until the young have fledged. If this is not feasible, it may

be possible to maintain an appropriate buffer zone or standoff around the nest.










2 It should be noted that this is the main breeding period. Breeding activity may occur outwith this period

(depending on the particular species and geographical location of the site) and thus due care and attention

should be given when undertaking potentially disturbing works at any time of year.


35





County or District level. The Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan contains 21 Habitat Action

Plans (HAPs) and 58 Species Action Plans (SAPs). Reptile and amphibian SAPs listed in

the Norfolk LBAP are:

Grass snake Natrix natrix

Slow worm Anguis fragilis

Adder Vipera berus

Common lizard Zootoca vivipara

Common toad Bufo bufo


Natterjack toad Bufo calamita














No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

at S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / B

at S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

Author Catherine Greenhough BSc (Hons) MSC MIEEM & Graham

Hopkins BSc (Hons) PhD PGCE CEnv MIEEM FRES

Job No. 100368



May 2011

Revision Alex Prendergast Graham Hopkins 20th

September 2012


Bat Surveys

Beyond Green


Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 3

Background 3



2 METHODOLOGY 4

Desk Top Study 4

Field Surveys 4

Evaluation 4

3 RESULTS 6

Data Search 6

Static Bat Activity Surveys 6

Walked Transects 10

Tree Surveys 10

4 EVALUATION 11

Overview 11

Common Pipistrelle 11

Soprano Pipistrelle 12

Natterer’s 12

Noctule 13

Barbastelle 14

Brown Long-eared 15

Serotine 15

Nathusius' Pipistrelle 16

5 DISCUSSION 17

Overview 17

Assessment of Impacts 17

Masterplanning 17

Urban Realm 17

Off-site Mitigation 18

REFERENCES 19


APPENDIX 2: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON METHODS 29

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY DATA 41











.

The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Bats / Beyond Green

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An intensive series of bat surveys were undertaken between April and October 2010 at the

site of the proposed north-east Norwich urban extension.

The surveys used a combination of automated detectors and walked transects. Across a

wide survey area static detectors were deployed for at least one night per months, with up

to 10 deployed on any single night; this survey effort equated to 71 nights of static survey.

Within the development boundary 37 nights of static survey were undertaken.

Eight species were recorded with high certainty: common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle,

Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, brown

long-eared and Natterer’s and noctule; serotine Eptesicus serotinus was probably present

also, but the confidence in this identification is lower. Across the survey area a total of

12,253 registrations were recorded by the static detectors and 861 by the walked

transects.

For each species the following numbers of registrations were made across the survey

area: common pipistrelle, 8860; soprano pipistrelle, 2590; Nathusius’ pipistrelle, 1;

barbastelle, 126; brown long-eared, 40; Natterer’s and

Common and soprano pipistrelles were the commonest species, found throughout the

site. Nathusius’ pipistrelle was recorded from a single registration.

Barbastelles were recorded frequently, but in very low numbers and across the site

without any association with woodland, although there is a suggestion that there may be

greater levels of activity near the Beeston Park woodlands.

Brown long-eared was found throughout the site by the automated detectors but the

walked transects found concentrations around Beeston Hall.

Natterer’s and Myotis species were principally around the Beeston Hall woodlands, but

they were present along hedgerows elsewhere.

Noctule and ‘big bats’ were found throughout the site but with possibly some

concentration of activity near the Beeston Hall woodlands.

Trees of moderate or high potential for roosting bats were found throughout the site, in

woodland and hedgerow situations.

Across the development area a total of 30 trees or groups of trees, including woodland

blocks such as Foxburrow Plantation itself or the line of trees linking Foxburrow Plantation

to Wroxham Road, were of high potential value for bats and 63 were of moderate

potential.

The principal areas of bat activity were along the North Walsham Road and then in


2

association with woodland blocks, especially Beeston Park. As general guidance for

masterplanning, stong linear corridors should be maintained across the landscape to

facilitate movement of bats; such corridors should be relatively dark, vegetated and

possibly using public open space as stepping stones. Within the urban area green space

may be promoted as bat foraging habitat by appropriate landscaping including green

roofs. The restoration of Beeston Park will provide a significant area of new foraging

habitat for bats, with off-site hedgerow planting providing additional areas of new habitat.


3

1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND






1.2 This report presents the results for a suite of bat surveys undertaken across the

development area and a broader survey area.




Wroxham Road, south of Spixworth and north of Old Catton and Sprowston. The

broader survey area extends for approximately 350ha and the results provide a wider

context for the surveys.











Statutory and non-statutory designated sites



4

2 METHODOLOGY

DESK TOP STUDY

2.1 A data search for bat records within a 10km radius of the site was commissioned

from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS).

FIELD SURVEYS

2.2 A full account of the surveys is provided in Appendix 2: Supplementary Information

on Methods, with only an overview provided here.

2.3 The surveys comprised a combination of:

Static surveys using Anabat automated detectors;

Manual transects;

Tree assessments (Cowan, 2006) supplemented by tree climbing; and a

A single three-hour driven transect.

2.4 The principal source of data reported here are the activity surveys with little

additional information gained from the manual and driven transect surveys. Up to ten

automated detectors were deployed on any single night, although on most nights

only five were used, between April and October 2010. Within the development

boundary a total of 37 stations were used for static surveys, with more in the survey

area. The number of nights’ static survey across the survey area per month was:

April, five nights; May, ten nights; June, ten nights; July, 20 nights; August, ten

nights; September, ten nights; and October, three nights.

2.5 Walked transects were run monthly April-October 2010, with three transect routes

across the Survey Area and all three run simultaneously. The single three-hour driven

transect was undertaken in July 2010.

EVALUATION

2.6 For bats the scheme presented by Wray et al. (2010) is used, which considers the

rarity, numbers of individuals roosting potential of a locality and the landscape

character.

2.7 Briefly, rarity is scored as 2, 5 or 20 (for common, rare and rarest species); number of

bats as 5, 10 or 20 (individuals, small numbers or large numbers); roosting potential

as 1, 3, 4, 5 or 20 (none, low potential, moderate, large number of roosts or close to

a Special Conservation Area for the species); and landscape value of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5

(limited habitat, large fields with poor hedges; moderate field sizes and gappy

hedgerows of isolated tall hedgerows, small fields with many hedgerows and a high

value landscape with small fields, streams and many hedgerows). For each criterion


5

a score is assigned and the sum of scores is used as the value score thus: 1-10,

zone of influence only; 11-20, Local; 21-30, County; 31-40, Regional; 41+, National

or International.


6

3 RESULTS

DATA SEARCH

3.1. Four species of bat (common and soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared and

Daubenton’s bat) have been recorded within a 2km radius of the site boundary on

13 occasions between 1999 and 2007. It is not clear from the records whether

these relate to roosts or field observations. Of these records, two are located within

the site boundary. A Daubenton’s and soprano pipistrelle have been recorded at TG

255 141 in June 2007.

3.2. Within a 10km radius of the site there are a total of 368 bat records for eight bat

species/species groups. A number of these records relate to roosts within dwellings

and hibernation roosts at Whitlingham (lime kilns A and B), Trowse Tunnel, Carey’s

Meadow Tunnel and at Eaton Chalk pit SSSI.

3.3. A summary of the bat records within a 2km and 10km radius of the site is provided

in Table 1.

Table 1. Bat records within a 10km radius of the site. Scientific name Common name Number of records

Myotis Unidentified Myotis 1

Myotis daubentonii Daubenton's bat 44 (2)

Myotis mystacinus Whiskered bat 1

Myotis nattereri Natterer's bat 28

Nyctalus noctula Noctule bat 41

Pipistrellus pipistrellus Common pipistrelle* 156 (7)

Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano pipistrelle* 67 (2)

Plecotus auritus Brown long-eared bat 30 (2)

3.4. Eaton Chalk Pit SSSI, approximately 4km from the development area, was first

notified in 1968 for its populations of hibernating Daubenton’s, Natterer’s and

brown long-eared bats. The site is considered to be in a ‘favourable’ status;

however it has not knowingly been monitored for a number of years (I. Levett 2010

pers comm.).

STATIC BAT ACTIVITY SURVEYS

3.5. Eight species were recorded with high certainty: common pipistrelle, soprano

pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, barbastelle Barbastella

barbastellus, brown long-eared and Natterer’s and noctule; serotine Eptesicus

serotinus was probably present also, but the confidence in this identification is

lower. The number of registrations for each species are summarised below (Table

2), and is a semi-quantitative indication of species’ relative abundances. Across the

survey area a total of 12,253 registrations were recorded by the static detectors and

861 by the walked transects. The occurrence of species and an indication of the

number of registrations as each station are shown in Appendix 1: Figures 1a-g.


7

Table 2. Summary of registrations from all static detectors within the survey area.

Species Registrations

Common pipistrelle. 8860

Soprano pipistrelle. 2959

Nathusius’ pipistrelle. 1

Barbastelle. 126

Brown long-eared. 40

Natterer’s and other Myotis

species.

100

Noctule and serotine. 49

Serotine 11

Unidentified or indistinct. 107

Common Pipistrelle

3.6. The commonest species, it was recorded across the Survey Area with one

automated detector recording 1771 registrations in a single evening and an average

of 134. Of the 37 stations for static surveys within the development boundary,

registrations were made at 36. There were some particularly notable concentrations

of activity (Table 3):

Along the woodland edges of the plantations south of Beeston Hall including

the woodland edges along Wroxham Road;

Woodland near Red Hall Farm including the pine belt;

A hedgerow along the North Walsham Road; and

A hedgerow along the Buxton Road.

Table 3. Summary of key areas as determined by Anabat registrations >1000 calls per night

and 100-99 calls per night.

Number Detector reference Location Date

>1000 BG Beeston park woodland edge (west of Hall) 14/09/10

BS North of Red Hall 11/10/10

100 to

999

E Buxton Road 29/04/10

AS North pine belt 22/07/10

AI Beyond east boundary 13/07/10

BP Beeston park woodland edge (south of Hall) 11/10/10

AP Beeston park woodland edge (west of Hall) 22/07/10

D Wroxham Road woodland 29/04/10

AT Beeston park woodland edge (west of Hall) 22/07/10

R South of Red Hall 14/06/10

J Wroxham Road woodland 19/05/10

H North Walsham Road 19/05/10

I Park and Ride 19/05/10

AQ Wroxham Road woodland 22/07/10

K Beeston park woodland edge (east of Hall) 28/05/10

3.7. When the times of the first and final registrations are considered there is relatively

low activity around sunset with the majority of first registration more than 30


8

minutes after sunset; on only one occasion were calls before this time. In the vast

majority of instances the high levels of bat activity are throughout the night and

without clear peaks of activity at dusk and sunrise.

Soprano Pipistrelle

3.8. Soprano pipistrelle is the second commonest species, again occurring throughout

the site. The key areas of greatest activity were: along the woodland edges of the

woodlands of Beeston Hall including the woodland edges along Wroxham Road;

woodland near Red Hall Farm including the pine belt to its north; and along the

North Walsham road where detectors consistently recorded between 10 and 99

registrations per night. Of the 37 stations static surveys within the development

area, registrations were made at 36.

3.9. Again there were few evident peaks of activity near to dusk and dawn, rather the

activity was throughout the night. The key areas of greatest activity (Table4) were:

Along the woodland edges of the plantations south of Beeston Hall

including the woodland edges along Wroxham Road; and

Woodland near Red Hall Farm including the pine belt.

Table 4. Summary of key areas as determined by Anabat registrations >1000 calls per night

and 100-99 calls per night.

Number Detector reference Location Date

100 to

999

J Wroxham Road woodland 29/04/10

R South of Red Hall 22/07/10

K Beeston park woodland edge (east of Hall) 13/07/10

BC On eastern boundary 11/10/10

AP Beeston park woodland edge (west of Hall) 22/07/10

BS North of Red Hall 29/04/10

BG Beeston park woodland edge (west of Hall) 22/07/10

Nathusius’ Pipistrelle

3.10. A single Nathusius’ pipistrelle registration was made from the woodland edge

immediately west of Beeston Hall in September 2010.

3.11. However, during the survey period and at scattered locations a further 84 low

pipistrelle bat registrations were detected (i.e. with a frequency of maximum energy

between 40 and 42kHz) and these calls may be of Nathusius’ or of common

pipistrelle.

Barbastelle

3.12. Barbastelle bats were recorded over the whole survey period but with very few

registrations on any occasion, always fewer than 12 registrations. The species was

recorded across the Survey Area but with greater activity around the Beeston Park

woodlands and Red Hall Farm. Of the 37 stations for static surveys within the


9

Proposed Development boundary, registrations were made on 18 stations.

3.13. None of the calls were close to sunset or dawn. For example, automated detector

D, adjacent to Sprowston Plantation on the Wroxham Road recorded eight

registrations of which four were between 21.08 and 21.14, almost an hour after

sunset (which was at 20.17).

Brown Long-eared

3.14. Long-eared bats were recorded between April and October, but with few

registrations on any one occasion (the peak being six). Records are from a scatter

of locations, with necessarily a strong association with woodland. Of the 37 stations

for static surveys within the development boundary, registrations were made at 10.

The highest number of bat registrations overnight was 6, recorded by Anabat L, on

the 28th-29th May 2010.

3.15. None of the calls were close to sunset or dawn.

Natterer’s and other Myotis species

3.16. Natterer’s and undetermined Myotis calls were recorded over the survey period,

from April to October. Few calls were recorded on most occasions when detected

but on one occasions 26 registrations were made between midnight and 02.51 on

29th May 2010, from the Beeston Park woodlands. Of the 37 stations for static

surveys within the development boundary, registrations were made at 18.

3.17. The majority of activity was from woodland areas but registrations were also made

along hedgerows at scattered locations across the site.

3.18. None of the detectors recorded peaks of activity in association with dusk or dawn.

Noctule and ‘Large’ Bats including Serotine

3.19. The majority of noctule activity and other registrations from undetermined large bats

are associated with woodland parcels around Beeston Hall, but with registrations

from disparate locations across the site. None of the automated detectors recorded

peaks of activity around dusk or dawn.

3.20. The highest number of noctule bat registrations was seven, over one evening in

early August, with first two bat registrations some 40 minutes after sunset with

occasional passes recorded throughout the night. Of the 37 stations for static

surveys within the Proposed Development boundary, registrations were made of

noctule at 17.

3.21. Registrations consistent with serotine, were identified at 3 stations in the

development area and across the whole survey area on 12 occasions, on eight of

the static detectors. The number of bat registrations per detector varied between 1


10

and 3. The highest number of serotine bat registrations (3), were detected overnight

from the 22nd to 23rd July 2010.

WALKED TRANSECTS

3.22. The principal merit of the walked transects is that they include survey areas not

covered by the static stations, particularly to the south-west of the site where

detectors could not be deployed for fear of theft.

3.23. The pattern of species distributions are similar to those determined from the

Anabats:

Common pipistrelle is ubiquitous, recorded throughout the site. These

are the principal species recorded from the south-west of the site.

Soprano pipistrelle is the next commonest species, again widespread

and with records from the south-west of the site.

Barbastelle are widespread but infrequent. A single record was from the

south-west of the site near to the estate housing that is adjacent to the

site.

Brown long-eared was infrequent, principally from the woodland

adjacent to Beeston Hall but with a single record from along a

hedgerow.

Natterer’s and Myotis species are infrequent and principally near to the

Beeston Hall and Red Hall Farm woodlands.

Noctule and other ‘large bats’ (serotine) are widespread but infrequently

recorded.

TREE SURVEYS

3.24. Across the development area a total of 30 trees or groups of trees, including

woodland blocks such as Foxburrow Plantation itself or the line of trees linking

Foxburrow Plantation to Wroxham Road, were of high potential value for bats – with

a score of 3 on the Cowan (2006) scale – and 63 were of moderate potential – with

a score of 2 on the Cowan scale (Appendix 1: Figure 2).

3.25. These data show that potentially roosts are located across the site, in both the key

woodland blocks and along hedgerows in mature trees. Direct climbing inspections

of 19 trees failed to find evidence of roosting bats.


11

4 EVALUATION

OVERVIEW

4.1. In determining the value of the site for bats the key factors to consider are the

numbers of each species, their use of the site and the time of year present. Of

particular value is the presence of roosts which have both legal protection and

substantial biodiversity value. The site may also be of disproportionate value at key

times of year, such as the maternity period from June to July or hibernation from

November to March.

4.2. As described in the methods, the scheme of Wray et al. (2010) is used for assigning

value to the bats. Within the Survey Area there are three common bats (common

pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, and brown long-eared), four ‘rarer’ bats (Natterer’s,

noctule, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, and serotine) and one rarest bat (barbastelle).

COMMON PIPISTRELLE

4.3. The UK common pipistrelle population is estimated to be 2 million (Harris et al.,

1995) and data from the National Bat Monitoring Programme suggests a statistically

significant upward trend from baseline levels (Bat Conservation Trust, 2010). It is

widespread in Norfolk and numerous roosts are known (NNNS, 2011).

4.4. The common pipistrelle bat is found throughout urban and rural habitats, but does

not show any particular habitat preference. Like the soprano pipistrelle, this species

tends to avoid open areas tending to fly alongside hedgerows and woodland edges,

although they can cross open areas if required (Nicholls & Racey, 2006). The home

range of 14 bats from a colony of around 100 common pipistrelles in Scotland was

15.26km2 (Nicholls & Racey, 2006).

4.5. Within the Proposed Development, common pipistrelles were commonly

encountered throughout. Given the high level of activity and ubiquitous occurrence

and home range of around 15km2, the development site is likely to form part of the

home range of at least one colony (although foraging ranges of colonies may

overlap).

4.6. The level of activity in the Proposed Development is relatively high and suggestive

of a roost nearby. Following Wray et al. (2010):

Species scores ‘2’ (common);

Numbers scores ‘20’ (large numbers);

Roosts scores ‘4’ (moderate); and

Foraging habitat scores ‘3’ (moderate field sizes).


12

4.7. The total score for common pipistrelle is ‘29’ equating to District significance.

However, based on the available data of the known distribution of the common

pipistrelle in Norfolk and the sizes of other roosts in the District it is considered on

the basis of professional judgement that this is an over-estimate therefore a revised

value of Local-District significance is assigned.

SOPRANO PIPISTRELLE

4.8. The soprano pipistrelle is the second most abundant British bat. Maternity roosts in

Britain can contain up to 800 adults and are most frequently found close to a

number of large water bodies. The soprano pipistrelle is common throughout the

UK, and the UK population is estimated to be around 1,300,000 bats, but there has

not been a significant change in numbers recently (Bat Conservation Trust, 2010). In

Norfolk it is widely distributed (Greenhough, 2009a).

4.9. Soprano pipistrelles travel an average distance of 2km from a maternity colony to

their foraging grounds (Racey & Swift, 1985) and the home range of 12 bats tagged

from a colony of around 250 soprano pipistrelle bats in Scotland measured 4.87

km2 (Nicholls & Racey, 2006).

4.10. The level of activity in the Development is relatively low and not suggestive of a

roost within the area. Following Wray et al. (2010):


Numbers scores ‘20’ (large numbers);,

Roosts scores ‘3’ (small number); and


4.11. The total score for soprano pipistrelle is ‘28’ equating to District. However, based

on the available data of the known distribution of the common pipistrelle in Norfolk

and the sizes of other roosts in the District it is considered on the basis of

professional judgement that this is an over-estimate therefore a revised value of

Local-District significance is assigned.

NATTERER’S

4.12. It is assumed that the Myotis records refer to Natterer’s. Myotis species are difficult

to distinguish by call and the presence of other Myotis species cannot be

discounted, and indeed a single record of Daubenton’s was identified with

confidence. However, on balance it is unlikely that Daubenton’s are present in

significant numbers as the species is typically associated with open water areas.

The other Myotis in Norfolk, Brandt’s M. brandtii and whiskered are rarely recorded,

known from very few sites and are probably genuinely rare (NNNS, 2011). On

balance it is therefore considered reasonable to assume all Myotis registrations are


13

attributable to Natterer’s.

4.13. Natterer’s bats are common and widespread throughout much of the UK (Bat

Conservation Trust, 2007), with a UK population estimated to be 148,000 (Harris et

al. 1995). In Norfolk they are widespread (NNNS, 2011).

4.14. They are typically associated with semi-natural broadleaved woodland and open

water (sheltered by trees); arable and dense conifer plantations are avoided (Smith

& Racey, 2000). Natterer’s bats roost in tree cavities and within older buildings and

a summer colony can use in the region of 25 separate roosting locations (Smith &

Racey, 2000).

4.15. Given that few registrations of Myotis were detected professional judgement would

indicate that they are not roosting on site and the records refer to transient

individuals or occasional foraging from elsewhere. The home range of a breeding

colony of 35 Natterer’s is around 12km2, with a core area of between 1.5 and 2km2

(Smith & Racey, 2000), thus it is likely to be the case that the Proposed

Development is peripheral to a breeding colony elsewhere.

4.16. The level of activity in the Proposed Development is relatively low but the regularity

of contacts and the abundance of potential roosts near Beeston Hall indicates a

roost within the area; also the habitat here is considered to be better is nevertheless

scored as a ‘3’. Following Wray et al. (2010):

Species scores ‘5’ (rarer);

Numbers scores ‘10’ (small numbers);

Roosts scores ‘4’ (moderate/not known); and


4.17. The total score for Natterer’s is ‘22’ equating to District significance.

NOCTULE

4.18. The estimated noctule population in Great Britain is 50,000. Results from the

National Bat Monitoring Programme suggest that there is a statistically significant

increase in noctule populations (above the baseline) (Bat Conservation Trust, 2010).

The noctule is a UK and Norfolk BAP species and is widespread in the District

(Greenhough, 2009a).

4.19. Noctules almost exclusively roost in trees, using woodpecker holes and rot holes.

They are a fast-flying species, foraging high over habitats including broadleaved

woodland, pasture and arable and moorland (Mackie & Racey, 2007). They can

travel up to 26km from the roost (Dietz et al., 2009) and one study in the UK found

that the home range of a colony of 20 noctules was 62.8km2, with the mean area of


14

8.2km2 per bat, travelling a mean of 4.23km from the roost to foraging grounds

(Mackie & Racey, 2007).


of contacts and the abundance of potential roosts near Beeston Hall would indicate

a roost within the area; also the habitat here is considered to be better but is

nevertheless scored as a ‘3’.

4.21. The level of activity in the Proposed Development is relatively low and does not

indicate a roost within the area. Following Wray et al. (2010):


Numbers scores ‘5’ (individual bats);

Roosts scores ‘1’ (none); and


4.22. The total score for noctule is ‘14’ equating to Local significance.

BARBASTELLE

4.23. The barbastelle bat is identified as being rare in the UK, with population strongholds

in East Anglia. The estimated pre-breeding population in 1995 was 5000 (4500 in

Britain) (Harris et al., 1995). In Norfolk there are scattered records across much of

the District but concentrated in the north-east (Greenhough, 2009b).

4.24. Data from radio tracking studies undertaken in the UK suggests that that the

foraging range of barbastelles varies, in one study in Wales barbastelles fed within

4-7km of the roost (Billington, 2002) compared to for example, 7.7km for lactating

bats in Sussex (Greenway, 2008). The foraging area for lactating barbastelles in

Sussex ranged between 2.6km2 to 26.8km

2 with a core area of 0.61km

2 to 11.52km

2

(Greenway, 2008).



a roost within the area; also the habitat here is considered to be better but is

nevertheless scored as a ‘3’.

4.26. The level of activity in the Proposed Development is relatively low and does not a

roost within the area. Following Wray et al. (2010):



Roosts scores ‘4’ (moderate/not known); and



15

4.27. The total score for barbastelle is ‘37’ equating to ‘Regional’. Based on the current

understanding of the barbastelle in Norfolk (Greenhough, 2009b) – and particularly

the appreciation that foraging individuals occur widely - it is considered that this

over-estimates the value of the site in both a Norfolk and local context. The species

is consequently assigned a value of District significance.

BROWN LONG-EARED

4.28. The UK population is estimated to be 245,000 in England (Harris et al., 1995).

Brown long-eared bats are common and widespread throughout the UK, and

widespread in Norfolk (Greenhough, 2009b).

4.29. Maternity roosts are made up of 10-50 adult bats and are typically found in older

buildings and trees in association with woodland, foraging and commuting taking

place along hedges and/or tree lines, as well as overgrown banks, fences, or

streams with vegetation (Swift, 1998). Bats travel between 1.1km and 3km from

roost to foraging areas, spending most of their time within 0.5km of the roost; in

1991 a study in Scotland the estimated population density of brown long-eared

bats in the study area was one bat per 10 hectares (or 0.1km2) (Swift, 1998).



a roost within the area; also the habitat here is considered to be better and is

scored as a ‘4’.

4.31. Thus, following Wray et al. (2010):



Roosts scores ‘3’ (small number); and


4.32. The total score for brown long-eared is ‘18’ equating to District significance.

SEROTINE

4.33. Serotine was recorded as occasional registrations. In Norfolk, serotine bats are

rarely recorded and are at the edge of their national range (NNNS, 2011).

4.34. They will travel up to 12km from the roost to foraging areas, usually via linear

features, such as hedgerows, roads or woodland edges (Dietz et al., 2009). The

home range of maternity colonies of bats (containing less than 20 adult bats) in a

study carried out in south Cambridgeshire varied between 24-77km2, with the

majority of activity concentrated within a core area of 13-33km2 (Robinson &

Stebbings, 1997). The range of individual bats varied from 0.16km2 to 47.6km

2


16

(mean 7.46km2). The home range of three of the four colonies studied overlapped.

On six nights individual bats flew distances of over 20km.

4.35. The few records of the species are consistent with occasional individuals foraging

on the site but roosting elsewhere.

4.36. The level of activity in the Proposed Development is relatively low and does not

indicate a roost within the area. Following Wray et al. (2010):





4.37. The total score for serotine is ‘14’ equating to Local significance.

NATHUSIUS' PIPISTRELLE

4.38. Nathusius’ pipistrelle is a seasonal long-distance migrant that has been recorded,

from ringing studies, as travelling up to 1905km in some parts of Europe (Dietz et

al., 2009). Nathusius’ pipistrelles usually fly 3–20m and foraging areas can be up to

6.5km from the roost (Dietz et al., 2009).

4.39. A maternity roost is also known to be present in Norfolk (NNNS, 2011), thought to

be near the east coast. The data are would indicate a single transient individual

within the Proposed Development only.

4.40. The level of activity in the Proposed Development is relatively low and not

suggestive of a roost within the area. Following Wray et al. (2010):





4.41. The total score for Nathusius’ pipistrelle is ‘14’ equating to Local significance.


17

5 DISCUSSION

OVERVIEW

5.1. The principal areas of bat activity are considered to be along the North Walsham

Road and associated with woodland areas including Beeston Park and Red Hall

Farm. As envisaged, bats use the woodland areas and Beeston Park as the

principal roosting areas and for foraging, with the edges of the woodland also used

as important commuting routes. Across the wider site, commuting is probably

evident along North Walsham Road, presumably from residential estates to the

south to the wider countryside. It is considered likely that the northern edges of the

residential housing are also important for commuting including areas such as the

Millennium Woodland, St Mary’s Churchyard cemetery and the allotments near the

south end of Church Lane. Across the wider site the hedgerows are the principal

foraging habitat. No roosts were found during the surveys but it is likely

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

5.2. The impacts of the project are considered to be direct habitat loss as foraging

habitat and severing of commuting routes. Although some bats will utilise urban

areas several are sensitive to lights (Bat Conservation Trust, 2008) and are unlikely

to forage in urban areas or traverse them, including barbastelle, brown long-eared

and Myotis species. The impacts will consequently be substantial on these light-

sensitive species while the light tolerant species (pipistrelles, notcule and serotine)

may continue to use the sites depending on the extent of available foraging habitat.

MASTERPLANNING

5.3. In terms of overall masterplaning the key principle is to include strong linear routes

or corridors across the site within which bats will be able to travel. These areas

should be along existing routes as far as possible or otherwise be designed to link

key areas, primarily foraging habitat and the known or likely roosting areas.

5.4. The design of such corridors may include the use of linking features such as tree

networks and stepping stones such as public green spaces, gardens and SuDS

(Gunnell et al., 2012). In designing these areas features such as gardens should not

be treated as individual units but rather as potential patches of connected habitat.

In urban parks, trees and shrubs provide foraging habitat and facilitate movements

by providing features for bats to navigate along and offer screening of lights. Where

such routes cross roads then lighting should be as low and as limited as possible

and ideally tree canopies may be close, such as to offer a continuous linear corridor

at height.

URBAN REALM

5.5. Key principles in the urban realm are to minimise lighting (Stone et al., 2009),


18

especially near areas of open space and other potential foraging habitat and also

near to the green corridors for commuting bats.

5.6. Guidance on outdoor lighting (Gunnell et al., 2012) includes:

The minimisation of lighting as far as possible with only the minimum needed

for safety;

UV light should be avoided to limit insect attraction, with either low UV bulbs

or the use of glass covers to filter UV; and

The height of lights stands should be minimised and baffles and directional

lighting used to limit light spill.

5.7. Additional measures in the urban realm to increase value for bats is the use of

native species or plants otherwise of value for invertebrates in the soft landscaping

designs. Examples of small street trees of value include silver birch Betula pendula

and rowan Sorbus aucuparia, but see Gunnell et al. (2012) for additional examples.

5.8. Other measures to increase the availability of flying insects include the creation of

extensive green roofs (Buglife, 2012) and SuDS networks with marginal planting of

emergent and wetland vegetation.

OFF-SITE MITIGATION

5.9. To mitigate for the loss of hedgerows – the principal foraging habitat across the

majority of the site – it is recommended that off-site hedgerow planting is

undertaken. The composition of the hedgerows should be based on local species-

rich hedgerows and with standard trees where possible.

5.10. The restoration of Beeston Park – an integral part of the project rather than an off-

site measure - will also create an extensive area of new grassland habitat, with

parkland being recognised as an important bat foraging habitat (Glendell et al.,

1997). Key features within parkland are the areas of grassland, waterbodies and the

woodland areas. If possible, grazing should be encouraged across the restored

parkland by variously sheep, horses and/or cattle.


19

REFERENCES

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

Conservation Trust, London.

Bat Conservation Trust (2008) Bats and Lighting in the UK: Bats and the Built

Environment Series. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Bat Conservation Trust (2010) The National Bat Monitoring Program: Annual Report

2009. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Billington, G. (2002) Report on Further Research of Barbastelle Bats Associated with

Pengelli Forest Special Area of Conservation. CCW Contract Science Report no. 591.

CCW, Bangor.

Buglife (2012) Creating Green Roofs for Invertebrates: A Best Practice Guide. Buglife,

Peterborough.

Cowan, A. (2006) Trees and Bats. Guidance Notes 1. Arboricultural Association,

Cheltenham.

Dietz, C. von Helverson, O. & Dietmar, N. (2009) Bats of Britain, Europe and

Northwest Africa. A & C Black, London.

Glendell, M. & Vaughan, N. (2002) Foraging activity of bats in historic landscape

parks in relation to habitat composition and park management. Animal Conservation

5, 309-316.

Greenhough, C. (2009a) Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan. Grouped Plan for Bats.

Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership, Norwich.

Greenhough (2009b) Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plans. Barbastelle. Norfolk

Biodiversity Partnership, Norwich.

Greenway, F. (2008) Barbastelles in the Sussex West Weald 1997-2008. Available at:

http://www.westweald.org.uk/pdf/Barbastelle%20Bats%20in%20the%20Sussex%2

0West%20Weald%201997-2008.pdf

Gunnell, K., Grant, G. & Williams, C. (2012) Landscape and Urban Design for Bats

and Biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Harris, S., Morris, P., Wray, S. and Yalden, D. (1995) A Review of British Mammals.

JNCC, Peterborough.

Nicholls, B. & Racey, P.A. (2006) Contrasting home-range size and spatial partitioning

in cryptic and sympatric pipistrelle bats, Behavioural Ecology and Social Biology 61,

http://www.westweald.org.uk/pdf/Barbastelle%20Bats%20in%20the%20Sussex%20West%20Weald%201997-2008.pdf

http://www.westweald.org.uk/pdf/Barbastelle%20Bats%20in%20the%20Sussex%20West%20Weald%201997-2008.pdf


20

131-142.

NNNS (2011) Norfolk Bird and Mammal Report 2010. Norfolk and Norwich

Naturalists’ Society

Racey, P.A. & Swift, S. M. (1985) Feeding ecology of Pipistrellus pipistrellus

(Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) during pregnancy and lactation. 1. Foraging Behaviour,

Journal of Animal Ecology 54, 205-215.

Smith, P.G. & Racey, P.A. (2000) Habitat Management for Natterer’s Bat Myotis

nattereri. Available from: http://www.ptes.org/files/1339_nattererbook.pdf

Stone, E.L. Jones, G. & Harris, S. (2009) Street Lighting Disturbs Commuting Bats.

Current Biology 19, 1123-1127.

Swift, S.M. (1998) Long-eared Bats. Poyser, London.

Wray, S., Wells, D., Long, E. & Mitchell-Jones, T. (2010) Valuing bats in ecological

impact assessment. In Practice 70, 23-25.

http://www.ptes.org/files/1339_nattererbook.pdf


21

APPENDIX 1: FIGURES


22

Figure 1 a-g. Registrations for each species (or group) for each static detector:

common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, barbastelle, brown

long-eared, Myotis (Natterer’s) and ‘big bats’ primarily noctule and serotine.


23


24


25


26


27


28

Figure 2. Tree assessments: trees of high potential value trees have a Cowan score

of 3; trees of moderate potential value trees have a Cowan score of 2.


29

APPENDIX 2: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON METHODS


30

SURVEY EFFORT

A total of 92 surveys were undertaken to assess levels of bat activity within the

development site. This comprised 75 nights of static bat activity surveys, 17 walked

transects, and a driven transect. The latter was undertaken to assess bat activity

along roads within the development site and wider area.

Omitting the driven transect, this level of effort equates to one surveyor per 0.05ha,

and one static detector per 4ha, or 4.2 surveys per ha (static surveys and walked

transects). This is in line with the guidelines produced by the Bat Conservation Trust.

The level of survey effort carried out during 2010 is considered appropriate for the

size of the development site.

Static Surveys

Automated activity logging systems (Anabats SD-1 & SD-2) were deployed

throughout the development site and grid references taken using a GPS.

The devices were set to record from before sunset until after dawn the following

morning and were set to record at a division ratio of 8 (data), and the sensitivity

adjusted to the optimal setting for each detector.

DESK TOP STUDY

A data search for bat records within a 10km radius of the site boundary was

commissioned from Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service (NBIS). A search of Sites

of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) designated for their bat interest was undertaken

within a 10km radius of the approximate centre of the development site (TG 249 134).

FIELD SURVEYS

Survey Rationale

The rationale for the bat surveys at North East Norwich Growth Point is based on The

Bat Workers Manual (Mitchell-Jones & McLeish 2004) and the Bat Surveys – Best

Practice Guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust 2007).

Overall the emphasis of the survey was to identify foraging bats and levels of activity

from the site and from this to then infer likely roost locations.

Five survey techniques have been used to provide baseline data set to inform an

assessment of the likely impacts of the proposals upon bats, their roosts and habitat:

Automated (Anabat) surveys

Walked transects


31

Ground level survey of trees for bat roost potential, and

External building inspections.

Walked Transects

In accordance with the good practice guidelines (BCT 2007), each walked transect

followed a different route, with different parts of the transect walked in different

directions (clockwise and anti-clockwise). Due to parking constraints, transects

tended to start at the same location although different routes were walked each

night.

During each walked transect 10 static listening points were identified. Depending on

the route the surveyor took and activity levels on the night between 7 to 12 static

listening stations were utilised. On one occasions only 2 listening stations were used.

The location of the static listening stations varied between surveys in order to cover

as many linear features as possible.

Each transect was walked by a single surveyor at a steady pace, with 3-minute stops

made at each listening station. All bat activity along the transect route and at each 3-

minute listening station was recorded using Bat Box Duet Frequency Division

connected to an Edirol digital recorder or on an Anabat SD1/SD2 bat detector. Bat

echolocation recordings were analysed using BatSound Analysis Software (©

Pettersson Elektronik AB) or Analook.

Dusk transects started between 15-30 minutes before sunset and lasted for 3 hours.

Survey data were recorded in the field onto standard datasheets. Variables recorded

during each survey are listed below:

Time of bat contact

Species (where possible) and number of bats where possible

Behaviour such as foraging (indicated by feeding buzzes or continual

activity by the same bat(s)) or commuting (indicated by quick passes)

Any other comments (e.g. direction of flight and occurrence of social

calls)

Location of each contact (marked on the site plan), and

Weather conditions.


32

Automated Bat Activity Surveys

On most nights ten remote detectors - Anabats SD-1 or SD-2 - were deployed. The

devices were set to record from approximately 20 minutes before sunset until after

dawn the following morning and were set to record at a division ratio of 8 (data), and

the sensitivity adjusted to the optimal setting for each detector.

The locations of the Anabats varied between nights, using a randomisation

procedure stratified to different survey areas to ensure a broad spatial coverage of

the site on each survey night. The survey locations were hedgerows and woodland

edge locations rather than open fields.

Table 5. Static detector stations across the whole survey area.

Date Detector

referenc

e

Grid

Reference

Habitat Description

29-30 April

2010

A TG2544 1343 Western edge of Foxburrow Plantation

29-30 April

2010

B TG 2403 143 Eastern end of Quaker Lane (nr Spixworth)

29-30 April

2010

C TG2454 1421 Eastern side of hedgerow south of Spixworth

Plantation

29-30 April

2010

D TG2585 1298 Northern edge of Sprowston Plantation (nr

A1151)

29-30 April

2010

E TG2386 1348 Western side of hedgerow, adjacent to

industrial buildings on the Norwich to

Spixworth Road.

19-20 May

2010

F TG2403 1384 Between two dwellings on the corner of

Beeston Lane and the Norwich-Spixworth

road

19-20 May

2010

G TG2469 1382 Western side of Lawn Plantation (close to

Beeston Lane)

19-20 May

2010

H TG2470 1317 on eastern side of hedgerow along the

B1150, opposite the Playing Field

19-20 May

2010

I TG2570 1279 North eastern corner of the Park and Ride

(close to the A1151)

19-20 May

2010

J TG26041317 At the north end of Sprowston Plantation, on

the western side of the plantation

28-29 May

2010

K TG2576 1404 Corner of field adjacent to Garden Plantation

(Beeston Park)

28-29 May

2010

L TG2550 1422 Corner of field at northern end of Shrubbery

Plantation (Beeston Park)

28-29 May

2010

M TG25901377 Northern end of Coopersholes Plantation

(Beeston Park)

28-29 May

2010

N TG26221404 Concrete pad along farm track, to the west of

Lady's Carr

28-29 May

2010

O TG25421377 Southern end of Shrubbery Plantation,

western side of plantation, at field coner

14-15 June

2010

P TG23931399 Western side of houses located opposite

western end of Beeston Lane.

14-15 June

2010

Q TG24021407 Eastern side of hedgerow on the western side

of the Spixworth-Norwich Road (almost


33

Date Detector

referenc

e

Grid

Reference

Habitat Description

opposite Anabat P)

14-15 June

2010

R TG24701361 Southern end of Lawn Plantation, on the

western side of the plantation

14-15 June

2010

S TG25061346 Hedgerow wo the west of Foxburrow

Plantation

14-15 June

2010

T TG24331369 Corner of woodland to the north-west of the

Rugby Ground

24-25 June

2010

U TG23181359 Eastern side of road in field, opposite

Cemetary

24-25 June

2010

V TG23771316 Western side of hedgerow on western side of

the Spixworth-Norwich Road

24-25 June

2010

W TG24831355 East of the Rugby Club building on the B1150

24-25 June

2010

X TG24741320 Southern side of hedgewow to the west of

Church Lane

24-25 June

2010

Y TG24891283 Western side of hedgerow adjacent to Church

Lane.

24-25 June

2010

Z TG25531259 Corner of dwellings to the south of the Park

and Ride

4-5 July 2010 AA TG24531403 Hedgerow south of Spixworth Plantation

(west of Red Hall)

4-5 July 2010 AB TG24421299 Southern edge of Playing Field (Northern

boundary of Norwich)

4-5 July 2010 AC TG24571287 North of Oak Lodge (east of the B1150)

4-5 July 2010 AD TG24941399 Along hedgerow to the north of Red Hall

4-5 July 2010 AE TG25581400 To the north of Park Farm along fence line

4-5 July 2010 AF TG2517 1409 Field corner to the north west of Shrubbery

Plantation

4-5 July 2010 AG TG2626 1394 Field edge near Lady's Carr

4-5 July 2010 AH TG2593 1332 Southern side of Spanish Plantation in field

corner

13-14 July

2010

AI TG 6621386 Northern side of hedgerow between

Coopersholes Plantation and Lady's Carr

13-14 July

2010

AJ TG24731384 Northern end og Lawn plantation, edge of

trees cut into road

13-14 July

2010

AK TG24051415 Western end of Spixworth Plantation close to

the Spixworth-Norwich road

13-14 July

2010

AL TG 2507 1368 Eastern side of hedgerow at northern end of

Church Lane

13-14 July

2010

AM TG 2486 1256 West of Church Lane,, and to the north of the

Cemetary on the northen edge of Norwich

13-14 July

2010

AN TG25211400 South western corner of Tithe Plantation,

adjacent to B1150

13-14 July

2010

AO TG24841355 South eastern corner of Lawn Plantation,

adjacent to B1150

22-23 July

2010

AP TG25491344 Woodland edge, Foxburrow Plantation

22-23 July

2010

AQ TG25771305 Treeline between Sprowston Plantation and

Foxburrow Plantation

22-23 July

2010

AR TG23851339 Western side of hedgerow to the west of the

Spixworth-Norwich Road

22-23 July

2010

AS TG24581420 Southern tip of Spixworth Plantation

22-23 July AT TG25441327 Hedgerow to the north of Park and Ride


34

Date Detector

referenc

e

Grid

Reference

Habitat Description

2010

5-6 Aug 2010 AU TG25171410 Field corner to the north west of Shrubbery

Plantation

5-6 Aug 2010 AV TG24631383 Northern side of hedgerow, north of Beeston

Lane

5-6 Aug 2010 AW TG24151387 Southern side of hedgerow (near field

entrance), western end of Beeston Lane

5-6 Aug 2010 AX TG26511424 Western corner of woodland, near Lady's

Carr

5-6 Aug 2010 AY TG25991391 Corner of a small plantation, opposite a

couple of houses to the east of Garden

Plantation

31 Aug - 1 Sep

2010

AZ TG23331336 Northern side of field at the norhern limit of

Norwich

31 Aug - 1 Sep

2010

BA TG24411387 Northern side of Beeston Lane

31 Aug - 1 Sep

2010

BB TG23771425 Eastern side of hedgerow running north-south

off Quaker Lane

31 Aug - 1 Sep

2010

BC TG26341386 Corner of field adjacent to hedgerows. South-

east of Lady's Carr

31 Aug - 1 Sep

2010

BD TG26201430 On track with double hedgerows

14-15 Sep

2010

BE TG25111393 Just north of crossroads with Beeston Lane

and B1150, on eastern side of hedgerow

14-15 Sep

2010

BF TG24771396 North of Red Hill on northern edge of

woodland strip

14-15 Sep

2010

BG TG25481353 Western side of Foxburrow Plantation

14-15 Sep

2010

BH TG25121355 Northern side of hedgerow between

Foxburrow Plantation and Church L ane

21-22 Sep

2010

BI TG25001327 Eastern side of hedgerow off Church Lane

(just south of BJ)

21-22 Sep

2010

BJ TG25001335 Western side of hedgerow off Church Lane

(just north of BI)

21-22 Sep

2010

BK TG25231309 Hederow between Church Lane and


21-22 Sep

2010

BL TG25441316 Hedgerow between park and ride and


21-22 Sep

2010

BM TG25441392 Western side of plantation west of Park Farm.

21-22 Sep

2010

BN TG25261375 Southern side of Beeston Lane (between the

B1150 and Beeston Park)

11-12 Oct 2010 BO TG25471409 Western side of woodland at north end of

Shrubbery Plantion

11-12 Oct 2010 BP TG25721319 Treeline between Sprowston Plantation and


11-12 Oct 2010 BQ TG26001406 Hedgerow to north of houses (to east of

Garden Plantation)

11-12 Oct 2010 BR TG25721310 Southern side of Coppersholes Plantation

11-12 Oct 2010 BS TG24961418 Southern-most tip of Spixworth Plantation,

adjacent to hedgerow


35

Table 6. Weather Conditions and timings for Anabat Surveys

Date Sunset/

Sunrise

Weather

Temperature

(oC)

Wind

(Beaufort)

Rain

(% in

last

hour)

Cloud

(%)

Rain

overnight

29-30 April

2010

20:18-

05:25

12 2-3* 0* 1* Yes - heavy

19-20 May

2010

20:49/04:53 13 0 0 5 No?

14-15 June

2010

20:19/04:31 12 1-2 0 10 No

24-25 June

2010

21:23/04:32 18.5 1 0 1 Yes

4-5 July 2010 21:20/04:39 22 2 0 1 0

13-14 July

2010

21:14/04:48 18 0 Light

drizzle

0 No

5-6 Aug 2010 20:40/05:22 15 0 0 10 No

31 Aug - 1 Sep

2010

19:47/06:03 15 0 0 2 Drizzle

occasionally

overnight

14-15 Sep 2010 19:13/06:29 13 1 0 20 No

21-22 Sep 2010 18:55/06:40 18 0 0 30 No

11-12 Oct 2010 18:11/07:15 13 0 0 10 No

Assessment of Trees for Bat Roost Potential

A tree assessment for signs of use by bats was undertaken on the 25th February, 1

st

March 2011.

Tree assessments were undertaken following the scheme presented by Cowan

(2006). An initial walkover to appraise the site for its trees was undertaken in March

2010 and then detailed individual assessments were made between November and

February 2011.

The assessment was undertaken from the ground level using close focusing

binoculars and bright torches where necessary. Methods followed guidelines

provided by the Bat Conservation Trust (2007) and Cowan (2006).

The aims of this survey was to identify trees/groups of trees with low to high bat

roost potential that will require further detailed surveys, such as climb-and–inspect

surveys and or dusk emergence/dawn re-entry surveys. Trees with no or low value to

roosting bats (i.e. trees that had no features that could be used by bats for roosting)

were omitted.

Features which are potentially suitable for roosting bats, such as cracks, crevices,

fissures, splits in limbs, woodpecker holes, areas of rot, knotholes, and flaking bark,

were examined using binoculars for signs of use, including droppings, urine staining


36

and grease marks. Trees were assessed using the following criteria (adapted from

Cowan 2006):

Low Value: One or two minor opportunities offered to individual bats (feeding

or night-time roosts). Sparse ivy cover, minor branch splits, small sections of

loose or flaking bark. Features which have been available for less than 10

years.

Moderate Value: Features which provide a more secure form of roost for small

groups of bats. Dense ivy, significant branch splits, small cavities. Features

which have been available for more than 10 years but less than 30.

High Value: Features suitable for high priority roosts such as maternity roosts.

Features that is uncommon or rare in the local area. Large cavities, extensive

branch or trunk splits, multiple features. Features which have been available

for more than 30 years.

Confirmed Roost: Droppings found at the base of the tree or below a cavity.

Bats heard ‘chattering’ inside a feature on a warm day or at dusk. Bat(s)

observed flying from a feature. Any droppings found during the surveys were

sampled.

Tree climbing was undertaken in September 2011 by Sam Phillips (Senior Ecologist,

The Ecology Consultancy), with 19 trees climbed along the souterhn edge of the

Beeston Park woodlands.

Building Inspection

An external assessment of buildings in close proximity to the site was carried out

during the spring of 2010 and then in winter 2011. The assessment aimed to

establish the potential of buildings in the locality to support bat roosts.

SOUND ANALYSIS

Search-phase echolocation calls were analysed using either BatSound Standard

Version 3.31 or Analook (Version 3.7.20). Spectrograms in BatSound were

constructed of calls using a 512 point fast fourier transform with a Hanning window.

Where necessary calls were identified with assistance of Russ (2000, 2004, undated)

and Sowler (undated). A call reference library was also utilized.

Due to the difficulties separating out Myotis spp. calls (see Ahlén and Baagøe 1999,

Vaughan et al. 1997, and Russ and Montgomery 2002) all Myotis bat calls were

grouped under the genus unless the start frequency of the call suggested the

presence of Natterer’s bat M. nattereri (Natterer’s bat echolocation calls can start at

145 kHz, ~ 14 kHz above other Myotis sp. calls).


37

On occasion, the frequency of maximum energy (Fmax) of common pipistrelle P.

pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus can overlap, thus bats

producing echolocation calls of Fmax 49kHz or less were assigned to the P.

pipistrellus, and those producing calls of 51kHz to P. pygmaeus (Jones and van

Parijs 1993). Echolocation calls between 49 and 50kHz were categorised as

Pipistrellus spp.

Call parameters for the echolocation of Nathusius’ pipistrelle P. nathusii, like other

bat species, differ between publications. For example the Fmax for Nathusius’

pipistrelle is reported as between 36-41 kHz (Russ 2004, undated), and 35-42

(Sowler undated). Consequently there is some overlap between the Fmax of

Nathusius’ pipistrelle and the common pipistrelle. A precautionary approach has

been adopted. Pipistrelle bat calls with Fmax of between 40 and 42kHz have been

identified as ‘low pips’ and as Nathusius’ pipistrelle where the Fmax is between 35

and 39kHz.

QUANTIFYING BAT ACTIVITY AND ABUNDANCE

The number of bat passes has been the traditional unit to measure bat activity and

Thomas (1988) defined a bat pass as a single sequence of two or more recorded

echolocation calls. To provide an accurate site-specific estimate of the magnitude of

activity from the number of bat passes it is necessary to try to determine if bats are

commuting between foraging and/or roost locations, or whether bats are foraging in

a given location. In practice, this is difficult to determine as surveyors can only

speculate on behaviour on the basis of the number of passes and whether or not

feeding buzzes are registered (however some species of bat, for example brown

long-eared, do not necessarily produce feeding buzzes).

With the recent increased use of Anabat detectors, the number of files has been used

synonymously with the number of passes. Each Anabat file represents up to 15

seconds of bat activity and consecutive files at 15 second intervals indicate regular

activity, such as foraging and or bats emerging from a roost. In this report, to avoid

any confusion number of bat passes per Anabat file is referred to as registrations.

Estimating the number of individuals and assessing population sizes of each species

is problematic due to the difficulties associated with estimating numbers from bat

passes and the potential for erroneous estimates as a result of double counting.

Nevertheless, tentative estimates of population sizes of the bat species on site have

been attempted for rarer species such as the barbastelle bat, by looking at activity

patterns across the site.

Given the locality of the site any Plecotus species recorded has been assumed to be

brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus. Species codes used throughout this report


38

are provided in Table 3. This list follows the classification used by Yalden and Harris

(2008).

Table 7. Species codes.

Code Scientific name Species (common name)

Myotis Myotis sp. Myotid species

Mnatt Myotis nattereri Natterer’s

Nlei Nyctalus leisleri Leisler’s

Nnoc Nyctalus noctula Noctule

Ppip Pipistrellus pipistrellus Common pipistrelle

Ppyg Pipistrellus pygmaeus Soprano pipistrelle

Pnat Pipistrellus nathusii Nathusius pipistrelle

Pip Pipistrellus sp. Pipistrelle species

Lowpip Pipsitrelles with a Fmax between 40-42 kHz

Eser Eptesicus serotinus Serotine

Posese Possible serotine bat

Largebat - Call either noctule, leislers or serotine

but insufficient information to

determine

Plecotus Plecotus auritus Brown long-eared bat

Possple - Possible brown long-eared bat

Bbar Barbastella barbastellus Barbastelle

Unident - Unidentified

SURVEYORS

Lead Surveyors

The bat surveys were managed by Ecologist Catherine Greenhough BSc (Hons) MSc

MIEEM who holds a Natural England bat licence holder (licence number 20103645)

and the overall project manager was Dr Graham Hopkins BSc (Hons) PhD MIEEM

(Natural England bat licence holder number 20103306). Catherine has been involved

with bat work for six years and has worked on projected including several wind farm

projects, large road schemes and small developments. Graham has worked

professionally with bats for ten years and has studied them as an amateur for over 25

years.

Catherine’s bat related experience also includes attendance of courses such as ‚Bat

Sound Analysis Using Anabats‛ in 2009 (Envisage Wildcare) and ‚Difficult and Social

calls‛ in 2010 (Anabat analysis) with Sandie Sowler. Catherine has also run training

courses for the local bat group in sound analysis (alone and in conjunction with

Katherine Boughie) and is co-ordinating the Norfolk Bat and Roadside Mammal

Survey, which aims to map the distribution of bats in Norfolk using time expansion

bat detectors.

Field Surveyors

The surveyors were:

Catherine Greenhough

Dr Graham Hopkins


39

Dr Katherine Boughie BSc (Hons) (Natural England Licence number

20093421)

Michelle Fielden BSc (Hons),

Christine Hipperson BSc (Hons)

Rachel Hobbs BSc (Hons)

Etienne Schwartz Compt (Hons) F Deg Sc.

All field assistants have experience undertaking bat activity transects as well as dusk

emergence and dawn re-entry surveys and are familiar with the use of frequency

division detectors and remote recording devices.

All Anabat calls were analysed by Christine Hipperson and verified by Catherine

Greenhough. All calls recorded using a Duet were analysed by Catherine

Greenhough and Victoria Forder.

Echolocation calls were analysed by Christine Hipperson and checked by Victoria

Forder (Batsound) and Catherine Greenhough (Batsound and Analook).

Victoria Forder has over two years experience undertaking bat call analysis using

both BatScan and BatSound. She has worked closely with bat specialists for several

years and has attended a BatScan and BatSound Sound Analysis Course' run by

Echoes Ecology Ltd '. Victoria has used BatSound to undertake sound analysis for a

number of large scale projects, including the new A5 Western Transport Corridor in

Northern Ireland, one of the largest road scheme in Europe.

SURVEY CONSTRAINTS

With the exception of certain species (e.g. noctule Nyctalus noctula), the majority of

bats commuting or foraging more than c. 25 m away from an observer will not be

picked up on bat detectors. Furthermore, some species of bat, such as long-eared,

echolocate quietly, and sometimes not at all. This makes it difficult to detect this bat

using bat detectors, even at very close range. It is possible that a number of

individual bats of this genus may have gone undetected.

Bats regularly move between roost sites both between and within years. Thus, any

survey can only provide a snapshot of activity within a site at the time the survey was

undertaken. Patterns of use may differ at other times of year.

It was not feasible for surveyors to walk through arable fields or within fields

containing sheep or horses and thus survey were restricted to linear features such as

field margins, woodland edges and roads.

Such features are, however, the principal habitats likely to be of interest to the

majority of the UKs bats (e.g. Myotis sp., Pipistrelles, brown long-eared and

barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus). Large bats such as noctules typically fly in the


40

open and do not follow linear features to the same degree. These bats have strong

echolocation calls that travel further and are likely to be readily detected using a bat

detector over longer distances that smaller bats.

It is therefore considered that the results give a reasonably comprehensive overview

of the bat activity in the area.

Anabat bat detectors were located adjacent to liner features. The Anabats were not

routinely placed in the middle of arable fields so as to prevent crop damage, within

sheep fields/horse paddocks, or within close proximity to public rights of way or

permissive footpaths (see Appendix 1, Figure 4) to prevent vandalism or theft of the

detectors.

ASSESSMENT OF TREES FOR BAT ROOST POTENTIAL

Surveying trees presents particular problems at any time of the year, particularly

when trees are in leaf, as bats will use a wide variety of roost sites that include

cavities, splits, cracks and under loose bark, many of which are not easily detected

from the ground and/or are inaccessible to the surveyor. Whilst trees are in leaf the

canopy may obscure potential features of bat interest. Additionally, bat droppings

quickly degrade in damp conditions and are unlikely to remain for long in a tree roost

site. Droppings can also easily be removed by wind and rain. Thus, lack of signs

cannot be interpreted as a lack of bat roost sites.


41

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY DATA


42

Table 8. Summary data for each statid detector stations: species, timing of first and last

registration and number of contacts for each Anabat. Anabat

code

Species Date Dusk Earliest

record

Latest record Dawn Number of

contacts

A Ppip 29/04/2010 20:17 21:06 03:30 05:42 24

A Myotis 29/04/2010 20:17 21:29 21:29 05:42 1

A Ppyg 29/04/2010 20:17 21:46 02:14 05:42 8

A Bbar 29/04/2010 20:17 21:01 21:01 05:42 1

A Nnoc 29/04/2010 20:17 21:04 21:04 05:42 1

B Ppip 29/04/2010 20:17 21:10 03:05 05:42 24

B Ppyg 29/04/2010 20:17 00:14 00:14 05:42 1

B Bbar 29/04/2010 20:17 21:10 01:53 05:42 7

B Nnoc 29/04/2010 20:17 21:07 22:09 05:42 3

B Plecotus 29/04/2010 20:17 22:00 22:29 05:42 4

C Ppip 29/04/2010 20:17 21:34 04:09 05:42 88

C Ppyg 29/04/2010 20:17 23:30 02:39 05:42 24

C Bbar 29/04/2010 20:17 21:27 02:22 05:42 8

D Myotis 29/04/2010 20:17 22:02 22:02 05:42 1

D Ppip 29/04/2010 20:17 20:45 04:57 05:42 256

D Ppyg 29/04/2010 20:17 21:12 23:46 05:42 30

D Bbar 29/04/2010 20:17 21:08 23:10 05:42 8

D Nnoc 29/04/2010 20:17 20:05 21:52 05:42 3

D Pip 29/04/2010 20:17 20:58 23:43 05:42 13

D Lowpip 29/04/2010 20:17 22:20 22:02 05:42 1

E Ppip 29/04/2010 20:17 20:17 01:21 05:42 102

E Ppyg 29/04/2010 20:17 20:53 21:03 05:42 4

E Unident 29/04/2010 20:17 21:14 21:41 05:42 2

E Bbar 29/04/2010 20:17 21:08 02:39 05:42 6

E Plecotus 29/04/2010 20:17 23:03 23:03 05:42 1

E Pip 29/04/2010 20:17 22:39 22:39 05:42 1

E Nyctalus 29/04/2010 20:17 22:05 22:05 05:42 1

F Myotis 19/05/2010 20:17 23:59 23:59 05:42 2

F Ppip 19/05/2010 20:52 23:59 23:59 05:07 2

F Ppyg 19/05/2010 20:52 23:59 23:59 05:07 2

F Bbar 19/05/2010 20:52 23:59 23:59 05:07 2

G Ppip 19/05/2010 20:52 21:40 04:35 05:07 87

G Ppyg 19/05/2010 20:52 21:32 04:01 05:07 17

G Bbar 19/05/2010 20:52 23:32 04:44 05:07 3

G Nnoc 19/05/2010 20:52 22:44 22:44 05:07 1

G Plecotus 19/05/2010 20:52 23:12 23:12 05:07 1

H Myotis 19/05/2010 20:52 04:49 01:42 05:07 1

H Ppip 19/05/2010 20:52 21:45 04:25 05:07 411

H Ppyg 19/05/2010 20:52 22:06 03:51 05:07 47

H Bbar 19/05/2010 20:52 00:34 03:09 05:07 3

H Pip 19/05/2010 20:52 00:32 03:21 05:07 4

I Myotis 19/05/2010 20:52 23:37 00:29 05:07 2


43

Anabat

code


record


contacts

I Ppip 19/05/2010 20:52 21:24 04:34 05:07 375

I Ppyg 19/05/2010 20:52 21:50 01:45 05:07 7

I Nnoc 19/05/2010 20:52 22:00 22:23 05:07 4

I Plecotus 19/05/2010 20:52 22:44 22:44 05:07 1

I Pip 19/05/2010 20:52 22:26 03:05 05:07 51

I Nyctalus 19/05/2010 20:52 22:40 22:04 05:07 1

I Largebat 19/05/2010 20:52 23:21 23:21 05:07 1

J Myotis 19/05/2010 20:52 22:23 22:23 05:07 1

J Ppip 19/05/2010 20:52 21:18 04:21 05:07 365

J Ppyg 19/05/2010 20:52 21:12 04:29 05:07 116

J Unident 19/05/2010 20:52 00:34 00:34 05:07 1

J Bbar 19/05/2010 20:52 21:44 21:46 05:07 2

J Nnoc 19/05/2010 20:52 22:32 22:32 05:07 1

J Pip 19/05/2010 20:52 23:12 02:23 05:07 2

J Nyctalus 19/05/2010 20:52 21:17 21:17 05:07 1

K Myotis 28/05/2010 21:04 23:25 02:50 04:55 3

K Ppip 28/05/2010 21:04 21:16 04:08 04:55 492

K Ppyg 28/05/2010 21:04 21:25 04:24 04:55 123

K Unident 28/05/2010 21:04 22:05 22:05 04:55 1

K Bbar 28/05/2010 21:04 22:13 00:57 04:55 3

K Nnoc 28/05/2010 21:04 21:21 21:21 04:55 1

K Pip 28/05/2010 21:04 00:35 01:32 04:55 3

K Lowpip 28/05/2010 21:04 22:01 04:09 04:55 1

K Ppip 28/05/2010 21:04 00:43 03:59 04:55 3

L Ppyg 28/05/2010 21:04 21:54 03:52 04:55 35

L Bbar 28/05/2010 21:04 21:48 01:29 04:55 3

L Nnoc 28/05/2010 21:04 21:41 23:00 04:55 3

L Plecotus 28/05/2010 21:04 22:14 01:59 04:55 6

L Pip 28/05/2010 21:04 22:04 22:04 04:55 1

L Lowpip 28/05/2010 21:04 22:06 22:06 04:55 1

L Nyctalus 28/05/2010 21:04 21:45 21:45 04:55 1

M Myotis 28/05/2010 21:04 22:30 03:06 04:55 38

M Ppip 28/05/2010 21:04 21:35 04:15 04:55 38

M Ppyg 28/05/2010 21:04 22:09 03:53 04:55 22

M Unident 28/05/2010 21:04 23:55 03:07 04:55 9

M Bbar 28/05/2010 21:04 22:00 22:00 04:55 1

M Nnoc 28/05/2010 21:04 21:25 21:25 04:55 1

M Plecotus 28/05/2010 21:04 22:01 02:55 04:55 2

M Nyctalus 28/05/2010 21:04 02:10 02:01 04:55 1

N Ppip 28/05/2010 21:04 21:48 03:51 04:55 82

N Ppyg 28/05/2010 21:04 21:46 03:47 04:55 75

N Nnoc 28/05/2010 21:04 04:28 04:29 04:55 2

O Myotis 28/05/2010 21:04 00:55 00:55 04:55 1

O Ppip 28/05/2010 21:04 21:35 03:50 04:55 75

O Ppyg 28/05/2010 21:04 21:29 03:55 04:55 26


44

Anabat

code


record


contacts

O Bbar 28/05/2010 21:04 23:24 02:31 04:55 5

O Pip 28/05/2010 21:04 01:06 01:06 04:55 1

O Nyctalus 28/05/2010 21:04 22:51 22:51 04:55 1

P Ppip 14/06/2010 21:18 00:08 00:08 04:41 1

P Ppyg 14/06/2010 21:18 22:20 22:02 04:41 1

R Ppip 14/06/2010 21:18 22:08 03:40 04:41 338

R Ppyg 14/06/2010 21:18 22:07 03:49 04:41 122

R Bbar 14/06/2010 21:18 01:29 01:29 04:41 1

R Nnoc 14/06/2010 21:18 22:01 22:01 04:41 1

R Pip 14/06/2010 21:18 21:55 01:34 04:41 24

R Lowpip 14/06/2010 21:18 22:35 23:22 04:41 2

S Ppip 14/06/2010 21:18 23:48 23:48 04:41 1

S Ppyg 14/06/2010 21:18 22:31 22:31 04:41 1

S Bbar 14/06/2010 21:18 02:08 03:13 04:41 2

S Plecotus 14/06/2010 21:18 23:30 00:11 04:41 3

T Ppip 15/06/2010 21:19 00:13 03:32 04:40 2

T Unident 15/06/2010 21:19 02:40 02:40 04:40 1

U Ppip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:09 03:40 03:40 24

U Ppyg 24/06/2010 21:20 22:16 22:50 03:40 3

U Unident 24/06/2010 21:20 22:50 03:06 03:40 2

U Bbar 24/06/2010 21:20 23:05 23:05 03:40 1

U Nnoc 24/06/2010 21:20 21:36 03:36 03:40 2

U Pip 24/06/2010 21:20 00:31 04:39 03:40 5

U Posple 24/06/2010 21:20 02:39 02:39 03:40 1

V Ppip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:17 03:46 03:40 47

V Ppyg 24/06/2010 21:20 23:10 04:39 03:40 5

V Nnoc 24/06/2010 21:20 03:32 03:32 03:40 1

V Lowpip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:45 00:05 03:40 3

V Eserpos 24/06/2010 21:20 02:32 02:32 03:40 1

W Ppip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:54 03:45 03:40 72

W Ppyg 24/06/2010 21:20 21:33 04:18 03:40 38

W Nnoc 24/06/2010 21:20 21:50 21:50 03:40 1

W Pip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:56 22.56 03:40 1

X Ppip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:04 03:46 03:40 80

X Ppyg 24/06/2010 21:20 22:00 03:04 03:40 30

X Unident 24/06/2010 21:20 00:22 00:22 03:40 1

X Pip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:46 03:36 03:40 27

Y Ppip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:04 03:46 03:40 80

Y Ppyg 24/06/2010 21:20 22:00 03:40 03:40 30

Y Unident 24/06/2010 21:20 00:22 00:22 03:40 1

Y Pip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:46 03:36 03:40 27

Z Myotis 24/06/2010 21:20 00:11 00:11 03:40 1

Z Ppip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:19 03:36 03:40 14

Z Ppyg 24/06/2010 21:20 22:27 01:44 03:40 2

Z Nnoc 24/06/2010 21:20 21:33 22:46 03:40 2


45

Anabat

code


record


contacts

Z Plecotus 24/06/2010 21:20 00:33 00:33 03:40 2

Z Pip 24/06/2010 21:20 22:03 03:10 03:40 4

Z Lowpip 24/06/2010 21:20 01:07 02:35 03:40 2

AA Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:29 02:59 04:43 18

AA Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 03:52 03:52 04:43 1

AA Pip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:52 22:52 04:43 1

AA Lowpip 04/07/2010 21:16 02:03 03:11 04:43 2

AB Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:12 03:59 04:43 96

AB Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 22:16 00:32 04:43 2

AB Nnoc 04/07/2010 21:16 23:58 23:58 04:43 1

AB Pip 04/07/2010 21:16 23:03 23:03 04:43 1

AB Lowpip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:20 03:40 04:43 16

AC Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:18 03:51 04:43 46

AC Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 22:26 02:46 04:43 11

AC Pip 04/07/2010 21:16 01:55 03:44 04:43 12

AC Lowpip 04/07/2010 21:16 01:25 02:54 04:43 2

AD Myotis 04/07/2010 21:16 23:38 23:38 04:43 1

AD Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:53 03:43 04:43 30

AD Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 01:45 02:07 04:43 2

AD Nnoc 04/07/2010 21:16 21:54 00:37 04:43 4

AD Lowpip 04/07/2010 21:16 23:31 23:31 04:43 1

AE Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:43 03:44 04:43 13

AE Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 02:37 03:37 04:43 3

AE Bbar 04/07/2010 21:16 03:07 03:07 04:43 1

AE Nnoc 04/07/2010 21:16 23:04 03:00 04:43 2

AE Nyctalus 04/07/2010 21:16 23:05 23:05 04:43 1

AF Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:25 03:04 04:43 16

AF Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 22:41 03:04 04:43 10

AF Unident 04/07/2010 21:16 02:42 02:42 04:43 1

AF Bbar 04/07/2010 21:16 02:22 02:22 04:43 1

AF Nnoc 04/07/2010 21:16 21:55 01:10 04:43 3

AF Pip 04/07/2010 21:16 01:55 01:55 04:43 1

AF Nyctalus 04/07/2010 21:16 23:03 23:03 04:43 1

AG Myotis 04/07/2010 21:16 23:29 00:25 04:43 2

AG Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:13 00:57 04:43 17

AG Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 23:06 00:23 04:43 3

AG Unident 04/07/2010 21:16 22:52 22:52 04:43 1

AG Ppip 04/07/2010 21:16 22:13 03:54 04:43 81

AG Ppyg 04/07/2010 21:16 22:33 03:31 04:43 8

AH Lowpip 04/07/2010 21:16 23:48 02:55 04:43 10

AH Nyctalus 04/07/2010 21:16 02:56 02:56 04:43 1

AI Ppip 13/07/2010 21:08 21:38 04:06 04:51 152

AI Ppyg 13/07/2010 21:08 21:38 04:15 04:51 60

AI Unident 13/07/2010 21:08 02:42 02:42 04:51 1

AI Nnoc 13/07/2010 21:08 22:03 22:03 04:51 1


46

Anabat

code


record


contacts

AI Pip 13/07/2010 21:08 22:19 01:10 04:51 1

AI Lowpip 13/07/2010 21:08 23:37 23.37 04:51 1

AI Nyctalus 13/07/2010 21:08 22:33 22:33 04:51 1

AJ Ppip 13/07/2010 21:08 22:02 00:51 04:51 6

AJ Ppyg 13/07/2010 21:08 21:31 04:28 04:51 18

AJ Bbar 13/07/2010 21:08 00:52 00:52 04:51 1

AJ Lowpip 13/07/2010 21:08 23:10 23:57 04:51 2

AJ Eser 13/07/2010 21:08 22:31 22:31 04:51 1

AJ Pip 13/07/2010 21:08 00:19 02:18 04:51 4

AJ Eser 13/07/2010 21:08 03:14 03:14 04:51 1

AK Ppip 13/07/2010 21:08 21:59 03:05 04:51 62

AK Ppyg 13/07/2010 21:08 22:00 03:52 04:51 40

AK Nnoc 13/07/2010 21:08 00:31 02:49 04:51 3

AK Pip 13/07/2010 21:08 00:35 03:29 04:51 3

AK Lowpip 13/07/2010 21:08 03:35 03:35 04:51 1

AK Eser 13/07/2010 21:08 23:10 23:10 04:51 2

AL Ppip 13/07/2010 21:08 21:40 00:48 04:51 69

AL Ppyg 13/07/2010 21:08 21:51 00:55 04:51 14

AL Nnoc 13/07/2010 21:08 22:00 04:14 04:51 3

AL Plecotus 13/07/2010 21:08 00:07 00:07 04:51 1

AL Pip 13/07/2010 21:08 21:58 21:58 04:51 1

AM Ppip 13/07/2010 21:08 21:39 00:47 04:51 70

AM Ppyg 13/07/2010 21:08 21:50 00:54 04:51 14

AM Plecotus 13/07/2010 21:08 0.06 00:06 04:51 1

AM Pip 13/07/2010 21:08 21:57 21:57 04:51 1

AN Myotis 13/07/2010 21:08 01:29 02:03 04:51 2

AN Ppip 13/07/2010 21:08 22:22 03:50 04:51 94

AN Ppyg 13/07/2010 21:08 22:32 02:24 04:51 7

AN Bbar 13/07/2010 21:08 00:09 03:24 04:51 4

AN Nnoc 13/07/2010 21:08 21:51 22:36 04:51 2

AN Pip 13/07/2010 21:08 01:13 01:35 04:51 2

AN Lowpip 13/07/2010 21:08 22:29 03:28 04:51 17

AN Largebat 13/07/2010 21:08 22:37 22:37 04:51 1

AN Eser 13/07/2010 21:08 22:57 22:57 04:51 1

AO Ppip 13/07/2010 21:08 21:50 01:04 04:51 5

AO Ppyg 13/07/2010 21:08 21:32 01:34 04:51 6

AP Ppip 22/07/2010 20:57 21:32 04:29 05:02 193

AP Ppyg 22/07/2010 20:57 21:16 04:28 05:02 164

AP Bbar 22/07/2010 20:57 03:49 03:57 05:02 6

AP Nnoc 22/07/2010 20:57 22:05 22:05 05:02 1

AP Ppip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:36 22:36 05:02 1

AP Pip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:36 22:36 05:02 1

AP Lowpip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:51 03:14 05:02 3

AP Eser 22/07/2010 20:57 23:56 05:02 05:02 3

AQ Ppip 22/07/2010 20:57 21:45 04:37 05:02 444


47

Anabat

code


record


contacts

AQ Ppyg 22/07/2010 20:57 22:01 03:37 05:02 38

AQ Unident 22/07/2010 20:57 03:13 03:13 05:02 1

AQ Nnoc 22/07/2010 20:57 02:29 02:29 05:02 1

AQ Pip 22/07/2010 20:57 21:57 03:33 05:02 25

AQ Lowpip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:53 22:53 05:02 1

AQ Nyctalus 22/07/2010 20:57 03:58 03:58 05:02 1

AQ Ppip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:08 04:14 05:02 32

AR Ppyg 22/07/2010 20:57 22:17 00:48 05:02 9

AR Unident 22/07/2010 20:57 02:31 02:31 05:02 1

AR Pip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:17 22:32 05:02 3

AS Ppip 22/07/2010 20:57 21:53 04:24 05:02 116

AS Ppyg 22/07/2010 20:57 22:06 04:16 05:02 52

AS Bbar 22/07/2010 20:57 22:49 22:49 05:02 1

AS Pip 22/07/2010 20:57 21:04 04:10 05:02 4

AS Lowpip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:08 22:31 05:02 8

AS Posple 22/07/2010 20:57 00:04 00:04 05:02 1

AT Ppip 22/07/2010 20:57 21:41 04:05 05:02 324

AT Ppyg 22/07/2010 20:57 21:31 04:06 05:02 53

AT Unident 22/07/2010 20:57 00:01 00:01 05:02 1

AT Pip 22/07/2010 20:57 21:56 03:59 05:02 26

AT Lowpip 22/07/2010 20:57 22:24 00:10 05:02 5

AT Nyctalus 22/07/2010 20:57 02:18 02:18 05:02 1

AU Ppip 05/08/2010 20:35 21:06 03:58 05:24 95

AU Ppyg 05/08/2010 20:35 21:14 04:43 05:24 4

AU Pip 05/08/2010 20:35 21:08 02:27 05:24 6

AV Ppip 05/08/2010 20:35 21:38 04:16 05:24 26

AV Ppyg 05/08/2010 20:35 21:32 04:01 05:24 15

AV Bbar 05/08/2010 20:35 03:48 03:48 05:24 1

AV Nnoc 05/08/2010 20:35 21:32 21:32 05:24 2

AW Ppip 05/08/2010 20:35 21:36 00:34 05:24 5

AW Ppyg 05/08/2010 20:35 21:58 22:19 05:24 2

AX Myotis 05/08/2010 20:35 22:35 01:23 05:24 3

AX Ppip 05/08/2010 20:35 21:41 01:26 05:24 22

AX Ppyg 05/08/2010 20:35 21:21 05:01 05:24 57

AX Unident 05/08/2010 20:35 23:09 23:09 05:24 1

AX Plecotus 05/08/2010 20:35 22:49 02:19 05:24 4

AX Pip 05/08/2010 20:35 23:51 02:24 05:24 3

AX Lowpip 05/08/2010 20:35 22:42 22:42 05:24 1

AY Myotis 05/08/2010 20:35 23:11 23:22 05:24 2

AY Ppip 05/08/2010 20:35 21:27 01:17 05:24 24

AY Ppyg 05/08/2010 20:35 21:02 04:51 05:24 78

AY Bbar 05/08/2010 20:35 03:51 04:05 05:24 2

AY Nnoc 05/08/2010 20:35 21:19 04:58 05:24 7

AY Lowpip 05/08/2010 20:35 21:58 21:58 05:24 1

AY Nyctalus 05/08/2010 20:35 23:29 23:29 05:24 1


48

Anabat

code


record


contacts

AY Largebat 05/08/2010 20:35 23:42 23:42 05:24 1

AY Eser 05/08/2010 20:35 02:49 02:49 05:24 1

AZ Myotis 31/08/2010 19:44 21:18 21:18 06:15 1

AZ Ppip 31/08/2010 19:44 20:42 22:10 06:15 4

AZ Ppyg 31/08/2010 19:44 20:35 23:32 06:15 7

AZ Bbar 31/08/2010 19:44 21:20 01:37 06:15 6

AZ Nnoc 31/08/2010 19:44 20:22 20:27 06:15 2

AZ Plecotus 31/08/2010 19:44 22:08 23:52 06:15 3

BA Ppip 31/08/2010 19:44 20:46 21:42 06:15 3

BB Ppip 31/08/2010 19:44 20:23 23:23 06:15 7

BB Ppyg 31/08/2010 19:44 20:19 00:19 06:15 6

BB Bbar 31/08/2010 19:44 21:53 01:41 06:15 8

BC Myotis 31/08/2010 19:44 23:50 00:48 06:15 2

BC Ppip 31/08/2010 19:44 20:06 22:57 06:15 9

BC Ppyg 31/08/2010 19:44 20:06 05:23 06:15 138

BC Bbar 31/08/2010 19:44 21:15 02:50 06:15 10

BC Plecotus 31/08/2010 19:44 21:36 01:14 06:15 2

BC Pip 31/08/2010 19:44 21:37 01:52 06:15 1

BC Eser 31/08/2010 19:44 21:05 22:43 06:15 2

BD Ppip 31/08/2010 19:44 21:53 21:53 06:15 1

BD Ppyg 31/08/2010 19:44 20:56 02:58 06:15 6

BD Bbar 31/08/2010 19:44 03:32 03:32 06:15 1

BD Plecotus 31/08/2010 19:44 22:02 00:19 06:15 2

BE Ppip 14/09/2010 19:15 20:17 20:17 06:44 1

BE Eser? 14/09/2010 19:15 22:32 22:32 06:44 1

BF Ppip 14/09/2010 19:15 20:19 00:34 06:44 96

BF Ppyg 14/09/2010 19:15 20:01 00:21 06:44 10

BF Unident 14/09/2010 19:15 20:37 20:41 06:44 2

BF Bbar 14/09/2010 19:15 20:27 20:32 06:44 2

BG Ppip 14/09/2010 19:15 19:45 05:15 06:44 1771

BG Ppyg 14/09/2010 19:15 19:45 05:15 06:44 982

BG Unident 14/09/2010 19:15 19:57 03:40 06:44 4

BG Bbar 14/09/2010 19:15 02:14 02:14 06:44 1

BG Pip 14/09/2010 19:15 20:27 22:42 06:44 3

BH Ppip 14/09/2010 19:15 20:25 21:50 06:44 3

BH Ppyg 14/09/2010 19:15 19:51 19:51 06:44 1

BH Eser 14/09/2010 19:15 03:40 03:40 06:44 1

BI Ppyg 21/09/2010 19:00 20:04 20:04 06:59 1

BJ Myotis 21/09/2010 19:00 23:52 23:52 06:59 1

BJ Ppip 21/09/2010 19:00 19:47 22:35 06:59 7

BJ Ppyg 21/09/2010 19:00 19:38 20:55 06:59 6

BJ Bbar 21/09/2010 19:00 10:04 06:43 06:59 3

BK Myotis 21/09/2010 19:00 00:59 00:59 06:59 1

BK Ppip 21/09/2010 19:00 20:02 04:43 06:59 12

BK Ppyg 21/09/2010 19:00 19.3 06:10 06:59 28


49

Anabat

code


record


contacts

BK Unident 21/09/2010 19:00 20:47 20:47 06:59 1

BL Myotis 21/09/2010 19:00 22:11 00:21 06:59 2

BL Ppip 21/09/2010 19:00 20:18 05:42 06:59 6

BL Ppyg 21/09/2010 19:00 19:11 07:40 06:59 26

BL Unident 21/09/2010 19:00 03:50 03:50 06:59 1

BL Nnoc 21/09/2010 19:00 21:38 21:38 06:59 1

BL Plecotus 21/09/2010 19:00 21:49 02:04 06:59 3

BM Myotis 21/09/2010 19:00 22:25 03:29 06:59 2

BM Ppyg 21/09/2010 19:00 22:38 00:16 06:59 11

BM Unident 21/09/2010 19:00 19:39 19:39 06:59 1

BM Bbar 21/09/2010 19:00 19:43 23:02 06:59 3

BM Plecotus 21/09/2010 19:00 02:53 02:53 06:59 1

BM Pnat 21/09/2010 19:00 20:28 20:28 06:59 1

BN Ppip 21/09/2010 19:00 19:54 19:54 06:59 1

BN Ppyg 21/09/2010 19:00 19:40 21:51 06:59 4

BN Plecotus 21/09/2010 19:00 21:32 21:32 06:59 1

BP Myotis 11/10/2010 18:17 20:15 06:03 07:42 13

BP Ppip 11/10/2010 18:17 18:50 01:22 07:42 163

BP Ppyg 11/10/2010 18:17 18:57 06:44 07:42 71

BP Unident 11/10/2010 18:17 06:10 06:10 07:42 1

BP Bbar 11/10/2010 18:17 18:51 06:02 07:42 7

BP Plecotus 11/10/2010 18:17 20:47 20:47 07:42 1

BP Pip 11/10/2010 18:17 21:35 06:50 07:42 3

BP Mnat 11/10/2010 18:17 19:34 04:23 07:42 2

BQ Myotis 11/10/2010 18:17 19:04 19:04 07:42 1

BQ Ppip 11/10/2010 18:17 21:28 21:28 07:42 1

BQ Ppyg 11/10/2010 18:17 18:47 06:51 07:42 35

BS Myotis 11/10/2010 18:17 19:29 06:19 07:42 9

BS Ppip 11/10/2010 18:17 18:35 06:20 07:42 1607

BS Ppyg 11/10/2010 18:17 18:41 06:47 07:42 200

BS Bbar 11/10/2010 18:17 18:35 06:20 07:42 12

BS Plecotus 11/10/2010 18:17 19:58 19:58 07:42 1

BS Pip 11/10/2010 18:17 18:36 18:36 07:42 2


50



51





of the law.





(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)) and The Offshore Marine

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended).










Other legislative Acts affording protection to wildlife and their habitats include:

Deer Act 1991

Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000

Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

Protection of Badgers Act 1992







52



clawed crayfish.


Species Regulations 2010 (which includes smooth snake, sand lizard, great crested newt

and natterjack toad), all bat species, otter, dormouse and some plant species) are given

below. These should be read in conjunction with the relevant species sections that follow.



The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 does not define the

act of ‘migration’ and therefore, as a precaution, it is recommended that short

distance movement of animals for e.g. foraging, breeding or dispersal purposes

are also considered.









Bats

All species of bat are fully protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010 through their inclusion on Schedule 2. Regulation 41 prohibits:

Deliberate killing, injuring or capturing of Schedule 2 species (e.g. all bats)

Deliberate disturbance of bat species as:

o a) to impair their ability:

(i) to survive, breed, or reproduce, or to rear or nurture young;

(ii) to hibernate or migrate3

o b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the

species

Damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place


53

Keeping, transporting, selling, exchanging or offering for sale whether live or dead

or of any part thereof.

Bats are also currently protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended) through their inclusion on Schedule 5. Under this Act, they are additionally

protected from:

1. Intentional or reckless disturbance (at any level)

2. Intentional or reckless obstruction of access to any place of shelter or protection

3. Selling, offering or exposing for sale, possession or transporting for purpose of sale.

How is the legislation pertaining to bats liable to affect development works?


(e.g. Natural England) will be required for works liable to affect a bat roost or for operations

likely to result in a level of disturbance which might impair their ability to undertake those

activities mentioned above (e.g. survive, breed, rear young and hibernate). The licence is to

allow derogation from the relevant legislation but also to enable appropriate mitigation


Though there is no case law to date, the legislation may also be interpreted such that, in

certain circumstances, important foraging areas and/or commuting routes can be regarded

as being afforded de facto protection, for example, where it can be proven that the

continued usage of such areas is crucial to maintaining the integrity and long-term viability

of a bat roost2.

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND RURAL COMMUNITIES ACT 2006 AND THE

BIODIVERSITY DUTY

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force on 1st

October 2006. Section 40 of the Act requires all public bodies to have regard to

biodiversity conservation when carrying out their functions. This is commonly referred to as

the ‘biodiversity duty’.

Section 41 of the Act (Section 42 in Wales) requires the Secretary of State to publish a list

2 Garland & Markham (2008) Is important bat foraging and commuting habitat legally protected? Mammal

News, No. 150. The Mammal Society, Southampton.


54

of habitats and species which are of ‘principal importance for the conservation of

biodiversity.’ This list is intended to assist decision makers such as public bodies in

implementing their duty under Section 40 of the Act. Under the Act these habitats and

species are regarded as a material consideration in determining planning applications. A

developer must show that their protection has been adequately addressed within a

development proposal.














County or District level. The Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan includes the following bats:

barbastelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared and noctule.














55



56

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / In

verte

bra

te S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / In

verte

bra

te S

urv

eys / R

ep

ort fo

r Beyo

nd

Gre

en

Author Jit Thacker BSc (Hons ) PhD & Graham Hopkins BSc (Hons) PhD PGCE CEnv MIEEM FRES

Job No. 100368



May 2011

Revision Alex Prendergast Graham Hopkins 21st

September 2012


Invertebrate Surveys

Beyond Green


Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

Site context and status 1


2 METHODS 2

Desk top study 2

Survey Visits and Effort 2

Survey Coverage: Target Taxa 3

Personnel 4

Designation of Noteworthy Species 4

3 RESULTS 6

Data Search 6

Field Surveys 6

4 EVALUATION 9

5 DISCUSSION 10

Enhancement Vision and Strategic Context 10

Grassland Creation 10

Parkland and woodland enhancement 11

Urban enhancement 12

REFERENCES 14


APPENDIX 2: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON METHODS 18

APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY DATA 20










.

The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Invertebrates / Beyond Green

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ecology Consultancy was commissioned by Beyond Green to undertake an invertebrate

survey to inform the proposals for North Sprowston and Old Catton Project.

The surveys took place between May and August 2010, and consisted of a variety of direct

searching methods, pitfall trapping, water trapping and pod survey. The work was led by an

experienced field entomologist and supported by another experienced entomologists.

The most important invertebrate habitat on the site is considered to be the parkland and semi-

natural woodlands associated with Beeston Park. These were appraised to be of ‘good’ value

for both the volume and continuity of deadwood, with the presence of veteran trees adding

significantly to these scorings. The veteran trees within the parkland areas were considered to

be of moderate-high potential value for invertebrates, on the basis of their age and standing

deadwood resource and the parklands are likewise considered to be ‘good’ in terms of

volume and continuity. A full suite of deadwood sampling methods were not deployed,

specifically to limit habitat damage, but it is considered very likely that rare and scarce

species are present.

The hedgerows and arable margins were surveyed and considered to be of moderate

potential value for invertebrates, but no particularly significant species were recorded. A

Nationally Scarce species of hoverfly and UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species of moth

were recorded (Volucella zonaria and Tyria jacobaeae respectively), but both are considered

to be widespread and common locally.

Against standard criteria but with an element of expert opinion, the majority of the site is

considered to be of Local importance for invertebrates but the woodland and parkland areas

are considered to be of District importance.

Details are provided for enhancement and mitigation measures: grassland creation within

Beeston Park; parkland and woodland enhancement; enhancement of urban areas for

invertebrates. The vision for enhancement is placed in the local context of: the historical

habitats on the site, the wider ecological enhancement plans for Norfolk and the proximity of

Mousehold Heath as an important site for invertebrates.

The Ecology Consultancy NRP South / Invertebrates / Bullen Developments Ltd

1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND






1.2 This report presents the results for a suite of invertebrate surveys undertaken across

the development area and a broader survey area.




Wroxham Road, south of Spixworth and north of Old Catton and Sprowston. The

broader survey area extends for approximately 350ha and the results provide a wider

context for the surveys.









1.5 Many invertebrates are listed as UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority

species and as species of principal importance (section 41) of the Natural

Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Although such species do not receive

protection under criminal law their presence is a material planning consideration,

consequently:

Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities will use the Section

41 list to identify the species and habitats that should be afforded priority

when applying the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) (DfCLG, 2012) to promote the ‚protection and recovery of priority

species populations‛.

Local Planning Authorities will use it to identify the species and habitats that

require specific consideration in dealing with planning and development

control, recognising that under NPPF the aim of planning decisions should

be to avoid minimise impacts to biodiversity.


2 METHODS DESK TOP STUDY

2.1. Information regarding the invertebrate interest of the site and within a further 2

kilometre (km) radius was requested from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service

(NBIS).

2.2. A walkover of the site was undertaken in April 2010, to provide a preliminary

appraisal of the site and likely survey effort required. This initial appraisal was

followed by detailed surveys of the most important habitats on site.

2.3. Each habitat unit was appraised for its potential value to noteworthy invertebrates

and assigned to one of five categories according to the extent and quality of the

microhabitats present. The criteria for assigning the quality categories (Hopkins and

Thacker in prep.) are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Criteria used to appraise the likely quality of semi-natural habitats for important

invertebrates.

Category Definition

Negligible Semi-natural habitat missing or very small in extent and key micro-habitats

absent

Low Semi-natural habitats present but the micro-habitats specifically associated

with important invertebrates missing or limited in extent

Medium Semi-natural habitats present with at least some of the micro-habitats

associated with important invertebrates in that habitat present

High Semi-natural habitats with most of the key micro-habitats associated with

important invertebrates in that habitat present

Excellent Semi-natural habitat with extensive areas of key micro-habitats with a range

of variation within these micro-habitats

2.4. For deadwood areas, the assessment methods of Hubble and Hurst (2006) were

used (see Appendix 2)

SURVEY VISITS AND EFFORT

2.5. Given the on-site habitats and the size of the site, it was considered that an

appropriate level of survey effort comprised three sessions each of pitfall trapping,

water trapping and of hand searching and a single evening of light trapping. That is, it

is considered that the surveys are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of current

guidance on invertebrate surveys for conservation and development (cf Drake et al.,

2007).

2.6. At each of the five sampling stations and on each occasion an array of six 8cm

diameter pitfall traps, with four yellow pan traps (total area of 0.48m2) were deployed

for five days. Hand searching was undertaken for 40-minutes equivalent. Sampling


was undertaken in early May, early June and late July 2010. A specific visit for white-

letter hairstreak Satyrium w-album was undertaken on 8th July 2012, comprising a

three-hour walkover of areas within and surrounding Beeston Park.

2.7. The pond in Beeston Park (part of station 6) was surveyed on 12th August 2012 using

methods consistent with those proposed by the Pond Conservation Trust (2002),

although in practice a greater sampling effort was deployed.

SURVEY COVERAGE: TARGET TAXA

2.8. The surveys concentrated on a suite of target taxa, which both contain numerous

rare or scarce species and also a number of more widespread species with specific

habitat requirements and whose presence is also therefore indicative of site

conditions. These taxa were sampled intensively and all species encountered were

identified. These taxa are summarised in Table 2. Further conspicuous species from

other taxa were also recorded, with targeted searches for Biodiversity Action Plan

species that may be present, but such taxa may not have been sampled as

comprehensively. The survey groups are consistent with those proposed by Drake et

al. (2002), although the deadwood species were not surveyed comprehensively due

to the risk of damaging the veteran trees.

Table 2. Target taxa.

Target Group Taxa Ecology and habitat requirements

Spiders and

allies

Araneae including

linyphiids

Predators with species indicative of many habitat

types.

Terrestrial

bugs

Heteroptera Diverse range of feeding styles and habitat

requirements.

Bees and Wasps: Hymenoptera:

Bees Apidae Ground-nesting species require bare soil. May

prefer warm microclimates. Often associated with

particular flower families.

Wasps All families,

particularly Sphecidae

Ground-nesting species require bare soil. May

prefer warm microclimates. Require habitat

mosaics for prey.

Beetles: Coleoptera:

Ground

beetles

Carabidae Mostly predators including habitat specialists in

dry habitats, some specialist seed feeders in

arable margins

Rove

beetles

Staphylinidae

excluding

Aleocharinae

Predators with species indicative of many habitat

types.

Leaf beetles Chrysomelidae Plant feeders with foodplant and microhabitat

specialisation.

Weevils Curculionidae Plant feeders with foodplant and microhabitat

specialisation.


PERSONNEL

2.9. The lead surveyor was Dr J.I.Thacker (JIT) with additional survey and identification

work by Dr GW Hopkins GWH).

DESIGNATION OF NOTEWORTHY SPECIES

2.10. The conservation status of individual species are either taken from: the insect or

invertebrate Red Data Books (Bratton 1987) the standard reviews published by

English Nature (now Natural England) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee,

published atlases with associated conservation assessment or other reference text

by a respected author and where the procedure for assigning status is described and

largely based on quantitative distribution data.

2.11. Full definitions of species statuses are provided in Drake et al. (2007), but briefly they

are:

Red Data Book Statuses 1-3 and K. Species considered to occur in 15 or

fewer 10 x 10 km squares in Britain considered to be ‘insufficiently known’

but likely to qualify for red list status, as listed in Shirt (1987) or Bratton

(1991).

Nationally Scarce A - occurring in 16 to 30 10 x 10 km squares in Britain.

Nationally Scarce B - occurring in 31 to 100 10 x 10 km squares in Britain.

Nationally Scarce - occurring in fewer than 100 10x10km squares, but with

insufficient resolution to assign A or B status.

BAP UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species (2007 list).

2.12. The ecological specificities of species are taken from standard field guides for the

majority of groups.

2.13. Assessment of site significance followed the criteria proposed by Colin Plant

Associates (2006) to define significance of invertebrate habitats (Table 3).


Table 3. The criteria used to define significance of invertebrate habitats.

Significance Description Minimum qualifying criteria

National UK important site Achieving SSSI invertebrate criteria

(NCC, 1989) or containing RDB2

(Vulnerable) or containing viable

populations of RDB 3 (Rare) species or

containing viable populations of any

species protected under UK legislation

or containing habitats that are

threatened or rare nationally (Great

Britain).

Regional Site with populations of

invertebrates or invertebrate

habitats considered scarce or

rare or threatened in south-east

England

Habitat that is scarce or threatened in

the region or which has, or is reasonably

expected to have, the presence of an

assemblage of invertebrates including at

least ten Nationally Notable species or at

least ten species listed as Regionally

Notable for the English Nature region in

question in the Recorder database or

elsewhere or a combination of these

categories amounting to ten species in

total.

County Site with populations of



rare or threatened in the county

in question

Habitat that is scarce or threatened in

the county and/or which contains or is

reasonably expected to contain an

assemblage of invertebrates that

includes viable populations of at least

five Nationally Notable species or viable

populations of at least five species

regarded as Regionally Scarce by the

county records centres and/or field club.

District Site with populations of



rare or threatened in the

administrative District

A rather vague definition of habitats

falling below county significance level,

but which may be of greater significance

than merely Local. They include sites for

which Nationally Notable species in the

range from 1 to 4 examples are

reasonably expected but not yet

necessarily recorded and where this

omission is considered likely to be partly

due to under-recording.

Local Site with populations of



rare or threatened in the

affected and neighbouring

Parishes (except Scotland,

where the local area may best

be defined as being within a

radius of 5 kilometres

Habitats or species unique or of some

other significance within the local area.

Low

Significance

_ Although almost no area is completely

without significance these are the areas

with nothing more than expected

‚background‛ populations of common

species and the occasional Nationally

Local species.


3 RESULTS DATA SEARCH

3.1 The data search for invertebrates returned records for 17 species of butterfly and

moth with UK BAP status and likely to be present as local populations. All of these

species are relatively common and widespread and afforded UK BAP status to

reflect recent population declines rather than actual rarity (Butterfly Conservation

2007), thus they are likely to be present within the survey area in field margin and

hedgerow habitats. Examples of such species are the buff ermine Spilosoma

luteum and the mottled rustic Caradrina morpheus which both feed on a range of

common plants, including herbs such as nettle Urtica dioica and dandelion

Taraxacum officinale agg. Some species are more habitat specific both

nevertheless widespread, such as the wall Lasiommata megera and small heath

Coenonympha pamphilus butterflies, both associated with open sward, nutrient

poor grassland. The white-letter hairstreak butterfly Satyrium w-album, a UK BAP

priority species, is also known locally, with the Norwich area among its Norfolk

stronghold (Watts & McIlwrath, 2000). The sawyer beetle Prionus coriarius

(Nationally Scarce B) is the only deadwood invertebrate known locally, recorded

from Crostwick Marsh SSSI, although this is known elsewhere from the north

Norwich area, including gardens (G.W.Hopkins, pers. obs.).

3.2 Within the wider area a key local site is Mousehold Heath, which supports a rich

invertebrate fauna including rare and scarce bees and wasps (Norwich City Council,

2002, 2008).

FIELD SURVEYS

Woodland, parkland and woodland edge areas

3.3 Overall the key microhabitats within the site for invertebrates were considered to

be: semi-natural woodland and parkland, hedgerows and the wide arable margins

associated with some arable fields. The woodland stations were 4, 5 and 6

(Appendix 1: Figure 1).

3.4 The semi-natural woodland associated with Beeston Park was appraised to be of

‘good’ value for both the volume and continuity of deadwood, with the presence of

veteran trees adding significantly to these scorings. The veteran trees within the

parkland areas were considered to be of high potential value for invertebrates, on

the basis of their age and standing deadwood resource (cf Alexander 1999); and

against the Hubble and Hurst (2006) criteria the parklands are likewise considered

to be ‘good’ in terms of volume and continuity. The close association of the semi-


natural woodlands and parkland increases their shared value, as does the presence

of ancient and semi-natural woodland outside of but close to the development area.

As such the woodland and parkland appear to be of moderate potential for

noteworthy invertebrates.

3.5 A small number of dead wood species were recorded, such as the mould beetle

Leiodes calcarata (Coleoptera; Latriiidae) and species associated with fungus, such

as Cis boleti (Coleoptera: Ciidae). Species more typically associated with woodland

edge areas rather than being saproxylic included flies such as the robber flies

Dicotria atricapilla and D. rufipes. The grassland within the parkland is of lower

interest, being semi-improved and the species associated with it are widespread

and common, such as the grasshopper Chorthipus parallelus and the bug Philaenus

spumarius.

3.6 In summary, although no rare or scarce species were recorded the woodland

microhabitats include some features of restricted occurrence and consequently it is

considered that the woodlands are of moderate potential value.

Hedgerows and arable verges

3.7 The assemblages of the hedgerows were principally widespread and common

species. No species of note were recorded with the hedgerow trees, with the

principal value of these being the presence of relatively narrow dead branches on

living trees of use to some deadwood beetles; no particularly significant micro-

habitat features were recorded, such as wet rot holes or red heartwood. As such

the hedgerows appear to be of moderate potential for noteworthy invertebrates.

The hedgerow stations were 1, 2 and 3 (Appendix 1: Figure 1).

3.8 Some arable margins were relatively wide (>5m) and with a transition between

permanent hedgerow ground flora to more open and ruderal assemblages. As such

the margins appear to be of moderate potential for noteworthy invertebrates. The

species recorded were generally widespread and common, although a few species

restricted of open and disturbed grassland including arable margins were recorded.

3.9 Two noteworthy species were recorded, neither of which is particularly rare locally

or nationally. The cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae (UK BAP) was ubiquitous

wherever its foodplant, ragwort occurs, in unmanaged field margins and other open

areas; it is common locally. The hoverfly Volucella zonaria (Nationally Scarce B) was

recorded south of Beeston Park; this species is widespread locally including urban

areas of north Norwich (G.W.Hopkins pers. obs.).

3.10 Other species associated with the hedgerows and margins are typical of open

disturbed areas such as the ground beetles Amara aenea. A diverse assemblage of


species were associated with the more flower rich margins including uncommon

flies such as conopid flies Myopa bucata and Sicus ferrugineus.

Ponds

3.11 The single pond sampled was located at the north-east corner of Beeston Park

(station 6, part). It was heavily shaded and surrounded by trees with a deep layer of

tree litter and anoxic sediment, although the water appeared clean. Visually this was

of low potential value for most groups, although it is recognised that some

noteworthy invertebrates are associated with such areas.

3.12 The fauna was species poor but a moderate number of beetles were recorded, as

well as ubiquitous species such as hoglouse Asellus aquatics.


4 EVALUATION 4.1. Two species of note were recorded during the surveys, a single UK BAP priority

species – the cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae - a single scarce species Volucella

zonaria (Nationally Notable B). Both species are relatively common in the Norwich

area: the cinnabar moth of conservation concern due to population declines rather

than actually current occurrence (Butterfly Conservation, 2007); V. zonaria has

undergone range expansion recently and is commoner that its status suggests

(Buglife, 2012a).

4.2. Against the formal criteria of Colin Plant Associates (2006; Table 3) the site would

be evaluated as being of District importance on account of the presence of a single

scarce species. However, as discussed above this would probably over state its

importance. Conversely, the woodland and parkland areas are nevertheless

evaluated as being of District significance, on account of the visual appraisal and

the presence of veteran trees and significant deadwood resources.

4.3. Thus the majority of the site is probably of Local importance for invertebrates but

the woodland and parkland areas are considered to be of District importance.


5 DISCUSSION ENHANCEMENT VISION AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT

5.1. The enhancement vision for the site are three-fold:

Grassland creation within Beeston Park;

Parkland and woodland enhancement; and

Urban enhancement.

GRASSLAND CREATION

5.2. In historic times, the natural vegetation of the area would have been heathland and

nutrient-poor grassland with acidic components, and these are the key habitats

which should be targeted within the area in terms of broader ecological

enhancement (Land, 2007). The creation of such grassland would complement

existing measures to improve Mousehold Heath (GNDP, undated).

5.3. For invertebrates, grassland should display a gradient from relatively sparse swards

including areas with bare substrate maintained by disturbance, through flower rich

areas including both tall and short swards, and finally to longer ranker vegetation

that may provide overwintering areas. Where possible the grasses should be fine-

leaved species such as Agrostis and Festuca species.

5.4. In addition to appropriate management (as described below, following Kirby, 1992;

Falk, 2007) any variations in topography are of great merit, particularly the creation

of south-facing slopes. Such slopes will retain a short sward over long periods

without substantial management. As generic guidance the key to creating flower-

rich areas is to use nutrient-poor substrates and to use appropriate cutting regimes

to limit the accumulation of litter and organic matter.

5.5. In disturbed areas and areas of open, short swards the key species of importance

for invertebrates include:

Composites, including coltsfoot Tussilago farfara, dandelions Taraxacum

spp, cat’s ear Hypochaeris spp and hawkweeds Pilosella spp and mayweed

Tripleurospermum;

Legumes, especially bird’s-foot trefoils Lotus spp., clovers Trifolium spp and

vetches Vicia spp;


Labiates, especially ground-ivy Glechoma hederacea;

Mignonettes Reseda spp and mulleins Verbascum spp;

Viper’s bugloss Echium vulgare; and

Red bartsia Odontites verna.

5.6. Where the grass sward is taller and with few if any bare or open areas then key

species include:

Composites, such as oxeye daisy Leucanthemem vulgare, thistles Cirsium

spp, ragwort Senecio jacobaea, knapweeds Centaurea spp., field scabious

Knautia arvensis and yarrow Achillea millefolium; and

Legumes, especially vetches Vicia spp and vetchlings Lathyrus spp.

5.7. Grassland management for invertebrates should be undertaken on a rotational

basis to both maintain sward structure and composition and also to provide

unmanaged areas for overwintering. Key requirements are:

Disturbance. Some areas should be subject to regular disturbance to

maintain bare soil and areas of sparse sward, which may be facilitated by

trampling from pedestrians and cyclists.

Cutting of longer grass swards should aim to retain some areas uncut in any

single year, if feasible and without encouraging rank swards. Arisings should

be removed.

Associations with other habitat areas should create gradual gradients and

transitions rather than sharp boundaries.

5.8. If grazing can be introduced then this would be highly desirable, to create a mosaic

of sward conditions and also to provide dung as an additional resource.

PARKLAND AND WOODLAND ENHANCEMENT

5.9. As part of parkland restoration, trees should be planted in locations where they may

develop open canopies and develop standing deadwood resources over coming

centuries. The requirements for invertebrates are entirely compatible with those of a

historic landscape.


5.10. Within existing woodland areas veteran trees at risk of being ‘swamped’ by the

canopies of adjacent trees should be subject to haloing, where the canopies of

other trees are reduced. Such work has been shown to significantly improve the

conditions of veteran trees (Alexander et al., 2011).

5.11. Along woodland edges and where lower scrub is appropriate in the parkland then

suitable shrubs include those which flower early in the season and will provide

additional nectar resources otherwise in short supply at present. Suitable species

include:

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, blackthorn Prunus spinosa and scrubby

willows Salix species. Other species of value include: wild cherry Prunus

avium, common gorse Ulex europaeus, roses Rosa spp, broom

Sarothamnus scoparius, crab apples Malus spp, wayfaring tree Viburnum

sp. and field maple Acer campestre.

5.12. Rough margins along woodland edges bases can provide key forage plants and

also provide overwintering sites, such as rough grass tussocks and overwintering

stems and seed-heads. Key forage plants include species of longer grass swards

and competitive herbs, additionally including:

Umbellifers, such as cow parsley hedge parsley Torilis japonica, hogweed

Heracleum sphondylium, cow parsley Torilis japonica, parsnip Pastinaca

sativa, willowherb Chamerion and Epilobium species; and

Labiates, particularly black horehound and white dead-nettle Lamium album.

URBAN ENHANCEMENT

5.13. Two measures are proposed within urban areas: general soft landscaping and

green roofs.

5.14. For soft landscaping (following Edwards and Jenner (2005)) the following plants are

among those that could be planted to provide a sequence of flowers throughout the

season in a built-up area area:

March-April: flowering currant Ribes spp, lungwort Pulmonaria, dead-nettle

Lamium, bugle Ajuga and rosemary Rosmarinus;

May-June: borage Borago spp, crab apple Malus spp, lamb’s-tongue

Stachys spp. and bladder senna Colutea arborescens; and


July-August: lavender Lavandula, scabious Scabiosa, and sea holly

Eryngium spp. Many large-flowered daisies and goldenrods are also of value

for insects in late summer.

5.15. Proposals for green roofs are of significant potential value in complementing the

restoration of Beeston Park by providing additional but slightly different conditions

suibale for heathland species. Again, such proposals complement the plans for

enhancing Mousehold Heath. Green roofs for invertebrates should be ‘extensive’,

with deep but varying substrate depths, sparsely vegetated with heathland species

and with additional microhabitats such as logs for shelter and to provide additional

nesting habitat (Buglife, 2012b).

5.16. Artificial lights may attract or even repulse night-flying insects, with detrimental

impacts on local populations (Bruce-White & Shardlow, 2011). Thus, within urban

areas lighting should be minimised, with either lights having a low UV component

used or for suitable covers to absorb UV light used.


REFERENCES

Alexander, K., Stickler, D. & Green, T. (2011) Rescuing veteran trees from canopy

competition. Conservation Land Management 9, 12-16.

Buglife (2012a) Bug of the Month: Hornet Robberfly. Available at:

http://www.buglife.org.uk/discoverbugs/bugofthemonth/Hornet+Hoverfly

Buglife (2012b) Creating Green Roofs for Invertebrates: A Best Practice Guide.

Buglife, Peterborough.

Bratton, J.H. (1991) British Red Data Books 3. Invertebrates Other Than Insects.

JNCC, Peterborough.

Bruce-White, C. & Shardlow, M. (2011) A Review Of The Impact Of Artificial Light On

Invertebrates. Buglife, Peterborough.

Butterfly Conservation (2007) The UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Moths. Available

from: http://www.butterfly-

conservation.org/uploads/The%20UK%20Biodiversity%20Action%20Plan%20-

%20BC%20website%20draft%2020071.pdf

Colin Plant Associates (2006) EcIA Guideline Comments. Unpublished Report to the

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Available from:

www.ieem.org.uk

DfCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and

Local Government, London.

Drake C.M., Lott, D.A., Alexander, K.N.A. & Webb, J. (2007). Surveying Terrestrial and

Freshwater Invertebrates for Conservation Evaluation. Natural England, Sheffield.

Edwards, M. & Jenner, M. (2009) Field Guide To The Bumblebees of Great Britain

And Ireland. Ocelli Ltd, East Sussex.

Falk, S.J. (2007) Bees and wasps in the diversified coniferous woodland settings of

British Centerparcs. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 20, 21-45.

GNDP (undated) Mousehold Heath Extension. Available at:

http://www.gndp.org.uk/environment/mousehold-heath-extension/

Hubble, D. & Hurst, D. (2007) Rapid dead wood assessment. In Practice June 2007,

4-6.

http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/uploads/The%20UK%20Biodiversity%20Action%20Plan%20-%20BC%20website%20draft%2020071.pdf



http://www.ieem.org.uk/

http://www.gndp.org.uk/environment/mousehold-heath-extension/


Kirby P. (1992) Habitat Management For Invertebrates: A Practical Handbook. RSPB,

Sandy.

Land, R. (2007) Development of an Ecological Network and Green Infrastructure in

the Greater Norwich Growth Point Area. Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership, Norwich.

Shirt, D.B. (1987) British Red Data Books: 2. Insects. Nature Conservancy Council,

Peterborough.


APPENDIX 1: FIGURES


Figure 1. Invertebrate sampling stations.


APPENDIX 2: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON METHODS


DEADWOOD ASSESSMENT METHOD

The assessment of the dead wood habitats follows the methods proposed by Hubble

and Hurst to assess diversity, abundance and continuity of dead wood microhabitats.

Sixteen types of dead wood microhabitat are recognised by this scheme along with

the tree species present, with particular attention paid to the presence of long-lived

key species such as oak Quercus spp and beech Fagus sylvatica:

Sun-baked wood

Fungus-infected bark

Fine branches and twigs (on

the ground, below 5 cm

diameter)

Bracket fungi

Birds’ nest holes

Stumps

Hollow trees (can be whole

trunks or single branches)

Burnt wood

Large fallen timber (above 5

cm diameter)

Dead outer branches (still attached

to the tree)

Rot-holes

Standing dead trunks

Roots showing signs of decay

Well-rotted timber

Wet fallen wood in long-term water

features

Rotten heartwood

Three measures of dead wood resource are used:

Diversity, which is measured as the number of dead wood types present, with

a score of 0 - 8 indicating a ‘poor’ dead wood diversity, 9 - 11 ‘medium’ and

12 - 16 ‘good’.

Dead wood volume, as a summed frequency of all the dead wood types, with

each type assigned a score of 0-4, where ‘4’ = ‘abundant’, ‘3’ = ‘frequent’, ‘2’

= ‘occasional’, ‘1’ = ‘rare’ and ‘0’ is ‘absent’. A summed score of 0 - 19

indicates a ‘poor’ dead wood volume, 20 - 25 ‘medium’ and 26 or more

‘good’.

Continuity, as a measure of the dead wood stages present. Woodlands with

‘poor’ continuity have few species of dead wood, especially of key species,

with gaps in the range of decay stages and dead wood types; woodlands with

‘medium’ continuity have the key tree species and most decay stages;

woodlands with ‘good continuity have the key species, with each having a

range of decay stages and dead wood types present.

Reference:

Hubble, D. And Hurst, D. (2007) Rapid dead wood assessment. In Practice June

2007, 4-6.


APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY DATA


Table 4. Site inventory.

Higher taxon Species

Arachnids: Opiliones Dicranopalpus ramosus

Arachnids: Opiliones Nemastoma bimaculatum

Arachnids: Opiliones Phalangium opilio

Araneae Agelena labyrinthica

Araneae Alopecosa pulverulenta

Araneae Alopecosa pulverulenta

Araneae Araneus marmoreus var. pyramidata

Araneae Araneus sturmi

Araneae Dictyna arundinacea

Araneae Drassylus pusillus

Araneae Dysdera crocata

Araneae Enoplognatha ovata

Araneae Erigone atra

Araneae Erigone dentipalpis

Araneae Larinioides cornutus

Araneae Lepthyphantes cristatus

Araneae Lepthyphantes flavipes

Araneae Micaria pulicaria

Araneae Neottiura bimaculata

Araneae Oedothorax apicatus

Araneae Oedothorax fuscus

Araneae Oedothorax gibbosus

Araneae Oedothorax retusus

Araneae Ozyptila atomaria

Araneae Pachygnatha clercki

Araneae Pachygnatha degeeri

Araneae Pardosa amentata

Araneae Pardosa prativaga

Araneae Pardosa pullata

Araneae Phrurolithus festivus

Araneae Theridion sisyphium

Araneae Theridion varians

Araneae Tibellus oblongus

Araneae Trochosa ruricola

Araneae Xysticus audax

Centi & Millipedes Cryptops hortensis

Centi & Millipedes Dolcihopus poularis

Centi & Millipedes Polydesmus angustus

Coleoptera: Cantharidae Cantharis fulvicollis

Coleoptera: Cantharidae Cantharis rustica

Coleoptera: Cantharidae Rhagonycha fulva

Coleoptera: Carabidae Amara aenea

Coleoptera: Carabidae Amara tibialis

Coleoptera: Carabidae Bembidion lampros

Coleoptera: Carabidae Bembidion lunulatum

Coleoptera: Carabidae Bembidion tetracolum

Coleoptera: Carabidae Calathus fuscipes

Coleoptera: Carabidae Calathus melanocephalus

Coleoptera: Carabidae Calathus rotundicollis

Coleoptera: Carabidae Calodromiius spilotus

Coleoptera: Carabidae Carabus violeaceus



Coleoptera: Carabidae Harpalus affinis

Coleoptera: Carabidae Harpalus rubripes

Coleoptera: Carabidae Harpalus rufipes

Coleoptera: Carabidae Loricera pilicornis

Coleoptera: Carabidae Microlestes minutulus

Coleoptera: Carabidae Notiophilus bigutattus

Coleoptera: Carabidae Ophonus rufibarbis

Coleoptera: Carabidae Paradromius lineatus

Coleoptera: Carabidae Paranchus albipes

Coleoptera: Carabidae Poecilus cupreus

Coleoptera: Carabidae Pterostichus madidus

Coleoptera: Carabidae Pterostichus melanarius

Coleoptera: Carabidae Pterostichus niger

Coleoptera: Carabidae Pterostichus nigrita

Coleoptera: Carabidae Pterostichus vernalis

Coleoptera: Carabidae Trechus quadristriatus

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Clytus arietis

Coleoptera: Cerambycidae Strangalia maculata

Coleoptera: Chrysomeldiae Altica palustris

Coleoptera: Chrysomeldiae Otiorhynchus sulcatus

Coleoptera: Chrysomeldiae Sitona lineatus

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Altica lythri

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Aphthona euphorbiae

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Cassida sanguinolenta

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Oulema rufocyanea

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Phaedon cochleariae

Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae Phyllotreta undulata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Adalia 10-punctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Adalia decempunctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Coccinella 11-punctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Coccinella 7-punctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Coccinella septempunctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Harmonia axyridis

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Propylea 14-punctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Propylea quattuordecimpunctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Rhyzobius litura

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Thea 22-punctata

Coleoptera: Coccinelidae Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata

Coleoptera: Coccinellidae Hippodamia variegata

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Apion carduorum

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Apion frumentarium

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Apion pomonae

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Barypeithes pellucidus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Ceutorhynchus obstrictus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Cionus tuberculosus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Curculiio nucuum

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Curculio glandium

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Liophloeus tessulatus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Microplontus rugulosus



Coleoptera: Curculionidae Nedyus quadrimaculatus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Phylobius pomaceus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Sitona lepidus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Sitona lineatus

Coleoptera: Curculionidae Sitona puncticollis

Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae Anacaena globulus

Coleoptera: Leiodidae Catops fuscus

Coleoptera: Leiodidae Catops nigricans

Coleoptera: Malachiidae Malachius aeneus

Coleoptera: Oedemeridae Oedemera nobilis

Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae Aphodius obliteratus

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Anotylus rugosus

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Bolitochara bella

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Dinaraea linearis*

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Gabrius splendidulus *

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Lathrobium brunnipes

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Leptusa fumida *

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Omalium italicum

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Oxytelus laqueatus

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Philonthus decorus

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Quedius fuliginosus

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Tachinus rufipes

Coleoptera: Staphylinidae Tachyporus solutus

Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae Lagria hirta

Coleoptera: Water beetles Agabus bipustulatus

Coleoptera: Water beetles Anacaena lutescens

Coleoptera: Water beetles Cercyon sp

Coleoptera: Water beetles Helophorus aequalis

Coleoptera: Water beetles Helophorus brevipalpis

Coleoptera: Water beetles Helophorus grandis

Coleoptera: Water beetles Hydrobius fuscipes

Coleoptera: Water beetles Hydroporus memnonius

Coleoptera: Water beetles Hygrotus impressopunctatus

Coleoptera: Water beetles Laccobius bipunctatus

Dermaptera - Forficula auricularia

Diptera: Conopidae Conops quadrifasciata

Diptera: Conopidae Myopa bucata

Diptera: Conopidae Sicus ferrugineus

Diptera: Empidae Empis livida

Diptera: Larger Brachycera: Asilidae Dicotria atricapilla

Diptera: Larger Brachycera: Asilidae Dicotria rufipes

Diptera: Larger Brachycera: Asilidae Dioctria baumhaueri

Diptera: Larger Brachycera: Rhagionidae Chrysopilus asiliformis

Diptera: Larger Brachycera:

Stratiomyidae

Beris chalybata


Stratiomyidae

Pachygaster atra


Stratiomyidae

Rhagio scolopaceus

Diptera: Larger Brachycera: Therevidae Thereva nobilitata



Diptera: Stratiomyidae Pachygaster leachii

Diptera: Stratiomyidae Sargus bipunctatus

Diptera: Syrphidae Cheilosia albitarsis

Diptera: Syrphidae Cheliosia illustrata

Diptera: Syrphidae Chrysotoxum bicinctum

Diptera: Syrphidae Chrysotoxum festivum

Diptera: Syrphidae Episyrphus balteatus

Diptera: Syrphidae Episyrphus balteatus

Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalinus sepulchralis

Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis arbustorum

Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis nemorum

Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis pertinax

Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis pertinax

Diptera: Syrphidae Eristalis tenax

Diptera: Syrphidae Helophilus pendulus

Diptera: Syrphidae Helophilus pendulus

Diptera: Syrphidae Melanostoma mellinum

Diptera: Syrphidae Merodon equestris

Diptera: Syrphidae Metasyrphus corollae

Diptera: Syrphidae Neoscia podagrica

Diptera: Syrphidae Platycheirus angustatus

Diptera: Syrphidae Platycheirus clypeatus

Diptera: Syrphidae Platycheirus scutatus

Diptera: Syrphidae Platycheirus scutatus s.l.

Diptera: Syrphidae Platycherius albimanus

Diptera: Syrphidae Sphaerophoria scripta

Diptera: Syrphidae Sphaerophoria sp.

Diptera: Syrphidae Syritta pipens

Diptera: Syrphidae Syritta pipiens

Diptera: Syrphidae Syrphus ribesii

Diptera: Syrphidae Syrphus vitripennis

Diptera: Syrphidae Xylota segnis

Heteroptera: aquatic: Corixa punctata

Heteroptera: aquatic: Velia caprae

Heteroptera: terrestrial Acanthosoma haemorhoidale

Heteroptera: terrestrial Aelia acuminata

Heteroptera: terrestrial Anthocoris confusus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Anthocoris nemoralis

Heteroptera: terrestrial Anthocoris nemorum



Heteroptera: terrestrial Berytinus minor

Heteroptera: terrestrial Blepharidopterus angulatus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Campyloneura virgula

Heteroptera: terrestrial Capsus ater

Heteroptera: terrestrial Cardiastethus fasciiventris

Heteroptera: terrestrial Coriomeris denticulatus



Heteroptera: terrestrial Deraeocoris lutescens

Heteroptera: terrestrial Dolycoris baccacrum

Heteroptera: terrestrial Elasmucha grisea

Heteroptera: terrestrial Heterogaster urticae

Heteroptera: terrestrial Himacerus apterus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Himacerus mirmicoides

Heteroptera: terrestrial Kleidocerys resedae

Heteroptera: terrestrial Leptoterna ferrugata

Heteroptera: terrestrial Lygocoris pabulinus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Lygocoris pabulinus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Lygus pratensis

Heteroptera: terrestrial Myrmus miriformis

Heteroptera: terrestrial Nabis limbatus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Nabis rugosus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Notostira elongata

Heteroptera: terrestrial Orius sp

Heteroptera: terrestrial Palomena prasina

Heteroptera: terrestrial Palomena prasina

Heteroptera: terrestrial Pentatoma rufipes

Heteroptera: terrestrial Phylus melanocephalus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Pilophorus clavatus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Pilophorus perplexus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Pinalitus cervinus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Pithanus maerkeli

Heteroptera: terrestrial Plagiognathus arbustorum

Heteroptera: terrestrial Psallus lepidus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Stenodema laevigatum

Heteroptera: terrestrial Temnostethus pusillus

Heteroptera: terrestrial Zicrona caerulea

Homoptera Allygus mixtus

Homoptera Aphrodes makarovi

Homoptera Eupteryx aurata

Homoptera Eupteryx vittata

Homoptera Iassus lanio

Homoptera Neophilaenus lineatus

Homoptera Philaenus spumarius

Hymenoptera Anthidium manicatum

Hymenoptera Apis mellifera

Hymenoptera Apis mellifera

Hymenoptera Bombus hortorum

Hymenoptera Bombus lapidaries

Hymenoptera Bombus lucorum

Hymenoptera Bombus pascuorum

Hymenoptera Bombus pascuorum

Hymenoptera Bombus pratorum

Hymenoptera Bombus terrestris



Hymenoptera Colletes succinctus

Hymenoptera Ectemnius continuus

Hymenoptera Ectemnius lapidarius

Hymenoptera Hylaeus pectoralis

Hymenoptera Lasius flavus

Hymenoptera Lasius niger

Hymenoptera Malthinus flaveolus

Hymenoptera Megachile centuncularis

Hymenoptera Mellinus arvensis

Hymenoptera Myrmica rubra

Hymenoptera Trypoxylon figulus

Hymenoptera Vespula vulgaris

Isopoda Armadellidium vulgare

Isopoda Asellus aquaticus

Isopoda Oniscus asellus

Isopoda Philoscia muscorum

Isopoda Porcellio scaber

Lepidoptera Aglais polychloros

Lepidoptera Aglais urticae

Lepidoptera Celastrina argiolus

Lepidoptera Inachis io

Lepidoptera Lycaena phlaeas

Lepidoptera Manioloa jurtina

Lepidoptera Ochlodes faunus

Lepidoptera Pararge aegeria

Lepidoptera Pieris brassicae

Lepidoptera Pieris rapae

Lepidoptera Pyronia tithonus

Lepidoptera Thymelicus lineola

Lepidoptera Thymelicus sylvestris

Lepidoptera Tyria jacobaeae

Mollsucs: aquatic Aplexa hypnoorum

Mollusca: Terrestrial Aegopinella ntidula

Mollusca: Terrestrial Cepea hortensis

Mollusca: Terrestrial Cepea nemoralis

Mollusca: Terrestrial Clausilia bidentata

Mollusca: Terrestrial Cochlicopa lubricella

Mollusca: Terrestrial Columella edentula

Mollusca: Terrestrial Discus rotundatus

Mollusca: Terrestrial Helix aspersa

Mollusca: Terrestrial Monacha cantiana

Mollusca: Terrestrial Vitra crystallina

Odonata Anax imperator

Odonata Coenagrion puella

Orthoptera Chorthippus brunneus

Orthoptera Meconema thalassinum

Orthoptera Leptophyes punctatissima


Table 5. Data search results from NBIS .

Common Name Latin Name Taxon Group Designation

Sawyer Beetle Prionus coriarius insect - beetle (Coleoptera)

Nationally Notable A

Swallowtail Papilio machaon insect - butterfly Fully protected

Swallowtail Papilio machaon subsp. gorganus

insect - butterfly Fully protected

White Letter Hairstreak

Satyrium w-album insect - butterfly UK BAP priority species

Wall Lasiommata megera insect - butterfly UK BAP priority species

Small Heath Coenonympha pamphilus insect - butterfly UK BAP priority species

Blood-Vein Timandra comae insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Dusky Thorn Ennomos fuscantaria insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Buff Ermine Spilosoma luteum insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Cinnabar Tyria jacobaeae insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Dot Moth Melanchra persicariae insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Hedge Rustic Tholera cespitis insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Green-brindled Crescent

Allophyes oxyacanthae insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Beaded Chestnut

Agrochola lychnidis insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Dusky-lemon Sallow

Xanthia gilvago insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Grey Dagger Acronicta psi insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Knot Grass Acronicta rumicis insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Ear Moth Amphipoea oculea insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Rosy Rustic Hydraecia micacea insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Rustic Hoplodrina blanda insect - moth UK BAP priority species

Mottled Rustic Caradrina morpheus insect - moth UK BAP priority species

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / R

ep

tile a

nd

Am

phib

ian S

urve

ys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / R

ep

tile a

nd

Am

phib

ian S

urve

ys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

Author Ben Jervis BSc. & Tracy Simpson BSc. MSc. AIEEM

Job No. 100368



May 2011

Revision Graham Hopkins Rachel Saunders 20

th September 2012


Reptile and Amphibian Surveys


The Ecology Consultancy Thorpe House 79 Thorpe Road, Norwich NR1 1UA T. 01603 628408 E. [email protected] W. www.ecologyconsultancy.co.uk

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / R

ep

tile a

nd

Am

phib

ian S

urve

ys / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 2

Background 2


Legislation and planning policy 2

2 METHODS 3

Personnel 3

Desktop Search 3

Pond Identification and HSI Assessment 3

Great Crested Newt Pond Survey 4

Constraints to Newt surveys 5

Reptile Surveys 6

constraints to reptile surveys 6

3 RESULTS 7

Data Search 7

Pond Descriptions 8

Great Crested Newt Pond Surveys 9

Reptile Surveys 10

4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11

Great Crested Newts 11

Reptiles 11

Mitigation: Great Crested Newts 11

Mitigation: Reptiles 12

Enhancement 13

REFERENCES 14


APPENDIX 2: SITE AND SURVEY DATA 18











The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Amphibians and Reptiles / Beyond Green

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


for the proposed North-east Norwich urban extension. The work is to contribute to


This report summarises the results of great crested newt and reptile surveys

undertaken in 2010.

A desktop survey found no records of reptiles or great crested newts within the

development area or within 500m of its boundary. Both great crested newts and

reptiles have been recorded at distances of 500m-2km from the site boundary.

Great crested newt surveys: all ponds within the development area and a further

500m from its boundary were surveyed in spring 2010. No great crested newts were

recorded, although their presence in low numbers cannot be discounted. The UK

BAP species common toad was found in several ponds.

Reptile surveys: Reptiles were surveyed in late summer/autumn 2010 by direct

searching and the use of artificial refugia in suitable habitats throughout the

development area. No reptile species were recorded, although the presence of

reptiles in low numbers cannot be discounted.

No formal mitigation or licensing is required. Precautionary measures are

recommended for works involving ground clearance.

Consideration should be given to means of enhancing the value of the site for reptiles

and amphibians post-construction in line with NPPF. Enhancements could include

the provision of ponds or artificial refugia, for example log, brash or compost piles,

within areas of tall ruderal vegetation, scrub and grassland.


2

1 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND





and EIA process.

1.2 This report present the results of desktop searches and field surveys for reptiles and

great crested newts Triturus cristatus undertaken in 2010. The reptile survey covered

the entire development area, while the great crested newt survey area includes the

development site and surrounding areas in line with current guidelines (English

Nature 2001), which recommends that ponds up to 500 m from proposed

development sites should be surveyed for great crested newts ‚if it is thought likely

that great crested newts centred on these ponds would be affected by changes to

the plot‛.




Wroxham Road, south of Spixworth and north of Old Catton and Sprowston. To

provide a wider landscape context for the work, a larger area was included within the

scope of the ecological work (a total of approximately 350ha) and this is referred to

as the survey area.









1.5 Appendix 3 contains details of legislation, planning policy and Biodiversity Action

Plans (BAPs) relating to reptiles, and is provided for general guidance only. The

Appendix includes:

Details of national legislation afforded to herptiles (reptiles and amphibians)


UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plans


3

2 METHODS

PERSONNEL

2.1. The reptile survey was undertaken by Ben Jervis between the 13th

September and the

8th October 2010. Ben is an experienced reptile ecologist with several hundred hours

of reptile survey experience following work in the Thames Gateway 2009-10.

2.2. The great crested newt surveys were undertaken by Jerry Kinsley and Catherine

Greenhough (Ecologists, The Ecology Consultancy) acting as accredited agents

under the licence of Dr. Rachel Saunders (licence number 20102758) between the

8th May and the 8th June 2010. Both are experienced surveyors and are authorised

with their accreditation to survey for great crested newts, including the use of bottle

traps.

DESKTOP SEARCH

2.3. Information regarding the present and historical ecological interest of the site and

within a further 2km radius was requested from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information

Service or NBIS (formerly the Norfolk Biological Records Centre). In addition, a

search was completed for statutory designated sites within a 1km radius of the site

using the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) on-line

mapping service (www.magic.gov.uk).

2.4. The status of species is taken directly from the relevant legislation or the UK

Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP 2009).

POND IDENTIFICATION AND HSI ASSESSMENT

2.5 Ponds for the great crested newt survey were identified from Ordnance Survey maps

and aerial photographs. A total of 25 potential ponds were identified.

2.6 The ponds were evaluated using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) methodology

(Oldham et al. 2000). The HSI of a pond is determined by calculating a geometric

mean of 10 variables that are known to have an influence on its suitability as a

breeding location for great crested newts (see Table 1), thus: HSI = (SI1 x SI2 x SI3 x

SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10)1/10



4

2.7 Once calculated, the HSI score for a waterbody can be categorised as follows

(NARRS, undated):

Excellent (>0.8)

Good (0.7 – 0.79)

Average (0.6 – 0.69)

Below Average (0.5 – 0.59)

Poor (<0.5)

Table 1. HSI Indices

Index Name Description

SI1 Geographic Location Lowland England or upland England, Scotland and Wales

SI2 Pond area To the nearest 50m²

SI3 Permanence Number of years pond dry out of ten

SI4 Water quality Measured by invertebrate diversity

SI5 Shade Percentage shading of pond edge at least 1m from shore

SI6 Fowl Level of waterfowl use

SI7 Fish Level of fish population

SI8 Pond count Number of ponds within 1km² SI9 Terrestrial habitat Quality of surrounding terrestrial habitat

SI10 Macrophytes Percentage extent of macrophyte cover on pond surface

GREAT CRESTED NEWT POND SURVEY

2.8 Where possible survey methods followed English Nature (2001) guidelines. Up to four

visits were made to each pond during suitable weather conditions (night temperature

≥ 5°C, with little or no wind or rain). Three survey techniques (see below) were used

on each survey visit and data from torching and bottle trapping were used to

calculate peak counts and estimate population size class. Details of the weather

conditions and survey techniques used are provided in Appendix 2.

Torch survey – the pond was searched with a powerful (500,000

candlepower) torch after dark. The surveyors directed the beam into the

pond and walked slowly around the banks recording any newts seen;

Egg search - a search was made for newt eggs on all suitable vegetation

present along the water margins;

Bottle trapping – During the evening visit bottle traps were placed in

suitable locations around the edge of the ponds or wherever water depth

allowed. An air bubble was present in each bottle. These bottle traps were

checked and collected early the following morning and any newts or other

aquatic organisms captured were released back into the pond


5

Net survey - a dip net with a 4mm mesh was used to sample the ponds. A

sweeping motion was used and ponds were netted for a minimum of 15

minutes per 50 m of shoreline.

Refuge search – any suitable terrestrial refugia (e. g. bricks, rubble and

logs) in the vicinity of the pond were carefully searched for the presence of

newts.

2.9 Survey methods and conditions are presented in Appendix 2: Site and Survey Data.

2.10 Records were also made of other amphibians, namely common frog Rana

temporaria, smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris and common toad Bufo bufo.

CONSTRAINTS TO NEWT SURVEYS

2.11 Due to very low night-time temperatures in May 2010 a number of visits were delayed

until suitable survey conditions returned (cf English Nature 2001). These slight

postponements caused some ponds to not be surveyed twice during the mid-April to

mid-May period. The results are not significantly affected.

2.12 Of the 25 features identified as ponds from the desktop search a number were

subsequently found to be absent or dry, access could not be obtained or they were

considered unsuitable for great crested newts:

Missing ponds or dry – numbers 2, 12, 9, 20, 22, 23 and 24.

Unsuitable – 1 (recent garden pond with large fish, lined), 25 (irrigations

reservoir); 21 (large ornamental pond with fish and wildfowl; access not

obtained).

Access revoked – 11 (one survey only due to presence of horses and risk of

night-time disturbance).

2.13 Conditions at several ponds, e.g. deep sediment, gradual desiccation, lack of aquatic

vegetation and the presence of pond liner, meant that it was not always possible to

employ three survey methods with rigour, although three were always attempted.

Many of these survey restrictions also represent a reduction in suitability for great

crested newts and as such it is not considered likely that this constraint would have

significantly altered the results of the survey.


6

REPTILE SURVEYS

2.14 The survey protocol followed accepted standards for reptile surveys (Froglife, 1999)

and involved a combination of visually searching for reptiles (direct observation) and

the use of artificial refugia comprising individual pieces of heavy grade roofing felt

approximately 1m2 in area. Any refuges already present were also checked on an ad

hoc basis.

2.15 The survey locations were determined from the scoping survey and experience from

other surveys over the summer period. Suitable reptile habitat within the survey area

consisted of tall ruderal habitat, grassland and scrub edges. The vast majority of the

site area was unsuitable for reptiles, comprising open arable fields.

2.16 A total of 99 refugia were used equating to an approximate density of 0.29ha-1

across

the site as a whole, assuming a site area of 338h. However, a large proportion of the

site comprises arable fields and therefore the density of reptile felts in suitable areas

far exceeded the recommended density of 5-10ha-1

. A total of ten survey visits were

made between 13th September and 8

th October 2010 during appropriate weather

conditions wherever possible: temperatures between 9˚C and 18˚C, with little rain or

wind (Froglife 1999).

2.17 Weather conditions and timings of survey visits are presented below (Table 2) and a

map showing the distribution of felts and other refugia (e.g. corrugated sheet and

sacking) across the site is presented in Appendix 1: Figure 2.

Table 2. Weather conditions and timing of reptile survey visits.

Visit Date Survey duration Temp (0C) Cloud cover Rain Wind*

1 13.09.10 09.50-11.50 15 100% Nil 4

2 15.09.10 09.50-12.10 13 0% Nil 6

3 17.09.10 10.20-12.20 10.5 50% Nil 4

4 20.09.10 09.50-11.50 17 70% Nil 4

5 22.09.10 12.50-14.50 20.5 60% Nil 3

6 24.09.10 11.30-13.30 12.5 100% Light rain 4

7 01.10.10 10.10-12.10 14.5 100% Nil 4

8 03.10.10 12.10-14.10 17.5 100% Nil 4

9 06.10.10 09.45-11.45 15 100% Light rain 4

10 08.10.10 10.45-12.45 15.5 100% Nil 2

* Measured on the Beaufort Scale

CONSTRAINTS TO REPTILE SURVEYS

2.18 Due to the time of season the surveys were carried out, the wind conditions would be

considered sub-optimal on most visits according to the recommended guidelines

(Froglife 1999) of little or no wind. Windy conditions could potentially result in fewer

animals basking on artificial refugia. To reduce the impact of this constraint three

additional visits to the site were made. It is deemed unlikely that such conditions

would have caused any reptile species to have been wholly overlooked and as such

the overall results of the survey are considered to have been unaffected.


7

3 RESULTS

DATA SEARCH

3.1 The data search carried out for the site identified the presence of four reptile species;

slow-worm Anguis fragilis, common lizard Zootoca vivipara, grass snake Natrix natrix

and adder Vipera berus, within the 2km search area (Table 3).

Table 3. Records for reptile species within 2km of the site.

Scientific Name Common

Name

Grid

Reference

Location Date Number

Anguis fragilis Slow-worm TG2310 Mousehold

Heath

25/04/2007 1 count of

Female

Anguis fragilis Slow-worm TG257120 NNDR 15/9 15/09/2005 2 count

Anguis fragilis Slow-worm TG232130 Old Catton 22/04/2008 N/A

Zootoca vivipara

Viviparous

lizard

TG2410 Mousehold

Heath

2007 Present

count

Zootoca vivipara

Viviparous

lizard

TG2410 Mousehold

Heath

30/03/2003 1 count of

present

Natrix natrix Grass snake TG275128 NNDR 10/25 01/09/2004 2 Count




Natrix natrix Grass snake TG2511 Sprowston 24/06/1999 1 Count of

present

Natrix natrix Grass snake TG2511 Sprowston 04/08/2004 1 Count of

present






Vipera berus Adder TG257120 NNDR 15/9 30/08/2004 1 count of

female (from NBIS 2010); NNDR refers to records collected as part of the surveys along the proposed route of

the proposed Norwich Northern Distributor Road

3.2 For amphibians, the data search returned 10 records of great crested newt, the

closest of which was to the north west of the site c. 50m outside the 500m survey

area (Table 4). Anecdotally, great crested newts are known to occur as ‘moderate’

populations in Horsham St Faith, immediately north of the airport, and at Rackheath

Park, east of the Wroxham Road and >1km from the site boundary (GW Hopkins and

JI Thacker pers. obs. 2004).

3.3 Two records of smooth newt were also returned, one of which was within the survey

area some 280m north of the site boundary close to pond number 24.


8

Table 4. Desk top records of great crested newt from within 2km.

Grid reference Location Date

TG275128 Rackheath 01/09/2004

TG275128 NNDR* 10/25 01/09/2004

TG267121 Sprowston 2006

TG275128 NNDR 10/25 01/09/2004

TG214143 Horsham St Faith 2006

TG276128 Thorpe End 2006

TG222153 Horsham St Faith 2006

TG232144 Spixworth 2006

TG223153 Horsham St Faith 28/04/2004

TG267120 Sprowston 2006

POND DESCRIPTIONS

3.4 Pond 1 and 3 are located to the east of Buxton Road. Pond 1 is a newly created fish

pond stocked with Koi carp. Only one visit was made to this pond and the presence

of artificial pond liner meant that no bottle trapping could be carried out. Pond 3 is a

natural pond heavily shaded by trees.

3.5 Pond 4 is located within the yard of Red Hall, formerly used for watering horses. It

was found to contain a large amount of debris and fallen leaves and became

increasingly shallow over the course of the survey period.

3.6 Ponds 5-8 are located within the grounds of Park Farm and Beeston Park. Pond 6 is

shallow and heavily shaded with deep sediment. Ponds 5, 7 and 8 are all ornamental

with planting such as white water-lilies Nymphaea sp. Fish and water fowl are

present and one of the ponds, Pond 8, contains terrapins.

3.7 Ponds 10 and 14 are attenuation ponds created to take surface run off from the

nearby Park and Ride. They are steep sided, with little or no vegetation. Egyptian

geese Alopochen aegyptiacus were recorded on several occasions and both ponds

dried out during the course of the survey.

3.8 Ponds 11 and 13 are within the grounds of Oak Lodge, off North Walsham Road.

Pond 11 was only surveyed once as owners were worried about further surveys

disturbing the horses. It is fairly shaded and, at the time of survey, was found to

contain debris and general rubbish. Pond 13, located within an area of hardstanding,

is heavily stocked with goldfish and domestic ducks, geese and mallards Anas

platyrhynchos were recorded on all visits.


9

3.9 Ponds 15-19 are all located within the golf course of Marriott Sprowston Manor hotel,

outside of the proposed development area. Abundant fish and wildfowl including

Egyptian geese, grey heron Ardea cinerea, mallards and moorhen Gallinula chloropus

were recorded throughout.

3.10 HSI scores range from ‘poor’ to ‘average’ suitability for great crested newts. A

summary of the HSI results for each pond are shown below in Table 5.

GREAT CRESTED NEWT POND SURVEYS

3.11 Sixteen ponds were surveyed for great crested newts, nine within the development

area and the remainder outside (Appendix 1. Figure 1).

3.12 Results of the pond surveys are summarised below (Table 5). No great crested newts

were found in any of the ponds surveyed.

3.13 Smooth newts were recorded from three of the ponds, numbers 7, 8 and 13; peak

counts (i.e. maximum count on any one survey visit) of seven adult females and six

adult males were recorded in Pond 7, three adult females and two adult males in

Pond 8 and a single adult female was recorded in Pond 13. Common toads and

common frogs were both recorded from a total of five ponds.

Table 5. Habitat Suitability Indices (HSI) and presence-absence results (nb great crested

newts were not recorded; blank cells denote absence). The on-site ponds refer to those within

potential development areas, with some ponds within the wider boundary within private

gardens and outside the developable area.

Pond number On-site / off-

site

HSI Category Smooth

newt

Common

toad

Common

frog

1 Off-site Poor

3 On-site Average

4 Off-site Poor Present

5 Off-site Average

6 On-site Average Present

7 Off-site Average Present Present

8 Off-site Average Present Present Present

10 Off-site Average Present

11 Off-site Average



15 Off-site Below average Present


17 Off-site Average

18 Off-site Average



10

REPTILE SURVEYS

3.14 No reptiles were recorded within the site boundary.

3.15 The only reptile recorded by the programme of ecology surveys undertaken in 2010

was of a single grass snake approximately 135m outside the site boundary within the

grounds of the nearby golf course (approximate grid reference TG256125). This was

an incidental recorded of a single individual beside a pond being surveyed for great

crested newts Triturus cristatus.


11

4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GREAT CRESTED NEWTS

4.1 Within the site and 500m around it, there are 13 ponds of ‘average’ suitability for

great crested newt with three of ‘below average’ or ‘low’ suitability. The factors

reducing the quality of ponds are generally the presence of fish and wildfowl along

with shading, desiccation and a lack of vegetation. There are 10 known nearby

records of great crested newt as indicated by the data search; however, none are

within 500 m of the site and all except one are over 1 km away from the proposed

site boundary.

4.2 It is considered that great crested newts are absent from the survey area and it is

therefore very unlikely that the proposed development will have any impact upon

populations of great crested newts or individuals.

4.3 The presence of common toads within five of the ponds is of note, as this species is

a priority UK Biodiversity Action Plan species and a Species of Principal Importance

under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

4.4 Small populations of smooth newts were recorded from Ponds 7, 8 and 13 with peak

counts of 13, 5 and 1 individual(s) respectively. Common frogs were also found in

three ponds. Neither common frogs nor smooth newts are of conservation concern in

England.

REPTILES

4.5 On the basis of the results it can be reasonably concluded that significant numbers of

reptiles are not currently using the site and that the significance of the proposed

development area for this species group is likely to be low. That is, even if present,

the densities of individuals are likely to be very low.

4.6 Grass snakes, which typically utilise damper habitats, are highly mobile and can

range over distances of 100m a day with ranges tens of hectares in size (Gent &

Gibson, 2003). Therefore, given the presence of grass snakes utilising off-site

habitats, particularly within the nearby golf course, the possibility of transient

individuals occurring on site cannot be entirely ruled out. That said, the presence of

unsuitable habitats (e.g. road and car parks) which separate the site and golf course

greatly reduces the connectivity between the site and known populations of this

species.

MITIGATION: GREAT CRESTED NEWTS

4.7 Owing to the negligible risk of great crested newts being present on site, it is not

considered necessary to undertake any specific mitigation in relation to this species.

If during vegetation clearance great crested newts are found, all works must stop


12

immediately and advice sought from a suitably experienced ecologist on how to

proceed.

4.8 A European Protected Species Mitigation licence is not required for the development,

although re-surveys may be required prior to detailed planning applications if the

start of development is delayed by more than 3 years from the current surveys, i.e.

2014 onwards.

MITIGATION: REPTILES

4.9 On the basis of the data collected, it is considered that the current proposals are

unlikely to have a significant impact on the conservation status of local populations of

any reptile species. However, the possibility of transient individuals, particularly grass

snakes, cannot be entirely ruled out and as such there is some, albeit low, possibility

of killing and injuring of low numbers of reptiles through construction activities.

4.10 All reptiles are afforded protection under the Schedule 5, Section 9.1 of the Wildlife &

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which protects them from killing and injury. They

are also all priority UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) species and Species of

Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC)

Act 2006 on account of their recent decline in numbers across the UK. Efforts should

be made to conserve, maintain and enhance populations of such species wherever

possible: see Appendix 3 for summary of the relevant legislation.

4.11 It is therefore recommended that a precautionary approach to the clearance of

suitable reptile habitat is taken. Given the low numbers of individuals likely to be

present and the availability of similarly suitable, alternative habitat adjacent to the site

it is considered that displacement of reptiles through habitat manipulation would be

sufficient to avoid killing or injuring and that the level of risk is sufficiently low to not

warrant more detailed surveys or translocation measures.

4.12 Exact proposals for the site are not yet confirmed and as such the level of vegetation

clearance required is currently unknown; however, should it be necessary to clear

areas of suitable habitat, it is likely that the following measures would be appropriate:

Where suitable habitat (scrub, grassland and any tall ruderal habitat) requires

removal, this should be done in two phases. The first should comprise a

strim/cut to c. 150mm above ground level using a hand strimmer or, if

necessary, a tractor-mounted height-adjustable flail or mower. Arisings

should be collected by hand and removed from site or piled in discrete areas

well away from the construction footprint. This process should take place

between March and October during which time reptiles are active. N.B. the

timing of such operations will be further constrained where the habitat to be

cleared is also suitable bird nesting habitat (e.g. scrub). In these cases,

vegetation clearance should only take place between September and


13

October unless it can first be ascertained that no active bird nests are

present. Any reptiles encountered should be allowed to move to a place of

safety (e.g. off site or away from the construction footprint). Piles of debris

and other potential refugia should also be cleared by hand.

The second phase of the habitat manipulation should take place at least two

days after the first phase; this is to give any reptiles present the opportunity

to move out of the cleared area. All vegetation within the cleared area(s)

should then be cut down from 150mm to ground level. As before, all arisings

should be removed from site or piled in discrete areas well away from the

construction footprint. These measures will also serve to protect any

populations of common amphibians at the site.

4.13 In the unlikely event that significant numbers of reptiles are found during these works,

operations should cease and a suitably experienced ecologist contacted for advice

on how to proceed. Given the transient nature of reptiles and the availability of

suitable habitat both within the survey area and adjacent, the possibility of greater

numbers of reptiles being present in the future cannot be discounted and surveys

should be repeated should a significant time elapse between the date of the survey

and works commencing (i.e. over three years).

ENHANCEMENT

4.14 The biodiversity value of the site for amphibians and reptiles could be enhanced

post-construction in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF). Appropriate means by which this could be achieved include:

The provision of refugia and egg laying sites in the form of log piles,

compost heaps and brash piles. The log piles should be stacked adjacent to

retained areas of cover such as scrub, tall ruderal vegetation or grassland,

and be approximately 1 m in height. Some log piles should be connected or

adjacent to one or other of the waterbodies. Compost heaps will be of most

benefit placed in a sunny position and close to cover and, as a rule, the

larger the heap, the better. Material will need to be replenished annually as

the vegetation rots down.

The creation of new ponds and damp habitats. These should be located

near to semi-natural vegetation and include areas of shallow water and

submerged and marginal vegetation.

The maintenance of suitable basking habitat such as open, ideally south-

facing, banks, bunds or slopes in close proximity to areas of cover. These

areas will require monitoring and appropriate management to prevent them

becoming too vegetated and shady.


14

REFERENCES

ARG (2010) ARG UK Advice Note 5. Available at: http://www.arguk.org/advice-and-

guidance/view-category

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

Peterborough.

Froglife (1999) Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Reptile Survey. Froglife, Halesworth.

Gent, T. and Gibson, S. (1998) Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. JNCC, Peterborough.

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

habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10, 143-155.


15

APPENDIX 1: FIGURES


16

Figure 1. Location of ponds.


17

Figure 2. Location of artificial refugia.


18

APPENDIX 2: SITE AND SURVEY DATA


19

Table 6. Survey conditions.

Pond

number

Visit Date Air

temp

(0C)

Water

temp

(˚C)

Rain Wind

disturbing

water?

Turbidity* Surface

vegetation

cover*

1 1 09/05/10 7 8 3 Minor 1 1

3 1 9-10/05/10 7-6 7 2-3 Minor 4 4

3 2 15-16/05/10 10-

13.5

10-12 0 None 4 4

3 3 29-30/05/09 14-13 12-

12.5

2 None 4 4

3 4 07/06/10 15 15.5 3 Major 5 4

4 1 8-9/05/10 7.5-7 8-7.5 2 Minor 3 4

4 2 15-16/05/10 9.5-13 10.5 0 None 4 4

4 3 29-30/05/10 13.5-

12

10.5-

12

3 None 5 4

4 4 04/06/10 13 15 0 None 5 4

5 1 8-9/05/10 8.5 9 2 Minor 4 2

5 2 29-30/05/09 13 11-14 3-2 Minor 5 2

5 3 04/06/10 12.5 15 0 None 4 2

5 4 07/06/10 14.5 16 3 Minor 4 2

6 1 8-9/05/10 7 8 3 Minor 4 3

6 2 15-16/05/10 9.5-

12.5

10 0 None 5 3

6 3 29/05/10 14 Pond

dry

2 N/A N/A 3

6 4 04/06/10 12.5 Pond

dry

0 N/A N/A 3

7 1 8-9/05/10 8 8.5 3 Minor 1 2

7 2 15-16/05/10 9-12 12 0 None 1 2

7 3 29-30/05/09 14-

12.5

14.5-

14

3 None 3 2

7 4 04/06/10 12.5 15.5 0 None 2 2

8 1 8-9/05/10 8 8 2 Minor 5 2

8 2 15-16/05/10 9-12 11 0 None 5 2

8 3 29-30/05/10 14-

12.5

14/14.5 3 Minor 4 2

8 4 04/06/2010 12.5 17 0 None 3 2

10 1 15/05/10 8 12 0 None 4 1

10 2 19/05/10 11 12 0 None 3 1

10 3 26/05/10 8.5 18 0 None 3 1

10 4 04/06/10 12 17.5 0 None 2 1

11 1 8-9/05/10 9.5 7/8.5 2 None 5 4

13 1 8-9/05/10 9.5 9 2 Minor 3 1

13 2 15-16/05/10 8/13.5 11 0 None 2-3 1

13 3 29-30/05/10 14/12.5 12.5/14 3-2 Minor 4 1

13 4 04/06/10 13 16 0 None 2 1

14 1 15/05/10 8 13 0 None 4 0


20

Pond

number

Visit Date Air

temp

(0C)

Water

temp

(˚C)

Rain Wind

disturbing

water?

Turbidity* Surface

vegetation

cover*

14 2 19/05/10 11.5 15 0 None 0 0

14 3 26/05/10 8 18 0 None 2 0

14 4 04/06/10 12 18 0 None 2 0

15 1 15/05/10 9 12 0 None 1 2

15 2 19/05/10 17 14 0 None 0 0

15 3 26/05/10 9 12 0 None 3 2

15 4 04/06/10 12 17 0 None 2 2

16 1 15/05/10 9 11 0 None 0 1

16 2 19/05/10 14 12 0 None 0 1

16 3 26/05/10 9 15 0 None 2 1

16 4 04/06/10 12 17 0 None 2 1

17 1 15/05/10 9 11.5 0 None 0 1

17 2 19/05/10 10 14 0 None 0 1

17 3 26/05/10 9 15 0 None 1 1

17 4 04/06/10 12 17 0 None 0 1

18 1 15/05/10 9 10.5 0 None 3 2

18 2 26/05/10 9 15 0 None 3 2

18 3 04/06/10 12 16 0 None 0 2

18 4 07/06/10 14.5 16 3 Major 2 2

19 1 15/05/10 9 11 0 None 2 3

19 2 26/05/10 8 12 0 None 3 3

19 3 04/06/10 12 15 0 None 1 3

19 4 07/06/10 14.5 15.5 3 Major 2 3

* Measured on a scale of 0-5

Table 7. Pond survey results for each visit.

Pond

#

Visit

#

Amphibian Species Recorded Other species Methods used*

1 1 None Koi carp T, N, R, E

3 1 None BT (8), T, N, R,

E

2 None BT (5), T, N, R,

E

3 None BT (10), T, N, E

4 None T, N, R, E

4 1 1 adult common frog (torch) BT (4), T, N, E

2 common frog tadpoles (bottle

trap)

2 1 adult common frog (torch) BT (5), T, N, E

3 2 adult common frogs (torch) BT (5), T, R, E

4 2 adult common frogs (torch) T, R, E

5 1 None Large goldfish BT (5), T, E

2 1 adult common frog (torch) Large goldfish BT (5), T, N, E


21

Pond

#

Visit

#


3 2 adult common frogs (torch) Goldlfish & rudd T, N, R, E

4 None Goldlfish & rudd T, N, R, E

6 1 None BT (4), T, R, E

2 1 adult common toad (refuge

check)

BT (3), T, R, E

3 1 adult common toad (refuge

check)

T, R, E

4 N/A T, R, E

7 1 1 adult male smooth newt (bottle

trap)

Moorhen BT (9), T, N, E

Abundant common toad tadpoles

(bottle trap and netting)

2 4 adult male smooth newts (bottle

trap and torch)

Mallard BT (14), T, N, E

6 adult female smooth newts

(bottle trap and torch)

Abundant common frog tadpoles

(torch and netting)

3 4 adult male smooth newts (bottle

trap and torch)

Mallard BT (15), T, N, E


(bottle trap and torch)

4 adult common frogs (torch)

4 6 adult male smooth newts (torch) T, N, E


(torch)

1 adult common frog (torch)

8 1 2 adult male smooth newts (bottle

trap)

Fish & terrapins BT (9), T, N, E


(bottle trap)

1 common frog tadpole (bottle

trap)


(bottle trap)

2 1 smooth newt larva (netting) Fish & terrapins BT (14), T, N, E

Occasional common toad

tadpoles (netting)

3 17 common frog tadpoles (bottle

trap and netting)

Fish & terrapins BT (15), T, N, E


(bottle trap and netting)

4 Abundant common frog tadpoles Fish & terrapins T, N, R, E

10 1 None Egyptian geese T, N, R, E

2 None T, N, R, E

3 None T, N, R, E

4 1 common toad tadpole (torch) Egyptian geese T, N, R, E

11 1 None BT (3), T, N, R

13 1 None Fish, domestic ducks,

geese, mallard,

moorhen

BT (8), T, N, R,

E

2 1 adult female smooth newt

(bottle trap)

Fish, domestic ducks,

geese, mallard,

moorhen

BT (10), T, N, R,

E


22

Pond

#

Visit

#


3 None Fish, domestic ducks,

geese, mallard,

moorhen

BT (12), T, N, R

4 None Fish, domestic ducks,

geese, mallard,

moorhen

T, N, R

14 1 Abundant common frog tadpoles

(torch)

Egyptian geese T

2 1 adult common frog adjacent to

pond

T

1 juvenile common frog adjacent

to pond

Some common frog tadpoles

(torch)

3 None T, N

4 None T

15 1 None Grey heron, egyptian

geese, sticklebacks,

goldfish

T

2 1 juvenile common toad (torch) Geese, moorhen, fish T, N, E

3 None Geese, fish T, N

4 None Geese, fish, grass

snake

T, N

16 1 1 adult common toad (torch) Egyptian geese T, N

2 None Mallards BT, T, N

3 None Egyptian geese,

mallards

T, N

4 None Fish T, R

17 1 None T, R

2 None Mallard T, N

3 None Fish T, N

4 None Egyptian geese, fish T, R

18 1 None Egyptian geese, fish T, R

2 None Egyptian geese, fish T, N, R

3 None Egyptian geese, fish T, R

4 None Egyptian geese, fish T, N, R, E

19 1 1 adult common frog (torch) T, N, E

2 None Mallard T, N, E

3 None T, N, E

4 None T, N, E

* BT = bottle trap (and number), T = torch, N = net, R = refuge check, E = egg search


23



24





of the law.




by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (formerly The

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended)) and The Offshore

Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (as amended).














clawed crayfish.


Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (which includes smooth snake, sand lizard, great




25

crested newt and natterjack toad), all bat species, otter, and some plant species) are given

below. These should be read in conjunction with the relevant species sections that follow.



The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) does

not define the act of ‘migration’ and therefore, as a precaution, it is

recommended that short distance movement of animals for e.g. foraging,

breeding or dispersal purposes are also considered.









Herpetofauna (Amphibians and Reptiles)

The sand lizard Lacerta agilis, smooth snake Coronella austriaca, natterjack toad Epidalea

calamita and great crested newt Triturus cristatus receive full protection under The

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) through their

inclusion on Schedule 2. The pool frog Pelophylax lessonae is also afforded full protection

under the same legislation. Regulation 41 prohibits:

Deliberate killing, injuring or capturing of species listed on Schedule 2

Deliberate disturbance of any Schedule 2 species as:

o a) to impair their ability:

(i) to survive, breed, or reproduce, or to rear or nurture young;

(ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to

hibernate or migrate

o b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the

species

Deliberate taking or destroying of the eggs of a Schedule 2 species

Damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place

Keeping, transporting, selling, exchanging or offering for sale whether live or dead

or of any part thereof.


26

With the exception of the pool frog, these species are also currently listed on Schedule 5 of

the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under this Act, they are additionally

protected from:

Intentional or reckless disturbance (at any level)

Intentional or reckless obstruction of access to any place of shelter or protection

Selling, offering or exposing for sale, possession or transporting for purpose of sale.

Other native species of herpetofauna are protected solely under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife

& Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Species such as the adder Vipera berus, grass

snake Natrix natrix, common lizard Zootoca vivipara and slow-worm Anguis fragilis are

listed in respect to Section 9(1) & (5). For these species, it is prohibited to:

Intentionally (or recklessly in Scotland) kill or injure these species

Sell, offer or expose for sale, possess or transport for purpose of sale these

species, or any part thereof.

Common frog Rana temporaria, common toad Bufo bufo, smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris

and palmate newt L. helveticus are listed in respect to Section 9(5) only which affords them

protection against sale, offering or exposing for sale, possession or transport for the

purpose of sale.

How is the legislation pertaining to herpetofauna liable to affect development works?


(e.g. Natural England) will be required for works liable to affect the breeding sites or resting

places of those amphibian and reptile species protected under The Conservation Habitats

and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). A licence will also be required for operations

liable to result in a level of disturbance which might impair their ability to undertake those

activities mentioned above (e.g. survive, breed, rear young and hibernate). The licences are

to allow derogation from the relevant legislation but also to enable appropriate mitigation


Although not licensable, appropriate mitigation measures may also be required to prevent

the intentional killing or injury of adder, grass snake, common lizard and slow worm, thus

avoiding contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).


27














County or District level. The Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan contains 21 Habitat Action

Plans (HAPs) and 58 Species Action Plans (SAPs). Reptile and amphibian SAPs listed in

the Norfolk LBAP are:

Grass snake Natrix natrix

Slow worm Anguis fragilis

Adder Vipera berus

Common lizard Zootoca vivipara

Common toad Bufo bufo


Natterjack toad Bufo calamita
















Appendix 5.2: Information to inform a Habitats

Regulations Assessment

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / In

form

atio

n to

Info

rm a

Hab

itats

Regula

tions A

ssessm

ent / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

Gre

en

No

rth S

pro

wsto

n &

Old

Catto

n / In

form

atio

n to

Info

rm a

Hab

itats

Regula

tions A

ssessm

ent / R

ep

ort fo

r Be

yo

nd

Gre

en

Author Graham Hopkins BSc (Hons) PhD PGCE FRES CEnv MIEEM

Job No. 100368


Information to Inform a Habitats

Regulations Assessment

Beyond Green


Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 INTRODUCTION 3

Overview 3

Legislation & Planning Policy 3

2 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS & METHODOLOGY 6

Process 6

Evidence Gathering 6

Site Integriy 7

Mitigation versus Compensatory Measures 8

Consultation 9

3 HRAS OF OTHER PLANS 10

Overview 10

Greater Norwich Development Area 11

Broads Authority Area 12

Great Yarmouth Borough Council 16

4 CHARACTERISING POTENTIAL IMPACTS 18

Introduction 18

Groundwater Flows 19

Disturbance 19

5 CHARACTERISING CURRENT AND FUTURE VISITOR NUMBERS 22

The Broads 22

Understanding of Seasonal Patterns of Use 26

Understanding the Significance of Beeston Park as Mitigation 26

Current and Future Numbers of visitors to the North Norfolk Coast 30

Summary of Visitor Projections 31

6 SCOPING OF SITES 32

SItes Within 40km 32

Scoping-out of International Sites 34

7 DESIGNATED FEATURES OF SCOPED-IN SITES 37

Overview OF Sites 37

River Wensum SAC 37

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, Broadland SPA 38

BREYDON Water SPA and Ramsar Site 39

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC 40

North Norfolk Coast SPA, SAC and Ramsar Site 40

8 STAGE 1: TESTS OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS 42

Overview 42

Groundwater Flows 42

Disturbance 43

9 STAGE 2: APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT 47

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, the Broadland SPA 47

Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site 62

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC 64

The North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site 67

Summary of Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment 69

10 COMPENSATORY MEASURES 70

Overview 70

Disturbance 70

Practical Management 70

Summary of Case Studies 75

Implementation 77

Synthesis and Summary 79

11 STAGE 3: REPEAT OF THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT 80

REFERENCES 81

APPENDIX 1: COMPONENT SITES OF THE BROADS 90

APPENDIX 2: FIGURE 94










.

The Ecology Consultancy NS&OC / Information to inform a HRA / Beyond Green

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (hereafter

Habitats Regulations), before deciding to give consent or permission for a project which is

likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with

other plans or projects) the competent authority is required to make an appropriate

assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.

European sites are Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

and also include Ramsar Sites.

This report examines the plans for the North-east Norwich Growth Triangle and the North

Sprowston and Old Catton project to assess the implications of these projects in the

context of the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

The potential impacts of these projects are primarily related to water abstraction and

disposal, changes to local groundwater flows and increased recreational disturbance

resulting from a larger local population.

Water abstraction and disposal are not considered further here, as it is being assessed at

the Greater Norwich Development Partnership level.

An initial scoping exercise reduced the number of sites considered to be potentially

affected by changes in groundwater and recreational disturbance to: The Broads SAC;

Broadland SPA; The Broads Ramsar Site; River Wensum SAC; Breydon Water SPA;

Breydon Water Ramsar Site; Winterton – Horsey Dunes SAC; The North Norfolk Coast

SAC; The North Norfolk Coast SPA; and the North Norfolk Coast Ramsar Site

Tests of likely significant affects conclude that negative impacts cannot be concluded for

recreational impacts on: the suite of sites in The Broads; Breydon Water and its two sites;

Winterton-Horsey Dunes; and the suite of sites on the North Norfolk Coast. Changes to

groundwater flows are considered to be unlikely to impact sites and increased recreational

disturbance is considered unlikely to be an impact on the River Wensum SAC

Projections for visitor numbers were made from visitor survey data collected in 2011 by

Broadland District Council. A context for these results is also provided by an extensive

review of available data to characterise visitor activity in the vicinity. Using realistic values,

the greatest numbers of additional visitors are likely to be experienced by the more

popular natural sites receiving currently 30,000 visitors where the additional numbers of

visitors will be 1,714.

An integral part of the NS&OC project is the restoration of Beeston Park as a recreation

facility. This is likely to be attractive to key users of The Broads, such as dog walkers and

visitors ‘going for a walk’. The travel time to many sites in The Broads is likely to be over


2

30-minutes, with only sites on the urban fringe of Norwich being closer than 15-minutes

drive. It is likely therefore that Beeston Park will be effective in reducing the numbers of

visitors to designated sites by providing a more convenient recreation area.

Following the Appropriate Assessment methodology however it is considered that there is

not sufficient confidence in the assessment for negative impacts on site integrity to be

concluded for The Broads’ sites and the North Norfolk Coast’s sites. The principal

designated features vulnerable to disturbance are birds, principally wildfowl but also hen

and marsh harrier in The Broads. For the other sites it is considered that increases in

number of visitors are unlikely (due, for example, to poor access) and / or the likely low

impact of increased numbers of visitors on the designated features.

A review of potential compensatory measures is presented to explore the options available

for reducing impacts. Measures such as zoning of users, access design and the provision

of interpretive materials are considered to be effective tools elsewhere and are among the

options available. It is realistically considered that compensatory measures could reduce

the impacts of recreational disturbance such that the integrity of sites are not affected.

A repeat of the Appropriate Assessment concludes that with compensatory measures

there will not be an impact on site integrity.


3

1 INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW

1.1 As required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (hereafter

Habitats Regulations), before deciding to give consent or permission for a project

which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in

combination with other plans or projects) the competent authority is required to make

an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s

conservation objectives. The competent authority must consult the appropriate

nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by that

body.

1.2 This document provides information towards a Habitats Regulations Assessment and

Appropriate Assessment for development in the Old Catton, Sprowston, Rackheath

and Thorpe St Andrew ‘North-east Norwich Growth Triangle’ of 7,000 homes by

2026, rising to 10,000 after 2031, to help meet rising demand for housing in Norwich

and Norfolk as set out in the GNDP Joint Core Strategy. This information

accompanies the planning application for development of up to 3,520 homes within

the North-east Norwich Growth Area at North Sprowston and Old Catton (hereafter

‘NS&OC ’). This document is prepared by the applicant, Beyond Green, with the

purpose of exploring the likely impacts, effects and mitigation associated with

development in the North-east Norwich Growth Area that may be required within the

formal context of the Habitats Regulations, and in advance of Broadland District

Council commencing the preparation of an Area Action Plan (AAP) Development Plan

Document for the Growth Triangle.

LEGISLATION & PLANNING POLICY

1.3 The need for an appropriate assessment originally arose under the requirements of

the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and its implementation in the UK under the

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. The Conservation of Habitats

and Species Regulations 2010 were published and consolidated the legislation,

updated and incorporated the various amendments made to the Conservation

(Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (the 1994 Regulations). No detailed review of

the 1994 Regulations has taken place, and the 2010 Habitats Regulations make no

substantive changes to existing policies or procedures.

1.4 Regulation 61(5) states that ‘In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and

subject to regulation 62 (considerations of overriding public interest), the competent


4

authority may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not

adversely affect the integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine

site (as the case may be)’. Regulation 61(6) also states ‘In considering whether a plan

or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, the authority must have regard

to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or

restrictions subject to which they propose that the consent, permission or other

authorisation should be given.’

1.5 The Habitats Regulations Assessment relates to Special Protection Areas (SPAs),

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Sites. SPAs are sites classified in

accordance with Article 4 of the EC Directive on the conservation of wild birds

(79/409/EEC), more commonly known as the Birds Directive. They are classified for

rare and vulnerable birds, listed in Annex I to the Birds Directive, and for regularly

occurring migratory species.

1.6 SACs are classified in accordance with EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation

of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive). Article 3 of this

Directive requires the establishment of a European network of important high-quality

conservation sites that will make a significant contribution to conserving the 189

habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive.

1.7 These sites are known as the Natura 2000 network and are commonly referred to as

European sites. Ramsar Sites are qualifying under the International Convention on

Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the Ramsar

Convention, Iran 1971 and amended by the Paris Protocol 1992). Although Ramsar

Sites are not protected in law by the Birds and Habitats Directives as a matter of

policy, government – reiterated in the National Planning Policy Framework (DfCLG,

2012) has decreed that, unless otherwise specified, procedures relating to SPAs and

SACs will also apply to Ramsar Sites. The term ‘international sites’ is used in this

report to refer to all three of these qualifying sites.

1.8 An appropriate assessment is a decision by a 'competent authority', in this case

Broadland District Council, as to whether the proposed plan or project can be

determined as not having an adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites. An

adverse effect on integrity is likely to be one that prevents the site from maintaining

the same contribution to favourable status for the relevant feature(s), as it did when

the site was qualifying. Only where a plan or project can be determined by the


5

competent authority as not having an adverse effect on site integrity can it be

allowed to proceed.

1.9 The favourable conservation status of the site is defined through the site's

conservation objectives and it is against these objectives that the effects of the plan

or project must be assessed. Regulation 61(2) requires that a person applying for any

such consent, permission or other authorisation must provide such information as the

competent authority may reasonably require for the purposes of the assessment or to

enable them to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required.


6

2 THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS & METHODOLOGY

PROCESS

2.1. The Appropriate Assessment process is outlined in Table 1, presented for illustrative

purposes, outlining the steps required to be undertaken by the competent authority

when considering projects that may impact on European sites.

Table 1. The stages of the Appropriate Assessment.

Task Requirements

Evidence

Gathering

Collation of documentation relating to the project.

Collecting information on relevant European sites, their conservation

objectives and characteristics.

Stage 1 The ‘test of likely significant effect’.

Establishing whether a plan is ‘likely to have a significant effect’ on a

European site, and therefore requiring the Appropriate Assessment.

Stage 2 Assessment of whether there is an effect on site integrity.

This is potentially a two-stage process, with a consideration of whether

there are likely to be effects, followed if necessary by a detailed

consideration of site-specific factors.

Stage 3 If there is an effect on site integrity then the project should be re-

assessed with the inclusion of compensation and a repeat of stage 2.

2.2. An important part of this HRA is the significance of mitigation and compensation;

these are defined below (Mitigation Versus Compensatory Measures). Following

Tyldesley (2011) it is considered that compensatory measures may be proposed if

the project is permitted under the provisions of regulations 49 and 53, but rather than

forming part of the Appropriate Assessment they are included in Stage 3; in contrast,

mitigation measures may form part of the Appropriate Assessment (i.e Stage 2).

EVIDENCE GATHERING

2.3. Data on the project proposals are taken from the Environmental Statement, hereafter

referred to as the ES, and other documentation relating to the North-east Norwich

Growth Area as produced by and for the Greater Norwich Development Partnership.

2.4. The identification of European sites was undertaken utilising the online Multi-Agency

Geographic Information for the Countryside database (hereafter referred to as

MAGIC; www.magic.gov.uk). Data on the European sites, including qualifying

features were taken from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website

(www.jncc.gov.uk); data on the component SSSIs, primarily the condition


http://www.jncc.gov.uk/


7

assessment, were taken from the Natural England website

(www.naturalengland.org.uk).

2.5. A scientific literature search was undertaken using both freely available search

engines and academic databases to identify relevant research work on disturbance

effects and examples of mitigation for disturbance.

SITE INTEGRITY

2.6. Following English Nature (2004) and based on definitions within Article 1 of the

Habitats Directive, site integrity is defined below.

2.7. For habitats:

Their range and area must be stable or increasing;

The species structure and functions necessary for long-term maintenance

exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future; and

The status of the typical species is considered to be favourable.

2.8. For species:

The population dynamics data on the species indicate that it is maintaining

itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; and

The natural range is stable and likely to continue to be, and there is and will

probably continue to be a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population

on a long term basis.

2.9. English Nature (1999, 2004) proposes a checklist of questions as a pragmatic

approach to identifying likely effects and to potential mechanisms that may affect site

integrity. Where each answer is ‘yes’, then it can be concluded that there are no

adverse effects. Thus, for the assessment to conclude that there are no adverse

effects then it is required to show that:

The area of Annex I habitats (or composite features) will not be reduced;

There will be no direct effect on the population of the species for which the

site was Qualifying or classified;


8

There will be no indirect effects on the populations of species for which the

site was Qualifying or classified due to loss or degradation of their habitat

(quantity/quality);

There will be no changes to the composition of the habitats for which the site

was Qualifying (e.g. reduction in species structure, abundance or diversity

that comprises the habitat over time); and

That there will be no interruption or degradation of the physical, chemical or

biological processes that support habitats and species for which the site was

Qualifying or classified.

2.10. If the answer is ‘no’ to any of these or if there is uncertainty, then it is necessary to

consider further site-specific factors in order to reach a decision.

2.11. As presented by English Nature (2004), the key site-specific factors that need to be

considered when forming judgments on site integrity are:

Scale of impact,

Long term effects and sustainability,

Duration of impact and recovery/reversibility,

Dynamic systems,

Conflicting feature requirements,

Off-site impacts, and

Uncertainty in cause and effect relationships and a precautionary approach.

MITIGATION VERSUS COMPENSATORY MEASURES

2.12. There are three types of counteracting measures to reduce impacts: avoidance and

reduction (which are grouped together as mitigation) and then compensatory

measures. ‚Mitigation (avoidance and reduction) measures (are) built into the project

and form(ing) part of the project as proposed or applied for‛; compensatory

measures are those which ‚do not already form part of the project but may be

applied as additional conditions or restrictions (Tyldesley, 2011; pp13)


9

2.10 The European Commission (2007, p10) present the distinction as):

Mitigation measures are those measures which aim to minimise, or even

cancel, the negative impacts on a site that are likely to arise as a result of the

implementation of a plan or project. These measures are an integral part of

the specifications of a plan or project (see section 4.5 of the leaflet "Managing

Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive"), and

Compensatory measures in the strict sense are independent of the project

(including any associated mitigation measures). They are intended to offset

the negative effects of the plan or project so that the overall ecological

coherence of the Natura 2000 Network is maintained.‛

2.11 For the purposes of the NS&OC project and the Growth Triangle, compensatory

measures for impacts on the development site can be undertaken within-site, but

reducing for the effects of potential impacts on the European sites is likely to require:

(i) measures taken within the site to provide some recreational resource there which

is expected to lead to fewer people travelling to the European site; and (ii) a range of

measures operating as compensation in the event that this on-site mitigation is

deemed not to be sufficient for the purposes of avoiding impacts on the European

site.

CONSULTATION

2.13. Consultation with a number of organisations has been undertaken, formally and

informally as summarised below (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of consultations.

Organisation Date Summary

Broadland

District

Council

Various

between

January 2011

and July 2012

A number of workshops with Broadland District Council

officers including discussion of potential impact of NS&OC

on The Broads in the context of the Habitats Regulations

Assessment.

Natural

England

Various

between

January 2011

and October

2011

A number of workshops and one-to-one meetings with

Helen Ward including discussion of potential impact of

NS&OC on The Broads in the context of the Habitats

Regulations Assessment. Further meetings were sought by

Beyond Green from January 2012 but this has not been

possible due to staffing changes at Natural England.

Broads

Authority

15 July 2012 Meeting attended by three officers of the Broads Authority

and three representatives of Beyond Green. Issues

covered including the potential impacts on The Broads

specifically in the context of a Habitats Regulations

Assessment


10

3 HRAS OF OTHER PLANS

OVERVIEW

3.1 There are a number of plans prepared for neighbouring local authorities which may

act in combination with the NS&OC and Growth Triangle proposals to result in

impacts on the integrity of sites. As proposed by Tyldesley (2011; pp14-15):

‚In checking for the need for an appropriate assessment it may be concluded that

the project could affect the site in some way, but that alone these effects are unlikely

to be significant. In such cases the competent authority should check whether

significant effects would be likely if the project was combined with other plans or

projects. An in-combination assessment is required in order to comply with the

Habitats Regulations, and should include any other plans or projects that have been

checked for the need for an appropriate assessment and where the following applies:

a) It has been concluded that the other plan or project may affect the site, but the

effects are not significant on their own. A number of plans or projects with effects

that individually have been determined to be insignificant may still result in a

significant effect on the site if all their effects on the site are combined.

b) It has been concluded that the other plan or project may have a significant effect

alone and where measures have consequently been included to reduce the effect to

a level where it is no longer considered to be significant when the plan or project is

considered alone, but where the measure applied will not remove the effect

completely. Such residual effects could still contribute to a significant effect when

considered in-combination with other effects.‛

3.2 Here, three groups of plans are reviewed with respect to their conclusions with

respect o potential in-combination effects: those for the Greater Norwich

Development Partnership, of which the Growth Triangle is a part; Great Yarmouth

Borough Council; and The Broads Authority including local development plans and

the Toursim Strategy (Broads Authority, 2011).


11

GREATER NORWICH DEVELOPMENT AREA

Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (Mott Macdonald,

2010)

3.3 As described by Mott Macdonald, the 2009 Joint Core Strategy (JCS) consultation

report was subject to a Stage 1 Test of Likely Significant Effects and the following

JCS policies were identified as having the potential to have significant effects on

European and Ramsar designated sites:

Policy 3: Energy and Water (which underpins Policy 10 & 12);

Policy 4: Housing (which underpins Policy 10 & 12);

Policy 6: Access and transportation;

Policy 10: Location for major new or expanding communities, and;

Policy 12: The remainder of the Norwich urban area, including the fringe

parishes.

3.4 The Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment considered that only Policy 6 was not likely to

have a significant impact, on the basis that the relevant schemes would be

considered at the project level and not directly related to JCS policies.

3.5 Hydrological issues relating to water supply and water disposal are considered as

potentially significant in respect to policies 3, 4, 10 and 12. As discussed below (4:

Characterising Potential Impacts), measures are underway ‚towards a resolution of

the longer term water resource requirement‛ (Anglian Water, Environment Agency

and Natural England, 2010).

3.6 Increased disturbance is assessed as a potentially significant impact of policy 4 (with

any in-combination disturbance impacts from policy 12 covered under policy 4).

3.7 As described for policy 4, site integrity may be impacted from: ‚In-combination

impacts associated with area-wide growth, resulting in increased visitor pressure on

European designated sites in combination with growth in neighbouring local authority

areas.‛ The identified sites are:


12

Broads SAC;

Broadland Ramsar & SPA;

Breckland SPA & SAC;

Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA;

Winterton – Horsey Dunes SAC; and

North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA & Ramsar.

BROADS AUTHORITY AREA

Core Strategy (Broads Authority, 2006)

3.8 The Habitats Regulations Assessment / Appropriate Assessment for the Core

Strategy concluded that none of the policies presented a significant risk to site

integrity: in general it concluded that ‚any risks will be prevented by the Holistic

interpretation of Core Strategy policies, using Core Strategy Policy 2 for sites

designated with European and National Importance‛.

3.9 Core Strategy Policy 2 states that: ‚policies will take into account National &

European designated conservation sites‛. The most relevant Core Strategy Policies

(CS) to which this applies are: CS 2 (protecting and enhancing new water space); CS

4 (creation of new resources); CS 9 (sustainable tourism); CS 10 (tourist and

recreation development); CS 14 (additional moorings); CS 15 (safe navigation); CS 16

and CS 17 (accessing The Broads in a sustainable manner) CS 19 (sustainable

locations for medium / larger visitor developments)

3.10 Two sites were identified as possibly at risk of impacts namely: Breydon Water SPA

and Ramsar Site (CS 10); and The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site and the Broadland

SPA (CS 10, CS 16 and CS 17). For both sites CS 2 is identified as the key policy for

justifying site-by-site assessment of impacts.

Development Management Policies (Wildfrontier Ecology, 2011)

3.11 The assessment of the development management policies was undertaken as an

iterative process, with revisions to the wording and the subsequent strengthening of

some policies resulting in the conclusion that impacts on site integrity are unlikely.

However, if a proposal is considered in the context of a given policy to have an effect

on an internationally designated site then it will need to be considered against the

Habitats Directive and a project level Appropriate Assessment undertaken.


13

Site Specific Policies (Interim Draft HRA) (Wildfrontier Ecology, 2012)

3.12 An assessment of the ‘finer scale’ policies within the Broads Authority concluded that

significant effects on site integrity were possible for The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA

and Winterton – Horsey Dunes SAC and Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA. The draft

policies of possible concern were those potentially resulting in disturbance and / or

hydrological settlements at the named settlements of Cantley, Brundall, Geat

Yarmouth marina, Horning and Oulton Broad. Non-settlement draft policies with

potential impacts were those relating to management works at Horsey and St

Benet’s Abbey.

3.13 In each case, minor revisions to the wording of individual draft policies resulted in a

revised assessment where no impact on site integrity was concluded.

Tourism Strategy (Broads Authority 2011)

3.14 As understood, the Tourism Strategy has not been subject to a HRA. The Tourism

Strategy (hereafter ‘TS’) provides an assessment of the current position; a

presentation of the strategic approach and objectives; and an identification of

priorities for action.

3.15 By the year 2015 the vision of the TS (pp34) aspires that:

‚Visitor numbers, both land and water based, have increased, especially out of

season and proportionally in the southern broads…. The richness of the biodiversity

and overall environmental quality has further increased and there is tangible evidence

of how this has been supported by tourism. Internationally Qualifying wildlife sites

have been protected and enhanced. Most tourism enterprises are actively involved in

environmental management and are providing their guests with good information to

enhance their stay in the Broads.‛

3.16 In terms of the possible interplay between the TS and the presence of a greater

number of residents in north-east Norwich, the key policies and areas for action are

considered below. Although no attempt is made here to provide a retrospective HRA

of the TS, these key points illustrate the potential future behaviour and distribution of

visitors in the context of natural assets.

3.17 The main product and market opportunities recognized by the TS with respect to

natural assets are (pp25):


14

Ecotourism, providing a wetland experience, with opportunities to observe

and encounter wildlife, with specific products and promotion focused on

particular times of year.

Outdoor activity, for a whole range of activities including exceptional

opportunities to enjoy a range of watersports accessible to users of all

abilities and experience. Opportunities to walk and cycle through an unusual

wilderness environment which can be explored with comparatively little effort

or experience.

3.18 Areas for action within the TS (pp42) include:

1i: Raise local residents’ awareness of Broads product. The continuing

importance of the day visitor market has been highlighted in this strategy.

Business can be generated not only from residents in and around the area but

also from their visiting friends and relatives. It is believed that local awareness

of Broads products and experiences is still quite patchy.

3e: Strengthen visitor awareness of opportunities in the peripheral parts of the

Broads (to include):

o Providing good information about what can be found at the end of each

waterway and how it may differ from the busier, more congested parts.

o Encourage further development of relevant product in the upper reaches,

for example canoe.

o Trails and guided walks and wildlife trips.

o Taking care to manage the scale and distribution of new activity in

sensitive areas, with appropriate advice from conservation managers.

4d: Clarify and present the full spectrum of opportunities to see and enjoy wildlife at all

levels. The opportunity to see and enjoy wildlife in a wetland environment adds special

value to a visit to the Broads for all kinds of people. Wetland habitat can be seen by

some as a barrier to their access to water, so it is particularly important to introduce

people to a positive first experience of this special environment while ensuring

adequate protection is in place for qualifying locations. This should involve:


15

Identifying a set of reserves which offer an excellent opportunity to get out

into a range of wetland habitats, often including the possibility of gaining

access to the water’s edge.

Developing a hierarchy concept with certain centres playing a key role in

providing a well-supported first experience of the landscape and of the

privilege of seeing and understanding some of the wildlife that it supports.

Signposting those who are ready to appreciate and enjoy the experience to

wilder and more remote places, which may be rewarded by more spectacular

or less usual wildlife sightings; supporting this step with introductory guided

walks.

Monitoring proposed improved or promoted access to ensure adequate

protection is in place to safeguard Qualifying and important wildlife habitats

and species.

Strengthen the interpretation of the special wildlife and habitats of the Broads

at places where people tend to congregate and linger, as well as at qualifying

reserves.

Recognising and rewarding the environmental credentials of individual guides

through a Green Badge award.

4e: Further develop and promote opportunities for walking and cycling in the

Broads. Land-based visitors should be encouraged to obtain a first hand

experience of the Broads by exploring on foot or bike. ‘Going for a short walk’

remains the most popular activity undertaken by visitors but, in the rather

challenging conditions of the Broads environment, opportunities often need to

be created and maintained. Broads Cycle Hire Centres offer easy access to

bikes but, certainly in some parts of the Broads, there is demand for better

opportunities to cycle away from traffic.

3.19 The requirements to encouraging more people to explore the Broads on foot and by

bike will include (pp50):

Co-coordinating information about existing walking and cycling opportunities

that exist based on the Outdoor Norfolk website.


16

Introducing new provision for off-road cycling, especially demonstration

projects linked to cycle hire centres in the northern Broads and taking

opportunities as they may arise from flood defence and other major works.

Highlighting short walks that provide an easy waterside experience, drawing

attention to any special aspects such as stretches of boardwalk.

Supporting development of the Three Rivers Way as a significant opportunity

to encourage walking and cycling in this heavily trafficked area.

4i: Promote and develop opportunities for angling, in accordance with best

practice in fisheries management and other biodiversity considerations.

3.20 A suite of policies relate to environmental sustainability (pp55), including:

6a: Protect landscapes, amenity and biodiversity from intrusive development.

6b: Monitor and maintain appropriate zoning and management of waterspace

and wetlands for different forms of access and recreation.

6c: Ensure all visitors are provided with appropriate information on

responsible access and activities.

6e: Promote higher environmental standards of boat design and operations.

6f: Establish an initiative for visitor support for conservation.

GREAT YARMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL

3.21 Great Yarmouth is located at the very eastern end of The Broads and is major tourist

destination. Located at the north end of the main ‘tourist beach’ is the Great

Yarmouth North Denes SPA, designated for little terns Sterna albifrons; the upper

part of the River Yare estuary immediately above Great Yarmouth is designated as

Breydon Water Ramsar Site and SPA.

Waterfront Area Action Plan (Grant, 2010) and Core Strategy of the Great Yarmouth

Local Development Framework

3.22 As reported by Grant (2010) in the HRA of the Waterfront Area Action Plan, the Core

Strategy identified the following likely significant effects:


17

Recreational pressures from increased numbers of visitors to Winterton-

Horsey Dunes SAC, Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA and Breydon Water

SPA/Ramsar;

Urban effects, such as litter and lighting, on Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC

and Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA; and

Surface run-off resulting in a deterioration of water quality in watercourses,

which in turn could have an effect on the Broads SAC and Broadlands

SPA/Ramsar and Breydon Water SPA/Ramsar.

3.23 The HRA for the Waterfront Action Plan (Grant 2010) concluded possible impacts on

site integrity as follows:

Water quality and hydrology of the Broads SAC and Broadlands SPA/Ramsar

and Breydon Water SPA/Ramsar;

Impact of recreation on dunes at Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC;

Disturbance at Breydon Water SPA/Ramsar; and

Disturbance to nesting little tern at Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA.


18

4 CHARACTERISING POTENTIAL IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION

4.1. The main potential impacts identified in relation to development within the North-east

Norwich Growth Area are on groundwater flows and levels of recreational

disturbance.

4.2. Potential impacts of water abstraction and water disposal are not treated here

explicitly as both are considered to have been assessed fully by the GNDP water

cycle study (Scott Wilson, 2010) and covered by Mott Macdonald (2010) in their

Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Joint Core Strategy.

4.3. Since the publication of the original Mott Macdonald (2010) HRA a number of

planning and legal processes were undertaken, summarised by Anglian Water,

Environment Agency and Natural England (2012) as follows:

‚In brief, (the Appropriate Assessment) concluded that it was highly unlikely that the

(Joint Core Strategies) JCS policies would have a significant direct or indirect impact

on European and Ramsar designated sites. However, the report highlighted some

areas of uncertainty regarding potential in combination and cumulative effects

associated with water resources, water quality, water efficiency, growth and tourism

on such sites, because of the dependence on the effectiveness and implementation

of mitigation measures and actions required to avoid adverse impact on site integrity.

The mitigation measures suggested were:

The implementation of green infrastructure developments

The allocation of green space to protect specific natural assets and designated

sites to be implemented through area action plans. Actions required to remove

and/or avoid adverse effect were:

The implementation of water infrastructure improvements (for water resources and

waste water treatment) and water efficient measures as recommended in the

water cycle study, enforced through Anglian Water’s Water Resource

Management Plan in ensuring that sufficient water supplies can be made

available to meet planned growth and as supported by the position statements

issued by Anglian Water, Natural England and the Environment Agency.…


19

‚In the short term, Anglian Water has demonstrated that their existing licensed

resources supplying the Greater Norwich area are sufficient to serve projected

development beyond the current AMP which ends in 2015, while capping

abstractions at Costessey below historic levels. This has been established through

an addendum to the original HRA.

While a solution to the longer term water resources issue has not been finalised, the

process is progressing as agreed, and Anglian Water has submitted a document

outlining a range of potential solutions. This is currently subject to discussions with

the other bodies….

Under the circumstances, all parties agree that the conclusion of the Habitats

Regulations Assessment dated February 2010 remains unchanged, subject to the

progress noted above in working towards a resolution of the longer term water

resource requirement.‛

4.4. As such, potential impacts of water abstraction and water disposal are not

considered in the information towards an Appropriate Assessment presented in this

document.

GROUNDWATER FLOWS

4.5. The first potential mechanism of impact is on groundwater flows, namely the

potential changes in local groundwater flows, modified through the interception of

rainfall, affecting Crostwick Marsh SSSI which is a component site of The Broads

SAC and the Broadland SPA/ Ramsar.

DISTURBANCE

4.6. Of principal importance to this assessment are:

Trampling effects on vegetation and

Disturbance of birds.

4.7. The most visible impact on most habitats is direct trampling effects, destroying

vegetation, preventing re-growth and compressing soils. Related mechanisms

include nutrient enrichment from dog fouling and even directly irresponsible

behaviour such as fires and littering.


20

4.8. The significance of disturbance is one of the 100 key policy questions for ecological

research (Sutherland et al., 2006). A key question in disturbance research is how to

scale individual impacts to the population level, which is required when establishing

effects on site integrity. The interpretation of disturbance effects is potentially

confounded by a range of factors including differences in behavioural responses

among species, the impact on individual condition or ‘fitness’ and consequent

impacts on survival and reproduction. Effects are also dependant on the availability

of alternative feeding areas and resource availability and weather (Goss-Custard et

al., 2006).

4.9. Among the factors that confound the interpretation of observational studies of

disturbance is the potential difference among species in their responses. Thus, some

species may fly away or leave an area when disturbed but others may remain but

nevertheless feed at a lower rate, with impacts on individual fitness. Some studies

may interpret such an absence of an obvious response as tolerance or habituation to

disturbance, while the opposite may be true (Gill et al., 2001a).

4.10. Thus, in reviewing the impacts of disturbance on birds a precautionary approach

should be applied, with an appreciation of the interplay of factors and difficulties in

the scaling from behaviour to individual and population level effects.

4.11. Projecting increases in disturbance in relation to housing is difficult. Although some

work has shown a correlation between housing and visitor numbers (e.g. Jones et al.,

2003) the predictive models work well for the numbers of visitors arriving by foot but

are much less able to show links between housing numbers and density and visitors

arriving by car (Liley et al., 2006). A myriad of factors would be expected to

determine the numbers of visitors, including general factors such as the weather and

economic conditions, more regional factors such as road and rail accessibility, and

local factors such as the proximity of toilets and other facilities. The availability

and/or introduction of alternative facilities that may displace visitor numbers is also a

key issue, particularly in ensuring that estimates of visitor impact are made on a

consistent basis.

4.12. Even with an understanding of the actual and projected numbers of visitors, the

disturbance experienced by individual birds will vary according to local conditions,

possibly including proximity, sight lines and the feeding quality of habitats.

Generally, however, disturbance which limits food accessibility at critical times of the


21

year, particularly for open-habitat dwelling bird species, as well as disturbances on

the breeding grounds, are the most disturbing types of activity.

4.13. Generally, however, visitors to wetland reserves can be appropriately managed by

the use of spatial and temporal zoning of activities, screening at sensitive locations

and visitor management policies that reflect the site specific conditions and the

species potentially affected. Details are provided in Kirby et al. (2004). The RSPB and

Wildlife Trusts successfully integrate visitors and nature conservation across a broad

range of sites in the UK. Further, the proximity of the disturbance source and its type,

substantially affects a bird species response to that disturbance. Disturbance from

vehicles along roads adjacent to sites of bird interest may be generally habituated for

whereas people walking through an open area can cause significant disturbance to

certain species that rely on open habitats with good sight-lines, but this type of

disturbance is far less disturbing than someone using a shotgun, for example (see Hill

et al., 1997).


22

5 CHARACTERISING CURRENT AND FUTURE VISITOR NUMBERS

5.1. To help inform an assessment of the potential scale of visitor increases and thus

impacts as a result of the project, this section considers the issue of visitor numbers

in further detail. A key resource and source of data are visitor surveys undertaken in

2011 to characterise the community of visitors to The Broads.

THE BROADS

Overview

5.2. The Broads is a large and very complex area, with numerous protected sites,

honeypot tourist attractions including nature reserves, significant boating activity

including 4746 private motor cruisers and a fleet of over 855 hire craft, and large and

small mooring locations. Total boat movements are reported by the Broads Authority

(2010), showing a clear and substantial decline among the hire fleet from 1986 to

2010 (a decline from 16501 movements to 8005) and a stable or possible slight

decline over the same time by private craft to 3723 in 2010.

5.3. Estimates of tourist numbers to The Broads and its immediate environs (the area

‚under the influence of The Broads‛) are in the region of 6.9 million per annum of

which 84% are day visitors (Broads Authority, 2011, p20). Numbers at specific sites

in 2011 include (from Visit England, 2012):

168k at BeWILDerwood, an adventure park for children with a national profile;

accessible by road only (www.bewilderwood.co.uk).

30k at Fairhaven Garden Trust, ornamental gardens and garden centre;

accessible by road only (www.fairhavengadem.co.uk).

30k at Toad Hall, a small cottage museum run by the Broads Authority and

located on How Hill National Nature Reserve.

28k at RPSB Strumpshaw, a flagship reserve accessible by car and rail.

4k at RSPB Berney Marshes, a reserve with difficult road and rail access.

http://www.bewilderwood.co.uk/

http://www.fairhavengadem.co.uk/


23

5.4. The nearest large conurbations to The Broads are:

Great Yarmouth, which is characterised as having 94k residents and 41k

households and is a major tourism destination with 1.3m staying visitors and

3.7m day-visitors annually (Great Yarmouth BC, 2009). Great Yarmouth is

located on the coast at the eastern end of The Broads.

Norwich, which is characterised as having 132,000 residents (Norwich City

Council, 2011) and 430,000 staying tourists a year (Visit England, 2012).

Projections of Future Visitor Numbers

5.5. Visitor survey data were collected from four sites (Hoveton Great Broad, Hickling,

Ranworth; and RSPB Strumpshaw) in The Broads in 2011 and are explored more

fully in Appendix 2. On average 48% of visitors are from the Norwich and Ipswich

postcodes, a figure declining to 36% if the RSPB Strumpshaw reserve is removed

from the data, on the basis that it may be more likely to attract more specialist

birdwatchers rather than casual visitors.

5.6. More locally, there are few apparent patterns when the data are analysed for the

Norwich postcodes of NR1-7 (Appendix 1: Figure 1). The percentage of visitors to

each of the four sites ranges from 0% to 4% if RSPB Strumpshaw is excluded and

up to 13% if included. The total percentage of visitors from the combined NR1-7

postcodes is on average 15% (range 8-26%).

5.7. These data can be used to create projections for increases in visitor numbers to

protected sites, based on projected population growth attributable to development

projects and by extrapolation from proportion of visitors from a postcode currently

visiting a site.

5.8. For simplicity, it can be assumed that the proposals for the North-east Norwich

Growth Area are equivalent to an additional postcode area, based on a figure of

10,000 new dwellings and each of the current Norwich postcodes estimated to

comprise 11,000 to 16,000 dwellings. If the current Norwich postcodes contribute

C% of visitors to a site (so the average percentage from any one of the seven

postcode is [C/7]%), then for a site currently receiving V visitors in total then the

increase in the numbers of visitors will be 1/7[C/100xV]. The actual numbers of

visitors in future will consequently be V+1/7[C/100xV].


24

5.9. For example, a site with 1000 visitors a year in total, where 28% of visitors are from

an NR1-7 postcode, will in future receive approximately 1000 + (1/7)*(28/100)*1000

visitors each year, or 1040 visitors as a consequence of a development equivalent to

one new postcode. [To illustrate a range of potential increases, calculated estimates

of future visitor numbers are given below (Table 3) according to the current

percentage of visitors from Norwich, numbers of new houses and current total

visitors (within the range of 1,000 to 30,000, with 30,000 being a value similar to

currently experienced by Toad Hall (How Hill NNR) and RSPB Strumpshaw). The

NS&OC project, incorporating up to 3,520 proposed dwellings, is most closely

equivalent to the estimates for 4000 dwellings.

Table 3. Future numbers of visitors based on various levels of current use and future

population size.

Current visitor levels

Numbers of new dwellings where 10k is equivalent to 1 postcode and each lower value is a fraction of a postcode

(000s)

1000 dwellings (1/10 of a new postcode)

2000 dwellings

4000 dwellings

5000 dwellings

10000 dwellings

(2/10 of a new postcode)



(1 new postcode)

28% of current visitors from NR1-7

1,000 1,004 1,008 1,016 1,020 1,040

4,000 4,016 4,032 4,064 4,080 4,160

10,000 10,040 10,080 10,160 10,200 10,400

15,000 15,060 15,120 15,240 15,300 15,600

20,000 20,080 20,160 20,320 20,400 20,800

30,000 30,120 30,240 30,480 30,600 31,200


1,000 1,005 1,010 1,020 1,025 1,050

4,000 4,020 4,040 4,080 4,100 4,200

10,000 10,050 10,100 10,200 10,250 10,500

15,000 15,075 15,150 15,300 15,375 15,750

20,000 20,100 20,200 20,400 20,500 21,000

30,000 30,150 30,300 30,600 30,750 31,500


1,000 1,006 1,011 1,023 1,029 1,057

4,000 4,023 4,046 4,091 4,114 4,229

10,000 10,057 10,114 10,229 10,286 10,571

15,000 15,086 15,171 15,343 15,429 15,857

20,000 20,114 20,229 20,457 20,571 21,143

30,000 30,171 30,343 30,686 30,857 31,714


25

5.10. In the context of NS&OC the projected values would be in the region of 4000

dwellings or 40% of the numbers for the whole north-east Norwich North-east

Norwich Growth Area . A more detailed breakdown of the population numbers on

completion of NS&OC is in the region of 7678 residents or fewer than 30% of the

average numbers for an individual postcode area. That is, the estimated numbers of

additional residents attributable to the NS&OC project are overestimates.

5.11. As an alternative method for exploring increases in visitor numbers, comparison

could be made to the whole Norwich City Council population of 132,000 people. As

shown by the visitor survey data, between 28 and 40% of visitors at a site come from

the combined NR1-7 postcodes (although the figures are not directly comparable, as

part of NR7 is within Broadland DC area, but the errors are considered minor). Thus,

for a site receiving 30,000 visitors (such as RSPB Strumpshaw or Toad Cottage, How

Hill) then between 8,400-12,000 visits are from a population of 132,000; in terms of

the ‘Norwich’ population then these visitor numbers equate to 6.3-9% of the

‘Norwich’ population visiting a site. If the population of the growth triangle increases

the population by 7k, from 132,000 to 139,000 and these percentages remain the

same then the future numbers of visits equate to 8,757 (6.3% of 139,000) to 12,510

(9% of 139,000).

5.12. As an alternative method for exploring increases in visitor numbers, comparison

could be made to the whole Norwich City Council population of 132,000 people. As

shown by the visitor survey data, between 28 and 40% of visitors at a site come from

the combined NR1-7 postcodes (although the figures are not directly comparable, as

part of NR7 is within Broadland DC area, but the errors are considered minor). Thus,

for a site receiving 30,000 visitors (such as RSPB Strumpshaw or Toad Cottage, How

Hill) then between 8,400-12,000 visits are from a population of 132,000; in terms of

the ‘Norwich’ population then these visitor numbers equate to 6.3-9% of the

‘Norwich’ population visiting a site. If the population of the growth triangle increases

the population by 7k, from 132,000 to 139,000 and these percentages remain the

same then the future numbers of visits equate to 8,757 (6.3% of 139,000) to 12,510

(9% of 139,000).

5.13. In the context of NS&OC the projected values would be fewer than 4000 dwellings or

40% of the numbers for the whole north-east Norwich North-east Norwich Growth

Area . A more detailed breakdown of the population numbers on completion of

NS&OC is in the region of 7678 residents or fewer than 30% of the average numbers


26

for an individual postcode area. That is, the estimated numbers of additional

residents attributable to the NS&OC project are overestimates.

UNDERSTANDING OF SEASONAL PATTERNS OF USE

5.14. There are no comparative data available on the numbers of visitors in spring versus

summer, but almost certainly there are substantially fewer in winter. Evidence to

support this supposition includes:

40% of Norfolk tourism businesses having up to 60% ‘spare capacity’ in

winter versus 36% of businesses having 30% capacity or less in June (EDP,

2012).

A substantially smaller range of motor craft for hire in winter compared to

summer; for example Herbert Woods (2012) over 70 craft for hire in summer

compared to a winter fleet of 11 and some hire companies do not offer any

winter hire.

The closure of several nature reserve visitor centres in winter, including both

of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s centres (Ranworth and Hickling Broads) and all

three of the Broads Authority’s visitor centres (How Hill/Toad Cottage,

Wroxham/Hoveton and Whitlingham).

In the Suffolk Sandlings, although visitor surveys did not report estimates of

total numbers of visitors in each season it was clear there were more tourists

in summer compared to winter (19% of all visitors in summer were tourists

versus 6% in winter).This work also demonstrated that the relative

contributions of different activities varied significantly, with dog walking

comprising 60% of winter compared to 42% of summer activity, walking and

cycling varied less from 24% to 20% and from 6% to 10% respectively

(Cruickshanks et al., 2010).

UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BEESTON PARK AS MITIGATION

5.15. Proposals for development at NS&OC include the provision of a major new public

park at Beeston Park, part of a wider network of 50 hectares of linked parks at

NS&OC, involving restoring and conserving Beeston Park, a locally-designated

historic parkland, as a country park to serve the wider north-east Norwich area,

amongst a range of other green infrastructure provision. This will be available for

existing and future residents of the North-east Norwich area and provide a significant


27

recreation resource in an area where there are few at present (and where access to

the countryside via public rights of way is poor) and as alterative to The Broads for

land-based activities.

5.16. It is likely that the provision of Beeston Park as mitigation will reduce the numbers of

future residents – albeit to an undefined extent – from the North-east Norwich Growth

Area and existing residents from north Norwich visiting The Broads. It is considered

that the resources available in Beeston Park are most likely to be attractive to day

visitors who would otherwise use The Broads for dog walking and shorter recreation

walks.

5.17. In terms of understanding the likely use of Beeston Park by visitors – and in the

context of providing faciltlies for visitors otherwise using The Broads reference is

made to the activities listed in The Broads Visitor Survey compared to the activities

listed by Handley et al. (2003) as being those used by urban park users (Table 4).

There is clear overlap for most activities except those requiring water, beaches and

sightseeing; the lack of picknicking as an activity in urban parks may be an artefact

of the reviewing process by Handley et al. (2003). Thus, there is clear potential for

Beeston Park to act as an alternative resource for the visitors ‘going for a walk’ which

comprises one of the principal activities cited by visitors as the motivation for visiting,

with 20-29% reporting this as their principal activity.

5.18. As a general resource for visitors, it is likely that Beeston Park will have many other

attractive features for visitors, such as being a natural landscape, facilities and

character such as spaciousness (Handley et al., 2003). The woodland areas have the

potential to be of high value for local visitors in being sufficiently large to create an

aesthetic woodland environment and with an open structure (Coles & Bussey, 2000).

Beeston Park will be within easy access for residents of the NS&OC area, and this is

likely to be a key factor promoting its popularity as supported by several studies

which show that easy access on foot is a key driver of the popularity of urban

greenspace (Schipperijn et al., 2010.


28

Table 4. Comparison between the activities of visitors in The Broads versus those indicated

as important for users of urban parks (from Handley et al., 2003); ‘X’ denotes a popular ativity

for urban parks.

Visitor Survey Handley et al. (2003) Activities

Strumpshaw Ranworth Hickling Hoveton

Great Broad

Going for a walk 21.5% 27.0% 28.6% 19.7% X

Walking a dog 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% X

Recreational cycling 0.0% 4.0% 3.2% 0.0% X

Bird/nature watching 66.7% 4.6% 44.4% 64.6% X

Beach activities (e.g.

swimming, paddling)

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Sailing, boating or

power boating

0.0% 18.3% 12.7% 1.6%

Visiting an attraction 2.1% 11.8% 0.0% 11.4%

Sightseeing 6.3% 22.0% 3.2% 2.8%

Picnicking 3.5% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Other (please specify

below)

0.0% 4.8% 7.9% 0.0%

5.19. The GNDP Joint Core Strategy and GNDP Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan identify

the need for a large scale green space in the North-east Norwich Growth Area such

as a country park aiming, inter alia, to ‚ensure no adverse impacts on the Broads

SAC‛.

5.20. In the context of the HRA process, the proposals for Beeston Park satisfy the criteria

proposed by Tyldesley and Hoskins (2008) to be considered as mitigation and can be

included within the Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment (see 2. The Assessment

Process and Methodology: Process)

5.21. Beeston Park comprises 43.1 hectares of restored parkland and enhanced woodland

and will provide a new recreational facility for local residents and visitors alike, as well

as an area of high quality habitat for a number of species. The key features of the

park are:

29.5 hectares of restored parkland north and south of Beeston Hall reverted

from its current use as agricultural land to a mosaic of scattered trees and

grassland.

A range of new walking and fitness routes, areas for formal and informal play

alongside space for picnicking, wildlife interest areas and other facilities

such as a bandstand or performance space and café.


29

13.6 hectares enhanced semi-natural woodland plus a new landscaped

edge around the south and west of Beeston Park providing play space,

walking routes, SuDS features and opportunities for a forest garden

incorporating fruit and nut trees, herbs and vegetables. This buffered

woodland fringe will also maintain the existing commuting route for bats and

provide an enhanced foraging habitat on the outside of the woodland.

Several water features including space to accommodate 13,300m3 water as

part of NS&OCs Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS), as well as attenuation

basins and swales incorporated into a new landscaped edge to the park.

These will form an integral part of the NS&OC SuDS network, as well as

providing focal points for wildlife and for education.

5.22. Beeston Park will be phased in accordance with the Green Infrastructure Statement

and the Phasing Plan, submitted as part of the NS&OC planning application (Table 5).

Table 5. Phasing plan for the restoration of Beeston Park and its provision as a recreation

facility.

Project

sub-area

Phase 0 (pre-

construction)

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Beeston

Park &

Red Hall

Farm

Arable reversion,

parkland

restoration and

woodland

enhancement

commences at

Beeston Park with

six months growing

season prior to

construction.

Beeston Park (south)

and Red Hall Farm

opened to public

access; development

of detailed park plan

with local

stakeholders;

completion of

woodland

enhancement and

landscaped buffer.

Beeston Park

fully opened to

public access;

development of

Beeston Park and

Red Hall Farm

according to

detailed park plan

Completion of

Beeston Park

and Red Hall

Farm

according to

detailed park

plan

5.23. A core principle of the business model of Beyond Green, the promoter, is that the

promoter stays involved over the long term as master developer, land and property

owner, estate and asset manager and commercial operator at NS&OC. This means

setting and maintaining standards over multiple development phases and market

cycles and actively managing assets for best sustainability outcomes and value – and

as long term investments. As such, and because of the nature and multifunctionality

of Beeston Park and other green spaces at NS&OC, long-term management of

Beeston Park will be vital.


30

5.24. Management will therefore:

allow for the provision of core maintenance functions alongside community

functions;

ensure public use of spaces in perpetuity;

provide spaces that are free for local residents at the point of consumption;

be financially sustainable through a range of mechanisms including

optimising opportunities for revenue generation on site;

maintain flexibility to ensure high quality management of the full range of

multifunctional green and blue spaces through a range of partners;

accord with NS&OC’s green infrastructure principles and work towards the

highest standards of environmental and social sustainability including those

which require changes in behaviour and lifestyle; and

link with management of the wider site.

5.25. While management responsibility is yet to be determined, it is anticipated that the

involvement of a number of partners will be required including Sprowston Town

Council, Broadland District Council, Norfolk County Council and potentially local

businesses, service companies, social enterprises, entrepreneurs and more.

CURRENT AND FUTURE NUMBERS OF VISITORS TO THE NORTH NORFOLK

COAST

5.26. North Norfolk receives substantially greater numbers of visitors annually compared to

The Broads. Annual estimates of visits are: 7.7m, day only and; 5.5m overnight

(Rayment et al., 2000). The numbers of visitors to individual sites/attractions also

substantially exceed the maximum numbers in The Broads (excluding the

BeWiLDerwood adventure park).


31

5.27. Several individual sites appear to be substantially more popular than the most

popular in The Broads (data from Liley, 2008):

Seven sites reported visitor numbers greater than 100k in 2005;

The RSPB reserves of Titchwell reported 89,210 visitors (compared to 30k

for RSPB Strumpshaw), Cley reported 100k, Lady Anne’s Drive Holkham

reported 110k and Sheringham Park 180k.

5.28. Projections of the increases in the actual number and proportion of visitors

attributable to the North-east Norwich Growth Area and NS&OC are not available,

but it is considered likely that they will be less than for The Broads.

SUMMARY OF VISITOR PROJECTIONS

5.29. As projected from current visitor data, the actual numbers of additional visitors to

sites in The Broads are likely to be relatively few, less than 4% at most for the most

heavily visited sites with all 10k new dwellings completed. Further, the presence of

Beeston Park as a local recreational resource will serve to reduce these numbers,

both directly and by displacing some existing visits.

5.30. Although no data are available for North Norfolk, its greater popularity as a visitor

area and greater distance from Norwich make it likely that the contribution of the

North-east Norwich Growth Area to visitor pressure will be substantially less

compared to The Broads.

5.31. No data are available to generate seasonal projections, especially with respect to

sites away from the major centres, but in qualitative terms the numbers of visitors in

winter will clearly be substantially fewer than in summer. However, in terms of

developing an understanding of impacts and informing an Appropriate Assessment

of impacts it is considered sufficient to base the assessment on an understanding

that numbers of visitors will be greater, but not substantially greater. At present

however it is not possible to consider that a ‘not substantially greater’ number of

visitors will not result in significant impacts.


32

6 SCOPING OF SITES

SITES WITHIN 40KM

6.1. As a guide for the sites to be considered within the scoping exercise, reference is

made to the HRA produced for the Joint Core Strategy (Mott Macdonald, 2010),

which identified housing delivery and associated disturbance as being a potential

impact for the following sites: The Broads SAC; Broadland SPA and The Broads

Ramsar Site; Breckland SPA & SAC; Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA; Winterton –

Horsey Dunes SAC; North Norfolk Coast SPA, SAC and Ramsar Site. These sites all

lie within a 40km but are only a sub-set of the designated sites within this radius.

6.2. As a screening exercise here a 40km radius is used to identify sites (Table 6), as an

approximate mid-way distance from the large conurbations of Cambridge and

Ipswich. This distance is twice the distance used as a buffer in the HRA of the

Breckland Core Strategy (Liley et al., 2008; p 10), a distance determined from

experience of visitor survey work in relation to designated sites in the New Forest.

This distance is similar to the 50km cut-off as the distance travelled by day-visitors

used by Liley (2008) in assessing housing impacts on the North Norfolk Coast,

although he acknowledged that housing further away may be relevant. Although in-

combination effects with housing plans with other areas is possible, guidance is

taken from Mott Macdonald (2010, p18) and consideration is predominantly given to

neighbouring local authorities.

Table 6. International sites within 40km of the project area.

Site name Status Euclidian

distance

(km)

Summary of

designated features

Vulnerabilities (from Mott

Macdonald, 2008)

The Broads Ramsar

site

2.9

Wetland habitats,

plants birds, and

other animals.

None cited, but probably as

for SAC with disturbance

likely to be a factor.

The Broads SAC 2.9 Wetland vegetation,

plants and other

animals.

Sea level rise, abstraction

reducing flows in northern

rivers, eutrophication from

sewage and agricultural run-

off

Broadland SPA 2.9 Wetland birds. None cited, but probably as

for The Broads SAC with

disturbance likely to be a

factor also

River

Wensum

SAC 6 Aquatic vegetation

and animals.

Development on flood plain,

agricultural eutrophication

and run-off, abstraction,

non-native species

Norfolk SAC 11 Wetland vegetation Reduction in management


33


distance

(km)

Summary of

designated features


Macdonald, 2008)

Valley Fens and plants;

invertebrates

and groundwater abstraction

Breydon

Water

SPA 21 Wetland and estuarine

birds

Disturbance to a high tide

roost of wading birds,

drainage of wet grassland,

‘pressure’ from development

of Great Yarmouth

Breydon

Water

Ramsar

site

21 Wetland and estuarine

birds


for the SPA

Great

Yarmouth

North Denes

SPA 26 Breeding little terns Reduced accretion,

predators and disturbance

from people and dogs

Winterton –

Horsey

Dunes

SAC 22 Dune habitats and

great crested newts

Cessation of erosion and

accretion due to sea

defences, beach feeding

with inappropriate sand,

water abstraction and

visitors causing disturbance,

erosion and fires

Paston Barn SAC 20 Barbastelle bat Development of a visitor

centre

Overstrand

Cliffs

SAC 26 Soft cliff vegetation Coastal protection and

artificial drainage

The Wash

and North

Norfolk

Coast (

SAC 38 Coastal and marine

habitats and

vegetation; common

seal, grey seal and

otter

Sea level rise, storm surges,

erosion, abstraction and

disturbance from tourism

North

Norfolk

Coast

SAC 37 Coastal and marine

habitats and

vegetation; common

seal, otter and great

crested newt and

petalwort




North

Norfolk

Coast

SPA 37 Wetland and coastal

birds




North

Norfolk

Coast

Ramsar

Site

37 Coastal and marine

habitats and

vegetation; birds and

other animals




Breckland SPA 36 Heathland birds Nitrogen deposition, egg

collecting.

Breckland SAC 36 Heathland vegetation

and habitats;

Breckland meres and

alluvial forest; great

crested newt and

barbastelle bat

Reduction in grazing and

cutting, nitrogen deposition,

recreation, groundwater

abstraction

Benacre to

East

Bavents

SPA 38 Wetland birds Sea level rise and erosion.

Benacre to

East

Bavents

SAC 38 Coastal lagoon

habitat and alluvial

forest


for the SPA


34


distance

(km)

Summary of

designated features


Macdonald, 2008)

Lagoon

Redgrave to

South

Lopham

Fens

Ramsar

site

39 Wetland habitat and a

spider


for the Waveney and Little

Ouse Valley Fens SAC

Waveney

and Little

Ouse Valley

Fens

SAC 39 Wetland vegetation;

Desmoulin’s whorl

snail

Loss of traditional

management, water

abstraction and land

drainage

SCOPING-OUT OF INTERNATIONAL SITES

6.3. As justified in Section 5: Characterising Potential Impacts, the key likely potential

impacts to be considered here are: recreational pressure and disturbance effects.

Potential impacts of water abstraction and water disposal are not considered here,

although potential impacts of changes to groundwater flows in the local vicinity are

assessed.

6.4. As a scoping exercise to identify which sites are potentially at risk, the criterion for a

site to be scoped-out is that it is:

Likely to be unattractive to visitors from Norwich at least in relative terms.

This may be via a combination of isolation by distance in absolute terms, the

low relative increase in the numbers of visitors compared to those

attributable to nearer conurbations or the absence of reasonable attractions

for recreational users from Norwich.

6.5. An element of opinion is used in assigning this criterion, based on the available

information on visitor activity. For example, the Breckland sites are scoped-out on

the basis of work by Dolman et al. (2008) who undertook a survey of visitors actually

using semi-natural areas as opposed to more formal tourist attractions in Breckland

and determined that 43% of visitors were from within 5km and another 20% from 5-

10km. Against the proposed 9000 housing allocation for the Breckland District

Council, it is unlikely that visitors from Norwich will contribute significant numbers of

visitors in relative or absolute terms. Other factors that make sites less attractive

include limited car parking and the absence of toilets and cafes.


35

6.6. Against these criteria the majority of the international sites are scoped-out (Table 7).

Table 7. Summary of sites: scoped-in and scoped-out.

Site name Status Euclidean

distance

from

north-east

Norwich

Justification

Scoped-Out

Norfolk Valley

Fens

SAC 11 Likely to be unattractive to visitors in the main,

lacking sophisticated facilities. Some sites

privately owned. The closest site is Buxton Heath

managed by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust where

facilities for visitors are few, with limited parking.

It is not promoted as a site to access.

Great Yarmouth

North Denes

SPA 26 Additional numbers of residents minor relative to

proposed housing allocations of 4000 in the Great

Yarmouth Borough Council area. Further, in the

context of Great Yarmouth as a major tourist

resort additional visitor pressure is unlikely to

contribute significantly. In 2008 1.3 million staying

visitors and 3.7 million day visitors (GYBC 2009).

The presence of the designated feature – a colony

of little terns – is advertised by the local tourism

website and is protected by RSPB volunteers

(Enterprise GY, 2012)

Paston Barn SAC 20 Distant from the project area and with little

attraction to casual visitors.

Overstrand

Cliffs

SAC 26 Distant from the project area with designated

features of little attraction and inaccessible to

casual visitors.

The Wash and

North Norfolk

Coast

SAC 38 Largely to the west part of the North Norfolk

coast, this site is scoped-out on the basis of

distance and that substantial parts are managed

as nature reserves with subsequent controls on

visitor access.

Breckland SPA 36 Distant from the project area with available data

showing some 63% of visitors from within 10km.

Additional numbers of residents minor relative to

proposed housing allocations in the Breckland DC

area. Some parts include visitor facilities but

majority of site remote from facilities.

Breckland SAC 36 Distant from the project area with available data

showing some 63% of visitors from within 10km.

Additional numbers of residents minor relative to

proposed housing allocations in the Breckland DC

area. Some parts include visitor facilities but

majority of site remote from facilities.

Benacre to East

Bavents

SPA 38 Distant from the project area and with other

schemes closer but not considered likely to cause

impacts (Grant, 2010).

Benacre to East

Bavents Lagoon

SAC 38 Distant from the project area and with other

schemes closer by not considered likely to cause

impacts (Grant, 2010).


36

Site name Status Euclidean

distance

from

north-east

Norwich

Justification

Redgrave to

South Lopham

Fens

Ramsar

site

39 Distant from the project area with little attraction

to casual visitors.

Waveney and

Little Ouse

Valley Fens

SAC 39 Distant from the project area with little attraction

to casual visitors.

Scoped-In

The Broads SAC 2.9km Part of a major tourist area.

Broadland SPA 2.9km Part of a major tourist area.

The Broads

Ramsar Site

Ramsar

Site

2.9km Part of a major tourist area.

River Wensum SAC 6km Potentially used for recreation but facilities very

limited.

Breydon Water SPA 21km Part of a major tourist area but with very limited

facilities.

Breydon Water

Ramsar Site

Ramsar

Site

21km Part of a major tourist area but with very limited

facilities.

Winterton –

Horsey Dunes

SAC 22km 22km distant, part of a major tourist area with

some visitor facilities.

The North

Norfolk Coast

SAC 37km A major tourist area.

The North

Norfolk Coast

SPA 37km A major tourist area.

The North

Norfolk Coast

Ramsar

Site

37km A major tourist area.


37

7 DESIGNATED FEATURES OF SCOPED-IN SITES

OVERVIEW OF SITES

7.1. Ten sites are scoped-in for the HRA on the basis that they are close to north-east

Norwich and potentially close enough and likely to attract visitors:

The Broads complex, comprising The Broads SAC, The Broads Ramsar Site

and the Broadland SPA;

The River Wensum SAC;

Breydon Water SPA and Breydon Water Ramsar Site;

Winterton – Horsey Dunes SAC; and

The North Norfolk Coast SAC and Ramsar Site and the North Norfolk Coast

SPA.

RIVER WENSUM SAC

7.2. The River Wensum SAC is designated from the headwaters near Fakenham

downstream to Norwich, with the designated boundary in most parts restricted to the

channel and banks but including adjacent marsh and fen in some parts of the valley.

The limit of the designation is Costessey Mill.

7.3. Collectively the designated features cover vegetation, individual plant species, birds

and other animals including invertebrates:

Vegetation, both aquatic and bankside. Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa

and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae);

calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion

davallianae; and water courses of plain to montane levels with the

Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation.

Animals. White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius

pallipes; Desmoulin`s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana; brook lamprey

Lampetra planeri; and bullhead Cottus gobio.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H3260


http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/species.asp?FeatureIntCode=S1092





38

THE BROADS SAC AND RAMSAR SITE, BROADLAND SPA

Overview

7.4. The Broads’ international sites form an extensive network along river valleys in east

Norfolk and north Suffolk. The Broads SAC is comprised of 27 component sites and

the SPA from 26 component sites; as understood the Ramsar site is comprised of 28

component sites.



Aquatic vegetation. Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation

of Chara spp.; and natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or

Hydrocharition-type vegetation.

Fen vegetation. Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the

Caricion davallianae; alkaline fens; Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or

clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae); transition mires and quaking

bogs;

Woodland. Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-

Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)

Plants. Fen orchid Liparis loeselii and other rare plants

Animals. Otter, Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana, Anisus

vorticulus, and other invertebrates

Birds. Overwintering species (pink footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus,

wigeon Anas penelope, shoveler Anas clypeata, gadwall Anas strepera,

Bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus, whooper swan Cygnus cygnus, hen

harrier Circus cyaneus, great bittern Botaurus stellaris, ruff Philomachus

pugnax); overwintering assemblage; breeding birds (marsh harrier Circus

aeruginosus).

Crostwick Marsh SSSI

7.6. The only component site in close proximity to the site is Crostwick Marsh SSSI, a

component of The Broads SAC, The Broads Ramsar site and The Broadland SPA.


39

Crostwick Marsh is 2.9km north of the site boundary. Other component sites are not

listed in detail here, but brief site descriptions are provided in Appendix 1.

7.7. As described by Doarkes (1995), the upper reaches of the Bure support soligenous

sloping fens dominated by rush pasture and fen meadow communities. Crostwick

Marsh itself is an area of unimproved meadow, species rich fen meadow and carr

woodland, situated in a tributary valley of the Bure. In places the valley is quite

steeply sloping, which has encouraged the development of a series of intergrading

vegetation types, from dry calcicolous vegetation on the upper slopes, through damp

grassland, species rich fen meadow and tall herb fen in the valley bottom. The valley

bottom tall herb fen is a topogenous sump wetland, and the remainder are thought to

be predominantly fed by calcium rich spring water seeping from the exposed Upper

Chalk on the valley slopes.

7.8. The dominant community on Crostwick Marshes is B9 (which is equivalent to the

NVC type M22 and consequently satisfies the criterion for the Annex I Alkaline Fen):

Juncus subnodulosus-Cirsium palustre fen meadow. This community is rare in

Broadland, and Crostwick Marshes supports approximately half of the total area.

Grasses, small sedges and abundant small herbs characterise the sward.

Approximately one-third of the area is woodland or scrub, most of which has

developed since 1946.

7.9. Visitor access is limited, with roadside parking for fewer than six cars and access

from nearby conurbations on foot being difficult. A public footpath runs through the

north part of the site.

BREYDON WATER SPA AND RAMSAR SITE

7.10. Breydon Water is a stretch of sheltered estuary formed by the River Yare upstream of

Great Yarmouth, some 5km long and more than 1.5km wide in places.

7.11. Public access is limited to footpaths running along either bank. The navigation

channel is used by pleasure craft to access between the north and south Broads, but

away from the channel there is very little boat traffic due to the shallow water

overlying the mudflats.

7.12. The designated features are primarily birds but the Ramsar Site citation mentions

rare and scarce plants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Yarmouth


40

Birds. Breeding birds (common tern); wintering birds (avocet Recurvirostra

avosetta; Bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii; lapwing Vanellus

vanellus; pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus; wigeon Anas penelope;

shoveler Anas clypeata; golden plover Pluvialis apricaria; and black-tailed

godwit Limosa limosa islandica); passage birds (ruff Philomachus pugnax);

and the whole waterfowl overwintering assemblage.

Plants. Scarce plants of saltmarsh and wetland.

WINTERTON-HORSEY DUNES SAC

7.13. The SAC designation covers primarily sand dune vegetation of various types, with the

great crested newt the only designated animal:

Dune habitats and vegetation. Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-

Ulicetea); humid dune slacks; embryonic shifting dunes; shifting dunes along

the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (`white dunes`).

Animals. Great crested newt Triturus cristatus.

NORTH NORFOLK COAST SPA, SAC AND RAMSAR SITE

7.14. The international sites of the North Norfolk Coast extend along much of the coast

with adjacent marine areas from Weybourne westwards.



Coastal habitats and vegetation. Coastal lagoons; perennial vegetation of

stony banks; Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs

(Sarcocornetea fruticosi); embryonic shifting dunes; shifting dunes along the

shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (`white dunes`); fixed dunes with

herbaceous vegetation (`grey dunes`); humid dune slacks; and dunes with

Hippophae rhamnoides.

Plants. Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii, other scarce plants and a lichen.

Animals. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina; natterjack toad Bufo calamita, great

crested newt; otter; and invertebrates.



















41

Birds. Wintering (whole assemblage); passage (knot Calidris canutus

islandica; ringed plover , Charadrius hiaticula; and bar-tailed godwit , Limosa

lapponica lapponica); breeding (sandwich tern Sterna (Thalasseus)

sandvicensis sandvicensis; common tern Sterna hirundo hirundo; little tern ,

Sterna albifrons albifrons); wintering (pink-footed goose Anser

brachyrhynchus; dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla; wigeon

Anas penelope and pintail Anas acuta).


42

8 STAGE 1: TESTS OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

OVERVIEW

8.1. This and later sections are arranged by the mechanism of impact, with each site (and

designated feature) discussed in turn as identified by the scoping exercise (Table 8).

Table 8. Requirement for a Stage 1: test of likely significant effect and the mechanism of

potential impact. ‘Required’ denotes whether a site is considered against each potential

mechanism of impact.

International Site Potential Impact

Groundwater flows Disturbance

River Wensum SAC Required

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, the

Broadland SPA

Required Required

Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site Required

Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA Required

Winterton – Horsey Dunes SAC Required

North Norfolk Coast SAC Required

North Norfolk Coast SPA Required

8.2. For the purposes of brevity and the reduction of repetition, the individual ecological

features of significance are grouped within the broad classes as in ‘Section 4:

Designated Features of Scoped-in Sites’, unless they can be adequately scoped-out

here (at Stage 1). Detailed considerations of the designated features are provided in

Stage 2, as required.

GROUNDWATER FLOWS

8.3. The Stage 1: Test of Likely Significant Effect considers water disposal in relation to:

Crostwick Marsh SSSI as a component site of The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site,

and the Broadland SPA

8.4. The hydrogeological map of the area (1:125,000, BGS 1978 Northern East Anglia)

shows that the groundwater level in the Chalk aquifer at the site approximately

coincides with the base of the Norwich Crag and top of the Chalk and is at

approximately between 15m and 20m below ground level, which is equivalent to

about between 8m and 15m above OD. The groundwater flow direction across the

site indicated by the groundwater contours on the map is generally from the

southwest to the northeast towards an unnamed tributary of the Crostwick Beck that

is located approximately 1.0km to the east of the site. From there the unnamed


43

tributary flows in a generally northerly direction before its confluence with the

Crostwick Beck some 4km to the northeast of the site, after which the beck flows to

the east. The Crostwick Marsh SSSI is situated about 1km upstream (west) from the

confluence and about 2.9km north of the site.

8.5. Based on the hydrogeology it is considered that the major component of

groundwater flow from beneath the site area will travel north-east and any ground

and surface water interaction will take place either towards the un-named tributary or

further downstream in Crostwick Beck. The component of groundwater recharge

(infiltration) from below the site reaching the Crostwick Beck near the SSSI or

upstream of it will be very small indeed, if not negligible.

8.6. Besides this there is a thick unsaturated zone between the ground surface and the

groundwater table consisting of fine grained granular soil deposits comprising

Brickearth, Glacial Sand and Gravel and Norwich Crag that will provide major

attenuation of any potential contaminants in the surface water run-off from the site as

it moves through any infiltration based SuDS scheme. Much of the runoff will be from

roofs and non-vehicular hard-standings such as paths etc, but even so additional

safeguards will be provided where necessary such as sediment traps, settlement

ponds and petrol / oil interceptors and reed beds in the basins.

8.7. It is considered that there will be no significant adverse impact on the groundwater

quality and quantity with respect to the springs that feed the Crostwick Marsh SSSI,

and therefore it is not necessary to undertake an appropriate assessment with

respect to groundwater. That is, groundwater flows passes Stage 1: Test of Likely

Significant Effects, and an Appropriate Assessment is not required and is not

considered further.

DISTURBANCE

8.8. The Stage 1: Test of Likely Significant Effect considers disturbance in relation to:

The River Wensum SAC;

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, the Broadland SPA;

Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site;

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC; and


44

North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site.

River Wensum SAC

8.9. There are few visitor or recreation facilities along the River Wensum. Much of the

designated area is in private ownership, with restrictions on access, fishing and

canoeing. Public access to water is limited to a few locations, such as an informal

access point near The Swan public house in Ringland. Footpaths run along the banks

for limited sections.

8.10. Further, the designated features are considered to be relatively insensitive to

disturbance, requiring actual water-based recreation for impacts to occur.

8.11. Given these restrictions on public access and its low attraction to visitors, it is

considered unlikely that there would be an impact on site integrity. That is, is it

considered that there is sufficient confidence for significant effects to be considered

unlikely and an Appropriate Assessment is not required for disturbance effects on the

River Wensum SAC.

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, the Broadland SPA

8.12. The Broads is a major tourism area. Its international sites are variously comprised of

28 component sites, with a diverse array of wetland and aquatic habitats. Some

areas – including component sites – receive substantial numbers of visitors and are

subject to both land- and water-based recreational activities. Substantial parts are,

however, without public access or with access restricted to public footpaths and/or

by impassable terrain.

8.13. The distribution of designated features is wide, with some restricted to fewer than

three protected sites and others of wide occurrence within and outside of designated

site boundaries.

8.14. Given the substantial numbers of visitors and the diversity of designated features

both within and outside of protected sites it cannot be concluded that there will not

be an effect on site integrity and an Appropriate Assessment is required for

disturbance effects on The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, the Broadland SPA.


45

Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site

8.15. Breydon Water is the only crossing point between the north and south Broads and

consequently has a busy navigation channel. Land access is limited to public

footpaths along its edges, with very limited car access to the site.

8.16. However, given that wading birds (actually a range of waterfowl including wildfowl

species) are potentially very sensitive to disturbance and it is known that there is a

potentially vulnerable high tide roost for an aggregation of waders it cannot be

concluded that there will not be a significant effect on site integrity and an

Appropriate Assessment is required for disturbance effects on Breydon Water SPA

and Ramsar Site.

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC

8.17. Recreation pressure has been documented as having a potentially deleterious effect

on the dune vegetation (Boorman, 1977; Anderson, 1995). Although public access to

the dune system is relatively limited with three or so car parks, the general area is

popular.

8.18. As such it cannot be concluded that there will not be a significant effect on site

integrity and an Appropriate Assessment is required for disturbance effects on

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC.

North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site

8.19. The North Norfolk Coast is popular with visitors and tourists throughout the year, with

the attraction spanning the autumn and winter bird migration period, the

overwintering period, and the summer period to appreciate the beaches, dunes and

wetlands. It comprises a diverse array of designated sites and designated features,

including some which occur both within and outside of the designated boundaries.

8.20. As such it cannot be concluded that there will not be a significant effect on site

integrity and an Appropriate Assessment is required for disturbance effects on the



46

SUMMARY OF STAGE 1: TESTS OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

8.21. A summary of the Stage 1: Tests of Likely Significant Effects is presented below

(Table 9). The principal potential effects are:

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, Broadland SPA –disturbance.

Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site –disturbance.

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC – disturbance.

North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site – disturbance.

Table 9. Summary of the Stage 1: Tests of likely significant effects. ‘’indicates no significant

effect and ‘X’ denotes a significant effect possible and consequently a requirement for an

Appropriate Assessment.

Feature Groundwater Flows Disturbance

River Wensum SAC

All features

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, Broadland SPA

Fen vegetation types X Aquatic vegetation X Woodland X Rare plants X Fen orchid X Rare invertebrates X Otter X Raptors X Waders X Wildfowl including

swans

X

Bittern X Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site

Rare plants X Waders X Wildfowl including

swans

X

Winterton-Horsey

Dunes SAC

Dune vegetation X

Great crested newt X


Coastal vegetation and

habitats

X

Plants X Animals X Birds X


47

9 STAGE 2: APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

9.1. The Appropriate Assessment follows the same structure as the Stage 1: Tests of

Significant Effects, being arranged by mechanisms with each site then considered

in turn as appropriate; here, the relevant designated features are considered in

detail where required.

9.2. Impacts relating to disturbance are considered for:

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, the Broadland SPA;

Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site;

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC; and


THE BROADS SAC AND RAMSAR SITE, THE BROADLAND SPA

Fen Vegetation

9.3. Four types of designated fen vegetation occur in The Broads. For the general visitor

they are unlikely to be particularly attractive locations to visit, including very wet

underfoot conditions, Cladium dominated areas are particularly unpleasant to

traverse due to its serrated blades and many Molinia meadows can be very

tussocky and wet; alkaline fens and mires are also very wet and difficult to cross.

Also, many areas of these vegetation types are on protected sites and difficult to

access, and although some places such as Burgh Common are accessible via

public footpaths there are few attractions for the general visitor.

9.4. In terms of the management of fen vegetation the key factors are considered to be

management through grazing, cutting or other disturbance (Doarkes, 1995). Factors

attributable to visitors – such as trampling or eutrophication from dog fouling – are

not cited as being issues in fen management.

9.5. As such it is considered unlikely that sites with these designated fen vegetation

types will be exposed to substantial visitor pressure even if there were an increase

in the numbers of general visitors overall to The Broads.


48

9.6. Thus this study concludes that recreational disturbance will not affect these

designated fen vegetation types and consequently the integrity of The Broads SAC

and Ramsar Site will not be affected (Table 10).

Table 10. Summary of the Appropriate Assessment for the impact of recreation disturbance

and pressure on fen vegetation in The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site.

Feature Distribution / Occurrence (from ELP, 2010) Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Alkaline fens. Ant Valley: small number of samples from Catfield

Fen, Broad Fen near Dilham and Smallburgh Fen.

Bure Valley, lower: scattered samples near Horning

(north bank of Bure), Horning Marshes and Barton

Broad including Hall Fen.

Bure Valley, upper: scattered locations, Upton

Broad, Woodbastwick Fen and Marshes and

Catfield Fen.

Thurney Valley: scattered samples in vicinity of

Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere.

Waveney Valley: single sample.

Yare Valley: two samples, one on Langley Fen and

one on Duncan’s Marsh near Thurton

No impact on

site integrity.

Calcareous fens

with Cladium

mariscus and

species of the

Caricion

davallianae.

Ant Valley: clusters of samples, from Horning

Marshes, Reedham Marsh, Catfield Fen and nearby

areas, Barton Broad, Sutton Fen, Barton Fen, and

Common Fen and Broad Fen near Dilham.

Bure Valley: clusters of samples, at Burgh Common,

Decoy Carr, Upton Broad, Ward Marsh and

Ranworth Marshes, Bure Marshes, Horning,

Woodbastwick Fen and Marshes, and Reedham

Marsh.

Thurne Valley: Clusters of samples around Hickling

Broad and its channels, Horsey Mere and Breydon

Marshes, and Martham Broad.

Waveney Valley: single sample, near Oulton Broad

Yare valley: single sample on Langley Marsh, with

concentrations at Rockland Marsh, Wheatfen,

Strumpshaw Marsh, Surlingham Marsh and

Surlingham Broad.

No impact on

site integrity.

Transition Mires

and Quaking

Bogs.

Ant Valley: mostly scattered but with apparent

concentrations at Barton Broad and Catfield Fen;

other locations are Reedham Marsh, Horning

Marshes, Sutton Fen and East Ruston Allotment.

No impact on

site integrity.

Molinia meadows

on calcareous,

peaty or clayey-

silt-laden soils

(Molinion

caeruleae).

Ant Valley: scattered locations, near Woodbastwick

Fen and Marshes, Catfield Fen and Barton Broad.

Bure valley: scattered locations, Burgh Common,

Upton Broad, Ranworth Broad and Repps Level

and Woodbastwick Fen and Marshes.

Thurne Valley: Repps Level, Mrs Myhill’s Marsh and

marshes east of Hickling Broad

Waveney Valley: small number of samples at

Barnby Marsh and Fritton Marshes.

Yare Valley: small number of samples from Langley

marshes, Buckenham marshes, Strumpshaw

Common and Strumpshaw Fen.

No impact on

site integrity.


49

Woodland

9.7. For many visitors, alluvial woodland is probably an unattractive habitat to visit, and

in terms of vulnerability to visitor disturbance, alluvial woodland is likely to be

robust. It is not a particularly easy habitat to traverse, being variously wet and/or

with a dense understorey of fallen branches and potentially nettles in drier

situations. Extensive areas also occur in areas without public access, both within

and probably outside of protected sites.

9.8. Given the extent of the habitat and the low likelihood that the habitat is used for

recreation it is considered that any increase in the numbers of visitors to The

Broads will have a negligible impact on these habitats.

9.9. As such, it is considered that recreational disturbance from increased numbers of

visitors will not affect the designated woodland types, and consequently it is

concluded that the integrity of The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site will not be

adversely affected (Table 11).

Table 11. Summary of the Appropriate Assessment for the impact of recreational

disturbance and pressure on alluvial forest vegetation in The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site.

Feature Distribution / Occurrence (from JNCC, 2007) Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Alluvial forests

with Alnus glutinosa and

Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-

Padion, Alnion

incanae,

Salicion albae).

The complex of sites in the Broads of East Anglia

contains the largest blocks of alder Alnus glutinosa

wood in England. Within the complex complete

successional sequences occur from open water

through reedswamp to alder woodland, which has

developed on fen peat.

No impact on

site integrity.

Aquatic Vegetation

9.10. The two aquatic vegetation and habitat types are represented in both large water

bodies – several broads – and also smaller ditches and other pools in the north

Broads. Historically, many broads have been subjected to diffuse water pollution

from agriculture and boat activity (George, 1992) but recent improvements have

improved water quality and consequently the local conservation status of the

vegetation. With respect to ‘oligo-mesotrophic water’ there are two issues

considered relevant to their current management: reductions in salinity and ochre

and diffuse agricultural pollution (Homan & White, 2008); and the cutting of aquatic

vegetation to facilitate navigation at Hickling Broad (Ledoux et al., 2000).


50

9.11. The pollution impacts listed by Homan and White (2008) are unrelated to visitor

pressure. The cutting of aquatic vegetation is a management activity in response to

current navigation demands and is under scrutiny by a number of stakeholders

(Ledoux et al., 2000). It is considered unlikely that increasing the numbers of

residents in the North-east Norwich Growth Area would readily influence these

stakeholders and result in a new cutting regime. As such, it is considered that an

increased population in north-east Norwich will not result in changes in

management and an impact on site integrity (Table 12).


and pressure on aquatic vegetation in The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site.

Feature Distribution / Occurrence (from JNCC, 2007) Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Hard oligo-

mesotrophic waters

with benthic

vegetation of Chara

spp.

The core of this interest is the Thurne Broads and

particularly Hickling Broad. Within the Broads

examples of Chara vegetation are also found

within fen pools (turf ponds) and fen and marsh

ditch systems.

No impact on

site integrity.

Natural eutrophic

lakes with

Magnopotamion or

Hydrocharition-type

vegetation.

Many of the broads are examples of natural

eutrophic lakes as are some ditch systems. No impact on

site integrity.

Rare Plants

9.12. Many rare plants are associated with ditches and wet and difficult terrain where

casual visitors are unlikely to encounter them. Many are found on nature reserves

(Beckett & Bull, 1999) where disturbance is likely to be tightly controlled. With

respect to privately owned sites, future management prescriptions are focussed on

appropriate physical management rather than aspects of visitor management. For

example, the Norfolk biodiversity action plan for Floodplain and Coastal Grazing

Marsh – which contains many ditches in The Broads – is focussed towards

providing landowner advice, control of water levels and work related to flood

defence (Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership, 2008). Likewise, the key principles of fen

management and restoration – including important features such as turf ponds – is

based on active management of vegetation rather than aspects related to visitor

pressure.

9.13. As such, it is considered that recreational disturbance will not affect the abundance

and distribution of rare plants and consequently the integrity of The Broads Ramsar

Site will be unaffected (Table 13).


51


and pressure on rare plants in The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site.

Feature Distribution in The

Broads

Impact of recreational

disturbance

Outstanding assemblage of

rare plants

Numerous sites No impact on site integrity.

Fen Orchid

9.14. Fen orchid is a very small plant of limited appeal to casual visitors. The sites where

it occurs are all managed as SSSIs and are not advertised widely. The terrain where

it occurs is wet and unattractive to general visitors.

9.15. As such, it is considered that that recreational disturbance will not affect the

abundance and distribution of fen orchid and consequently the integrity of The

Broads SAC and Ramsar Site will be unchanged (Table 14).


and pressure on fen orchid in The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site.

Feature Distribution in The Broads Impact of recreational disturbance

Fen orchid Liparis loeselii

Three sites only No impact on site integrity.

Rare Invertebrates

9.16. The Ramsar Citation lists the outstanding assemblage of rare invertebrates within

The Broads.

9.17. The most charismatic species are the Norfolk hawker Aeshna isosceles and the

swallowtail Papilio machoan and both are fully protected, thus there should be no

general collecting pressure. The vast majority of other important species are

‘obscure’ and consequently not appealing to general visitors. For the vast majority

of species the key habitats are either aquatic, in small waterbodies, or wet and

otherwise difficult terrain, where recreational pressure will be low.

9.18. As such, it is considered that recreational disturbance will not affect the invertebrate

assemblage and consequently the integrity of The Broads Ramsar Site for this

feature (Table 15).


and pressure on the invertebrate assemblage of The Broads Ramsar Site.

Feature Distribution in The Broads Impact of recreational

disturbance

Outstanding assemblage

of rare invertebrates

Important species likely to be

widespread.

No impact on site integrity.


52

Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail Vertigo moulinsiana

9.19. Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana is a small wetland snail, associated

with standing and flowing water and ditch systems where it lives on marginal

vegetation. It is uncharismatic and found in wet and difficult terrain, thus unlikely to

be exposed to disturbance from the general visitor.

9.20. As such, it is considered that recreational disturbance will not affect Desmoulin’s

Whorl Snail and consequently the integrity of The Broads SAC (Table 16).


and pressure on Desmoulin’s whorl snail in The Broads SAC.


Desmoulin’s

whorl snail

Ant, Thurne and Yare valleys No impact on site integrity.

Ramshorn Whirpool Snail Anisus vorticulus

9.21. Anisus vorticulus is a small aquatic snail found in ditches. The majority of sites are

protected as SSSIs. It is very unlikely to be encountered by the casual visitor or

disturbed by casual visitors. The issues in the maintenance of the local conservation

status are water quality and the rotational management of ditches.

9.22. As such, it is considered that Anisus vorticulus will not be affected by recreational

disturbance and as such it is considered the integrity of The Broads SAC will be

unaffected (Table 17).


and pressure on Anisus vorticulus in The Broads SAC.


Anisus vorticulus

Bure and Waveney valleys No impact on site integrity.

Otter

9.23. Although otters are sensitive to disturbance, particularly pregnant females, it is

considered that provided sufficient quiet places are available to construct holts then

the population impact of disturbance will be low (Jefferies, 1987).

9.24. Provided sufficient locations for holt construction will persist then recreational

impacts will be low; it is very likely that extensive areas of alluvial and bankside

woodland, along with terrestrial woodland will remain undisturbed and provide


53

ample locations for the construction of breeding holts. As such, it is considered that

recreational disturbance will not affect otters and consequently the integrity of The

Broads SAC (Table 18).


disturbance on otters in The Broads SAC.


Otters Probably widespread No impact on site integrity.

Marsh Harrier

9.25. Marsh harriers are now considered to be a fairly common resident, summer visitor

and passage migrant and ‘increasingly common throughout’ Norfolk (NNNS, 2011),

having increased significantly in recent years as a result of reduced persecution and

improved habitat management. In recent years the breeding population has been at

least stable (Hollin & RBBP, 2011).

9.26. The typical nesting habitat for marsh harriers are reedbeds and other tall fen

vegetation, although increasingly there are records of birds nesting in arable crops.

The relative success of birds nesting in arable versus semi-natural situations is not

known.

9.27. There is some suggestion that disturbance from visitors may have been a driving

factor in population declines in the 1960s in The Broads, but the data are equivocal

and confused by factors such as pesticides and damage by coypu to reedbeds

(George, 1992; Sharrock, 2010). Gamauf and Preleuthner (1996), working in Austria,

showed that although marsh harriers tended to nest in areas with little disturbance,

the foraging adults were vulnerable to disturbance and avoided busy footpaths and

cycle ways to a distance of 120m either side; they attribute recreational disturbance

as having an impact on the provision of food to nestlings. Fernandez and Azkona

(1993), working in Spain, reported foraging birds were possibly disturbed at up to

distances of 500m, and although fledgling success was not affected by disturbance

the nutritional condition of young birds was less in disturbed sites.

9.28. Clearly there is a potential negative effect of recreational disturbance on nesting

success of marsh harrier, through increases from general visitors in the wider

landscape. Of probably greatest concern is not direct disturbance of nests, but

rather the wider impacts on foraging birds.

http://www.cabdirect.org/search.html?q=au%3A%22Preleuthner%2C+M.%22


54

9.29. As such, it is considered that that an increase in the numbers of visitors will result in

increased recreational disturbance and impacts at the population level for marsh

harrier, consequently the integrity of The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA

may be adversely affected (Table 19).


and pressure on marsh harrier in The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA.

Feature Key sites in The Broads in 2010 (from various sources) Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Marsh

harrier

The population is believed to have increased recently, and

significantly so since the 1960s. More precise data are not

available. Foraging birds are seen widely throughout The

Broads and adjacent areas.

Negative impact

on site integrity.

Hen Harrier

9.30. During winter, hen harriers roost gregariously in rank ground vegetation, often

inhabiting the same site year on year, using low platforms of vegetation in areas

such as reedbeds and fen (Clarke & Watson, 1990). It is likely that roosts are very

sensitive to disturbance, but hen harriers are mobile birds and will be foraging

widely away from the roost site thus it would be expected that they would be

capable of moving to new roost sites if necessary. That said, communal roosts are

potentially likely to attract casual visitors and disturbance at key times, such as

dusk on cold nights, could be very detrimental.

9.31. In Norfolk, seven communal roosts are known, with at least two in the Broads

(NNNS, 2011). It is understood that there are more communal roost sites in The

Broads, however their locations are kept confidential. Hen harrier roosts include a

site on private farmland near Hickling, with a viewing platform accessible from the

Hickling Nature Reserve (NWT), and the RSPB’s Strumpshaw Fen nature reserve.

Thus, the two major roosts are protected from disturbance and it is suggested that

if other roosts are disturbed then the birds may relocate. However, there are no

data available to confirm that the population impact of disturbance will be negligible

and consequently there is uncertainty over the significance of disturbance.

9.32. As such, it is considered that an increase in the numbers of visitors could result in

increased recreational disturbance and consequently the integrity of The Broads

Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA may be adversely affected for this feature (Table

20).


55


and pressure on hen harrier in The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA.

Feature Key sites in The Broads in 2010 (from various

sources)


disturbance

Hen

harrier

Two well-known roosts on private farmland or

protected sites; other smaller roosts likely

Negative impact on site

integrity.

Bittern

9.33. Bitterns are a scarce resident and winter visitor. Over winter single birds occur

widely, but the breeding sites are restricted to areas of relatively large wet reedbed

with abundant fish. Although calling males were reported from 17 localities in The

Broads, just six nests were reported from four localities (NNNS, 2011).

9.34. It is unlikely that breeding occurs away from protected sites, with nests only in quiet

reedbeds away from the main navigation channels and foraging taking place in

sheltered reedbeds. Bittern appear very sensitive to disturbance and are more likely

to be found in inaccessible areas and away from visitors. This inaccessibility should

mitigate an increase in visitors since these visitors will not be able to gain access at

these sites.

9.35. As such, it is considered that an increase in the numbers of visitors will not result in

increased recreational disturbance to bitterns and consequently the integrity of The

Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA will be unaffected (Table 19).


and pressure on bittern in The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA.

Feature Occurence in The Broads in 2010 (from NNNS,

2011)


disturbance

Bittern Six known pairs from four localities. No impact on site integrity.

Whooper Swan and Bewicks Swan

9.36. In Norfolk, both Bewick’s and whooper swans are considered to be common winter

visitors, but principally to the Ouse Washes where counts regularly exceed 1500

(NNNS, 2011). Both feed on wet meadows and shallow water. In The Broads and

Breydon Water area counts for Bewick’s swans average 164 individuals (range of

120-231) and for whooper they average 15 individuals (range from 10-35).

9.37. Many of the reported flocks for both species are outside of protected sites, largely

on agricultural pasture and grazing marsh. Whooper are sensitive to disturbance


56

(Rees et al., 2005) as probably are Bewick’s, from walkers and dogs in particular.

However, as with pink-footed geese, it is considered that there are substantial

areas of grassland away from public footpaths and roads where flocks can feed

without disturbance even with an increase in the numbers of visitors; the footpaths

of concern are probably likely to be unattractive to casual winter visitors.

Additionally, the small size of the flocks and the overall wintering population in The

Broads suggests that the fields in The Broads are unlikely to be at carrying capacity

and therefore there is an even greater likelihood of flocks being able to find

disturbance-free grassland.

9.38. As such, it is considered that an increase in the numbers of visitors is considered

unlikely to result in increased recreational disturbance and that consequently the

integrity of The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA will be unaffected for this

feature (Table 22).


and pressure on Bewick’s and whooper swans in The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland

SPA.

Feature Key sites and high counts in The Broads in 2010 (from

NNNS, 2011)

Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Bewick’s

Swans

Ludham Bridge (153, Jan); Ludham (175); Catfield (150, Jan);

Ludham (180, Feb); Horning Upper Street (231, Feb);

Ludham Bridge (187, Feb); Catfield (150, Feb); Ranworth

Flood / Ward Marshes (150, Feb); Ludham (183, Dec); Potter

Heigham and Catfield (120, Dec); Ludham Airfield (125, Dec)

No impact on

site integrity.

Whooper

swans

Ludham Bridge (10); Hickling Stubb mill (11, Jan); Stow

Bardolph (12, Jan); Ludham (14, Jan); Catfield and Sutton

(10, Jan); Ludham (16, Feb); Hickling Broad (12, Feb);

Catfield (10, Feb); Whitlingham (35, Dec)

No impact on

site integrity.

Wigeon, Gadwall and Shoveler

9.39. Wigeon, gadwall and shoveler are all dabbling ducks, which feed in the shallow

water of lakes and flooded areas, often upending to forage vegetable matter and

invertebrates (Guillemain et al., 2002).

9.40. The peak numbers of birds are in winter. All three are relatively common species,

distributed widely with peak counts on open water sites although some sites such

as Cantley / Buckenham are thought to be on open fields (Table 21).

9.41. Notably, some of the sites used are known to be used regularly by water-based

users (e.g. Whitlingham, Hickling and Filby), while others are free of water-based


57

recreation or with significant restrictions on winter use (e.g. Ranworth Broad and

Horsey Mere).

9.42. It is not thought that additional numbers of land-based visitors would impact these

three species although they would be vulnerable to increased levels of winter

boating. Such effects have shown some duck species to be displaced at weekends

when recreation is greater (Evans & Warrington, 2007). These are considered the

three wildfowl species most vulnerable to disturbance on the autumn and winter

feeding grounds.

9.43. It is conceivable that an increased local population may result in a greater demand

for water-based recreation on The Broads, with knock-on effects on these species.

As such, it is considered that there may be an increase in recreational disturbance

which will affect the numbers of wigeon, gadwall and shoveler and consequently

the integrity of The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA for this feature(s) (Table

23).


pressure on wigeon, gadwall and shoveler in The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA.

Feature Key sites and high counts in The Broads in 2010 (from NNNS,

2011)

Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Wigeon Principal localities: Ranworth Broad (1763, Jan); Cantley /

Buckenham (4000, Dec); Breydon / Berney (23770, Jan).

Notable counts elsewhere: Mid-yare (5000, Jan); Hardley

Flood (300, March).

Negative

impact on site

integrity.

Gadwall Principal localities: Whitlingham (490, Jan).

Notable counts elsewhere: Geldeston (330, Feb); Hoveton

Park (250, Feb); Breydon / Berney (112, March); Hoveton Park

(100, March); Cockshoot Broad (69, Sept); Stumpshaw Fen

(125, Sept); Cockshoot Broad (50, Oct); Ranworth Broad (70,

Oct); Strumpshaw Fen (60, Oct); Hoveton Park (50, Nov);

Ranworth Broad (70, Nov); Breydon / Berney (136, Dec);

Horsey Mere (67, Dec); Hoveton Park (100, Dec); Ormesby

Broad (100, Dec); Wroxham Broad (320, Dec).

Negative

impact on site

integrity.

Shoveler Selected localities: Hickling Broad (67, Jan); Breydon / Berney

(568, Nov); Cantley (280, Oct); Strumpshaw Fen (280, Oct);

Notable counts: Ranworth Broad (40, Jan); Mid-Yare (40,

Jan); Filby Broad (257, Feb); Hardley Flood (50, Aug);

Ranworth Broad (47, Oct); Filby Broad (130, Nov); Ranworth

Broad (98, Nov); Filby Broad (200, Dec); Ormesby Little Broad

(158, Dec).

Negative

impact on site

integrity.


58

Ruff

9.44. A fairly common passage migrant and winter visitor, in wet fields and aquatic

margins.

9.45. The majority of the sites identified for the species are protected, with low numbers

elsewhere. The low numbers of birds involved – especially compared to some of the

other wildfowl and waders – partly reflects its transitory occurrence, to and from

overwintering grounds in western Africa.

9.46. It is thought unlikely that the numbers of individuals is restricted by the presence of

suitable, undisturbed habitat or for recreational disturbance to be otherwise

impacting the species.

9.47. As such, it is considered that recreational disturbance is not currently affecting the

species and that any increase is likewise unlikely to affect the species,

consequently the integrity of The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA is

unaffected for this feature (Table 24).


and pressure on ruff in The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA.

Designated

Feature

Key sites and high counts in The Broads in 2010

(from NNNS, 2011)

Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Ruff Peak counts at main sites: Breydon / Berney (56,

Dec); Buckenham / Cantley (38, Sep); Hickling Broad

(39, Aug)

Also: Potter Heigham(6, Jan); Waxham (17, Nov);

Wroxham Broad (1, Dec); Waxham (32, Oct);

Strumpshaw Fen (2, Oct).

No impact on site

integrity.

Pink Footed Goose

9.48. Pink footed goose is a winter visitor with Norfolk supporting internationally

important numbers. In Norfolk the species is concentrated in north-west of the

county and in The Broads area including Breydon/Berney area with smaller

numbers in the Yare Valley (Table 23; NNNS, 2011).

9.49. Although the key roost locations are largely considered to be within protected sites

(in coastal grazing marsh and saltmarsh) the major feedings flocks reported are on

farmland outside of protected sites (Table 23).


59

9.50. Over-wintering pink-footed geese feed largely on sugar beet tops – which are the

cut ends of sugar beet dumped in fields during the harvesting process (Gill et al.,

1996). A key factor determining use of their feeding areas is the potential for

disturbance: several studies have shown proximity to roads and the level of traffic

on roads to determine field usage, and presumably they are likewise sensitive to

pedestrian disturbance. Madsen (1985) showed that even where the levels of traffic

were low (<20 cars a day) the presence of roads affected utilisation; birds show

disturbance distances of 500m in autumn, and 300-400m in spring. Likewise, in

north Norfolk the geese are sensitive to disturbance and show aversion to roads,

with additional disturbance events having an impact including birdwatchers,

aircraft, pheasant shoots and agricultural activities (Gill et al., 1996).

9.51. Increases in the numbers of winter visitors have the potential to be a disturbing

factor to pink-footed geese, principally through an increase in the numbers of

walkers and dogs using public footpaths running through farmland. Although there

are no data on such disturbance there are clearly substantial areas of farmland near

the coast without any public footpaths and which may be assumed to be free from

visitor disturbance, at present and in the future.

9.52. On balance, it is considered unlikely that there will be any increase in the numbers

of winter visitors to farmland attributable to the NS&OC project, due to the absence

of any wider visitor facilities and very limited parking. As such, it is considered that

the projected increase in the numbers of visitors will not result in increased

recreational disturbance on pink-footed geese, thus the integrity of the Broadland

SPA and The Broads Ramsar site will be unchanged for this feature (Table 25).


and pressure on pink-footed geese in The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA.

Feature Key sites and high counts in The Broads in 2010 (from

NNNS, 2011)

Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Pink

footed

geese

Roosts: Berney (5050, Jan 25th

); Horsey (5260, Oct 11th);

Berney (9000, Dec 6th); Berney (7500, Jan 5

th); Berney

(12000, Feb 21st); Berney (8400, March 1

st).

Feeding flocks: Breydon/Berney (2000, Jan); Haddiscoe

(3000, Jan); Ludham Bridge (2250, Jan); Sea Palling (6000,

Dec); East Ruston (2500, Dec).

No impact on site

integrity.


60

Assemblage: Additionally Including Cormorant, Great Crested Grebe, Coot, Bean

Goose, White-fronted goose, Teal, Pochard, Tufted Duck

9.53. The overall assemblage of wetland birds is important in terms of the numbers of

individuals, including high numbers of common species such as coot and teal. Of

the species listed under this designated feature the rarest are bean goose and

white-fronted goose:

The Taiga bean goose Anser fabialis fabialis is found in the Yare valley, with

a flock of 80-150 birds.

White-fronted goose are principally at Hickling/Heigham Holmes (peak of

450 birds), Buckenham/Cantley (a peak of 164 birds) and Breydon/Berney (a

peak of 17).

9.54. The number of sites supporting wildfowl is diverse and variously includes open-

water sites, grazing marsh / meadow and arable crops. To identify the key sites and

other potentially important areas, Table 26 summarises the important species for

key or main sites as listed within NNNS (2011), including the species named in the

SPA and Ramsar Site designations and also all other waders and wildfowl. The

majority are more than 30-minutes travel time with the closest being on urban fringe

of Norwich such as Thorpe Marshes and Whiltingham County Park.

Table 26. Summary of important sites in The Broads for wildfowl, with respect to the

assemblage designation for The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA designation.

Travel times are taken from the AA Routeplanner website).

Site Species Habitat Travel

time

(mins)

Barton Broad Greylag goose, gadwall, teal, mallard,

garganey, pochard, tufted duck, goldeneye,

cormorant and great crested grebe coot.

Open water 23

Breydon /

Berney

Mute swan, pink-footed goose, greylag goose,

wigeon, gadwall, teal, mallard, pintail, garganey,

little egret and great crested grebe coot.

Grazing marsh /

meadow

32

Buckenham /

Cantley

Marshes

Greylag goose, wigeon, teal, mallard, garganey,

shoveler, pochard and little egret.

Grazing marsh /

meadow

30

Calthorpe

Broad

Mallard Open water 30

Catfield Bewick’s swan and whooper swan. Grazing marsh /

meadow

30

Chedgrave Mallard, little egret and heron. Grazing marsh /

meadow

28

East Ruston Pink-footed goose. Arable 34

Filby Broad Goldeneye and great crested grebe. Open water 31

Haddiscoe Garganey Grazing marsh /

meadow

36


61

Site Species Habitat Travel

time

(mins)

Halvergate

Marshes

Pink-footed goose. Grazing marsh /

meadow

30

Hardley Flood Mallard. Open water and

grazing marsh /

meadow

29

Hickling

(including the

broad and

adjacent

areas)

Whooper swan, pink-footed goose, greylag

goose, teal, garganey and great crested grebe.

Open water and

grazing marsh /

meadow

36

Horning Coot Grazing marsh /

meadow

17

Horsey Mere

and Marshes

Pink-footed goose, teal and mallard. Open water and

grazing marsh /

meadow

43

Hoveton

Broads

Gadwall, pochard and tufted duck. Open water 16

Hoveton Hall Gadwall and moorhen. Open water 14

How Hill Mallard and shoveler. Open water 23

Ludham

including

Ludham

Bridge and

Ludham

Airfield

Bewick’s swan and whooper swan. Grazing marsh /

meadow

24

Martham

Broad

Goldeneye. Open water 34

Ormesby

Broads

Teal, mallard, shoveler, great crested grebe and

coot

Open water 39

Potter

Heigham

Bewick’s swan, whooper swan and greylag

goose.

Grazing marsh /

meadow

27

Ranworth

Broad and

Flood

Bewick’s swan, greylag goose, wigeon,

gadwall, teal, mallard, garganey, shoveler,

pochard, tufted duck, cormorant, great crested

grebe and coot.

Open water and

grazing marsh /

meadow

26

Rockland

Broad

Great crested grebe. Open water 23

Rollesby

Broad

Shoveler. Open water 32

Sea Palling Pink-footed goose. Arable 40

Strumpshaw

Fen

Greylag goose, gadwall, teal, mallard,

garganey, heron and coot.

Grazing marsh /

meadow

22

Thorpe

Marshes

Bean goose, gadwall and mallard. Open water and

grazing marsh /

meadow

6

Walcott Pink-footed goose. Arable 37

Whitlingham Whooper swan, greylag goose, gadwall,

garganey, pochard, tufted duck, great crested

grebe and coot.

Open water 12

Wroxham

Broad

Gadwall, pochard and tufted duck. Open water 14


62

9.55. Although earlier assessments have considered increased recreational disturbance

to birds on private farmland to be unlikely, the possible increase in water based-

recreation and disturbance to birds was not discounted with respect to wigeon,

gadwall and shoveler. At least six of the open water sites above are thought to have

wintertime boating, but with Horsey Mere and Ranworth Broad having significant

restrictions on winter boating and other sites such as Hardley Flood being free of

boating at all times. Horsey Mere is closed for navigation from November to

February inclusive (Thurnefisheries, 2011).

9.56. As such, it is considered that there is potential for increased recreational

disturbance and for this to affect individual species and the assemblage of wildfowl

species, consequently the integrity of The Broads Ramsar Site and Broadland SPA

may be affected (Table 27).


and pressure on the overall assemblage of wetland birds in The Broads Ramsar Site and

Broadland SPA.

Designated

Feature

Summary of important wildfowl sites (from NNNS,

2011)

Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Wildfowl

assemblage

At least 30 sites of some description considered to

be key sites or otherwise supporting noteworthy

numbers of birds.

Negative impact on

site integrity.

BREYDON WATER SPA AND RAMSAR SITE

Plants

9.57. Scarce plants are listed on the Breydon Water Ramsar Site citation, associated with

mudflats, saltmarsh, grazing marsh, brackish marsh and flood defence walls.

9.58. It is unlikely that any additional visitor pressure along the accessible paths will affect

the scarce plants and as such the Appropriate Assessment concludes integrity of

Breydon Ramsar Site and SPA will not be affected for this feature (Table 28).


and pressure on scarce plants on Breydon Water Ramsar Site and SPA.

Designated

Feature

Summary of likely distribution Impact of recreational disturbance

Scarce

plants

Within saltmarsh and

marshland.

No impact on site integrity.


63

Birds, Including All Designated Species

9.59. It is not proposed that each designated feature of Breydon Water Ramsar Site and

SPA will be discussed in turn, rather they are grouped broadly into the species of

grazing marsh habitats, principally wildfowl including ducks, geese and swans, and

those of the open mud areas, principally waders. Impacts on a single species are

likely to be apparent for all other species in that habitat group.

9.60. Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site comprises two main habitats: the open water

and mud flats where the River Yare widens before Great Yarmouth to form a

sheltered estuary; and The Berney Arms area of grazing marsh.

9.61. The site is managed almost in its entirety by the RSPB (as RSPB Berney Marshes

and Breydon Water), with public access limited to public footpaths: one runs across

the Berney Marsh Area, a second along the north defence wall of Breydon Water

and a third along the south bank. Actual access to the area is difficult: on the north

side there is no vehicle access thus walkers either access by parking in Great

Yarmouth, by disembarking by train at Berney Arms or walking from Halvergate. As

recommended to birdwatchers, access is by parking in the ASDA car park in Great

Yarmouth and walking from there (with parking restricted to 3-hours) (Glenn, 2006).

Few trains stop at Berney Arms: from Norwich there are two trains daily on

weekdays and Saturdays and five on Sundays. The footpaths to the north and

south of Breydon Water are part of the Weaver’s Way and Wherryman’s Way

respectively. The recorded numbers of visitors at the RSPB Berney Marshes is 4k

annually (Visit England, 2012), although it is likely that visitors parking at ASDA and

walking to the high tide roost are under reported as are casual visitors of the public

footpaths.

9.62. The main navigation channel is narrow, towards the centre of Breydon Water and

boating is not permitted away from this due to shallow water conditions; the

maximum width of the mudflats is over 1km at the very widest point and for much

of the north side the mudflats are at least 400m wide.

9.63. In addition to the key foraging areas – the open mud and grazing marsh – the key

vulnerability of the site is the high-tide wader roost, understood to be located on

saltmarsh at the north side nearest to Great Yarmouth, within 200m or so of the

public footpath. The roost is located on inhospitable terrain, difficult to access and


64

unappealing to the general visitor, although it is potentially vulnerable to deliberate

disturbance or irresponsible behaviour.

9.64. In summary, the majority of the site is unlikely to experience increased recreation

pressure given its management by the RSPB and restrictions to public access.

Although the high tide roost is located at the Great Yarmouth end and potentially

exposed to more visitors, the general site is unappealing to general visitors and any

increase in recreational disturbance is unlikely to be related to the NS&OC

development. The total numbers of visitors recorded for the site is 4000, which

based on the calculations presented previously for sites on The Broads and

assuming 5% of visitors would equate to an increase of fewer than 50 visitors.

9.65. As such, it is considered that increased recreational disturbance is unlikely and

consequently the integrity of Breydon Water Ramsar Site and SPA will not be

affected (Table 29).


disturbance and pressure on birds at Breydon Water Ramsar Site and SPA.

Designated Feature Distribution / Occurrence Impact of recreational

disturbance

Birds, including named

species and the whole

assemblage

Grazing marsh and mudflat. High

tide roost on saltmarsh.

No impact on site

integrity.

WINTERTON-HORSEY DUNES SAC

Dune Vegetation

9.66. Within the Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC four types of dune vegetation are

designated, from the frontal edge with its embryonic dunes, the shifting dunes,

decalcified dunes and the humid dunes slacks. All are potentially vulnerable to

trampling damage.

9.67. Access to the dunes is relatively limited with the dunes backing onto private

farmland: there is a small car park at Horsey Gap with a capacity for fewer than

thirty cars, at the north end, and at the Winterton Dunes National Nature Reserve

there is a car park for maybe 100 cars; this entrance point is approximately 500m

from the village of Winterton. The distance between the two car parks is over 5.3km

and a public footpath runs between the two to the rear of the dunes, as well as the

beach itself. Some 550m to the north of Horsey Gap, at the north end of the

designated boundary, is a small holiday park with caravans and a camp site.


65

9.68. Many of the visitors to Horsey Gap do so to visit the seal colony and the visitors to

Winterton use its sandy beach for family activities.

9.69. At a generic level, and following an analysis of the distribution of visitors at beach

sites (Coombes & Jones, 2010; Coombes et al., 2009), the numbers of visitors and

therefore recreation pressure is likely to be greatest near the car parks.

9.70. Trampling has been unequivocally shown to damage dune vegetation, but such

pressure tends to be along the well-defined paths created by visitors and away

from their vicinity the impact becomes rapidly less apparent (Boorman, 1977;

Anderson, 1995). As viewed on Google Earth, paths can clearly be seen through the

dune vegetation with a greater number in the vicinity of the car parks and the

holiday park north of Horsey Gap; in addition to paths leading from the car park at

Winterton there appear to be a significant number related to pedestrian traffic from

the village. The extent and occurrence of paths at present on Winterton do not

appear to differ significantly from those present in the 1970s, as compared visually

to current Google Earth images and the line map in Boorman and Fuller (1977).

9.71. The car parks themselves are likely to cause local changes to the soil and

vegetation through compression and dog fouling, with Shaw and Reeve (2008)

showing such an effect for up to 50m from the car park. There are substantial areas

of the dunes without any apparent footpaths.

9.72. Thus, although trampling effects are evident at Horsey-Winterton Dunes SAC, the

limited car parking space especially at Horsey Gap limits the numbers of additional

visitors that can be accommodated. Even with additional visitors, it is unlikely that

impacts would increase proportionately as visitors will continue to use the

established paths.

9.73. As such, it is considered that recreational impacts on dune vegetation will be not be

attributable to the NS&OC project and consequently the integrity of the Horsey-

Winterton Dunes SAC is unlikely to be affected (Table 30).


66


disturbance and pressure on dune vegetation at Horsey-Winterton Dunes SAC.

Designated Feature Distribution /

Occurrence


disturbance

Embryonic shifting dunes 1.7ha (0.4%) No impact on site

integrity.

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with

Ammophila arenaria (`white dunes`).

14.3ha (3.3%) No impact on site

integrity.

Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-

Ulicetea)

28ha (6.6%) No impact on site

integrity.

Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides 1.3ha (0.3%) No impact on site

integrity.

Humid dune slacks 0.85ha (0.2%) No impact on site

integrity.

Great crested newt

9.74. The only animal listed as a designated feature of the Horsey-Winterton Dunes SAC

is the great crested newt, which breeds in the shallow ponds formed within the

slacks.

9.75. These ponds are unlikely to be attractive to casual visitors or particularly vulnerable

to disturbance, being in the dune slack at the rear of the dunes away from the

beach. The key issues in maintaining the integrity of these ponds are likely to be

management and maintaining the natural processes of dune formation and

succession.

9.76. As such, it is considered that it is unlikely that any recreational impacts on great

crested newts will be attributable to the NS&OC project and consequently the

integrity of the Horsey-Winterton Dunes SAC will not be affected for this feature

(Table 31).


disturbance on great crested newt at Horsey-Winterton Dunes SAC.

Designated

Feature

Distribution / Occurrence Impact of recreational disturbance

Embryonic

shifting dunes

1.7ha (0.4%) No impact on site integrity.










67

THE NORTH NORFOLK COAST SAC, SPA AND RAMSAR SITE

9.77. The North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site is a large and diverse

protected area, adjacent to several villages and small towns with a number of key

focus areas for tourists including major nature reserves.

9.78. An assessment of the potential significance of recreational impacts on the North

Norfolk Coast was prepared by Liley (2008), who concluded that increased housing

numbers in North Norfolk and possibly elsewhere were likely to result in an increase

in the numbers of visitors with impacts on site integrity being possible. However, he

acknowledged that the catchment area was wide and consequently ‚growth in

housing at locations such as King's Lynn, Norwich, Thetford and potentially further

afield are likely to result in changes in visitor numbers to the North Norfolk coast

area‛. His data on visitor numbers was based on Klein and Bateman’s (1998)

values, who surveyed visitors at the Cley nature reserve where the average travel

distance was 96 miles (with a median travel distance of 80 miles), with 1/3 of

visitors being day-trippers. That is, half of the visitors come from outside of East

Anglia. It is considered likely that Cley and similar area along the coast is somewhat

atypical in attracting ‘twitchers’ who may travel significant distances to see rare

birds and that visitors to ‘family friendly’ locations such as Holkham Beach may

travel less.

9.79. Based on current understanding of recreation impacts he concludes that:

‚… there is already an issue on some parts of the North Norfolk coast, and that

problems could arise due to changes in visitor patterns, whether as a consequence

of tourism policies and projects, or built development even at some distance from

the coast‛.

9.80. Consistent with the conclusions of Liley (2008) this Appropriate Assessment

concludes that there will potentially be a significant impact of increased numbers of

visitors to the North Norfolk Coast, although almost certainly this will be an in-

combination effect with a number of other projects to which NS&OC may

contribute, As such, it is considered that there may be an impact on site integrity as

summarised below (Table 32).


68


disturbance and pressure on the North Norfolk Coast SAC, Ramsar Site and SPA.

Designated Feature Distribution / Occurrence Impact of

recreational

disturbance

Coastal habitats and vegetation. Coastal

lagoons; perennial vegetation of stony banks;

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic

halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi);

embryonic shifting dunes; shifting dunes

along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria

(`white dunes`); fixed dunes with herbaceous

vegetation (`grey dunes`); humid dune slacks;

and dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides.

Widespread but

particularly important

sites are Blakeney Point

and Holkham, with areas

of important upper

saltmarsh being

widespread

Negative

impact on site

integrity.

Plants. Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii and

other scarce plants

Dune slacks, saltmarsh

are grazing marsh of

particular importance

Negative

impact on site

integrity.

Animals. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina;

natterjack toad Bufo calamita; great crested

newt; otter; and invertebrates.

Blakeney Point

particularly important for

seals, with dune slacks a

particularly important

habitat

Negative

impact on site

integrity.

Birds. Wintering (whole assemblage); passage

(knot Calidris canutus islandica; ringed plover

, Charadrius hiaticula; and bar-tailed godwit ,

Limosa lapponica lapponica); breeding

(sandwich tern Sterna (Thalasseus)

sandvicensis sandvicensis; common tern

Sterna hirundo hirundo; little tern , Sterna

albifrons albifrons); wintering (pink-footed

goose Anser brachyrhynchus; dark-bellied

brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla; wigeon

Anas penelope and pintail Anas acuta).

Blakeney Point and

saltmarsh areas in

particular; farmland

important for pink-footed

geese in particular

Negative

impact on site

integrity.

















69

SUMMARY OF STAGE 2: APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

9.81. The Appropriate Assessment of impacts concludes potential impacts from

disturbance on two groups of sites: The Broads’s sites and North Norfolk’s sites44;

with disturbance from any potential increase in the numbers of visitors is not

considered likely to impact site integrity of Breydonw ater Ramsar Site and SPA and

the Winterton_Horsey Dunes SAC (Table 33).

Table 33. Summary of the Stage 1: Tests of likely significant effects. ‘indicates no

significant effect and ‘X’ denotes a significant effect possible and consequently a

requirement for compensatory measures.

Feature Groundwater Flows Disturbance

River Wensum SAC

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site,

Broadland SPA

X

Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar Site

Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC

North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and

Ramsar Site

X


70

10 COMPENSATORY MEASURES

OVERVIEW

10.1. As discussed in Section 2: The Assessment Process and Methodology,

compensatory measures are supplementary to a project and are not part of the

application. This section provides and overview of potential measures that may be

deployed within protected sites and other nearby areas, to establish whether there

is a realistic possibility for reduction of impacts; it is not suggested necessarily that

any or all will be required or the mechanism for their implementation.

DISTURBANCE

10.2. Disturbance was identified as a potential impact on some designated features, and

thus site integrity, at the following two sites:

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site and the Broadland SPA


10.3. As outlined in Section 2: The Assessment Process and Methodology, the mitigation

within the project – Beeston Park – is considered within the Appropriate

Assessment as a mechanism for reducing the numbers of visitors to the site by

diverting some new and displacing some existing trips to the Broads for some types

of recreational activity; mainly day visits for dog-walking and shorter recreational

walks. Additional measures proposed here are compensatory, in that they are not

key parts of the project but proposed as mechanisms to reduce impacts.

PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT

10.4. A suite of measures are potentially available to reduce recreational impacts on

wildlife and protected sites, either as potential measures in response to studies of

impacts or based on experimental studies. Broadly following De Long (2002) the

potential management options are categorised into eight categories, often used in

combination:

Increase predictability of public use patterns to promote habituation to non-

threatening situations.

Encourage slow moving and quiet activities;


71

Minimize area influenced by human activities;

Design facilities to conceal visitors;

Design facilities to protect natural resources;

Establish regulations;

Establish wildlife sanctuaries; and

Interpretation and education.

10.5. Given the seasonal occurrence and sensitivities of some species and features a

seasonal component may be included in all of the above.

Increase Predictability of Activities

10.6. At a strategic level the attempt to encourage the habituation to and tolerance of

disturbance is probably an under-appreciated method to control disturbance

impact, although in essence measures such as zoning of activities and the

implementation of regulations serve to achieve such habituation indirectly. As a

mechanism to reduce impacts of the North-east Norwich Growth Area this is

probably of limited merit.

10.7. Exclusion of dogs may be included underneath this measure, given that barking

may result in greater disturbance than that produced by quiet dogs (Randler, 2006)

although dogs not on leads have been demonstrated to be a substantial of

disturbance impacts at some sites (Stour Estuary: Ravenscroft et al., 2007).

Encourage Slow Moving and Quiet Activities

10.8. To an extent the promotion of quiet activities is management at a strategic level

through planning policy, the converse - controlling noisier activities - is certainly

under the remit of the planning system through implementing policies that restrict

impacting recreational activities at sensitive sites.

10.9. By and large, to operate as compensatory measures to reduce impacts of the North-

east Norwich Growth Area measures under this umbrella would be those covered by

planning policies in the understanding of the potential greater increases in impacts

where prior to development their significance may have been less. Within The Broads

and North Norfolk the interpretation of policies have been subject to HRAs and as


72

such their implementation should be based on an understanding of likely changes in

visitor pressure.

10.10. Smaller scale actions under this category include the use and ideally replacement

of diesel watercraft with electric or sailing vessels.

Minimize Area Influenced by Human Activities.

10.11. At a strategic level, reducing the area exposed to recreational pressure through the

spatial management of visitor resources is of substantial value, and as considered

by Leung and Marion (1999) measures comprise:

Spatial segregation, to separate conflicts between visitors and sensitive

features;

Spatial containment, by encouraging or promoting visitors to limited areas

where impacts can be managed or where there are few sensitive features;

Spatial dispersal, whereby visitors are encouraged over a wider areas such

that thresholds of impact or conflict are not reached; and

Spatial configuration, whereby facilities are distributed such as to minimise

impacts.

10.12. Again, these measures are strategic and may include measures such as the

provision or removal of visitor facilities including car parking and toilets; these

measures are at least partly under the control of planning policies or providers such

as site managers. Other private initiatives under this banner include promoted

walking routes in the wider countryside (e.g. Walking in Norfolk 2012) which are

advertised with details of duration, facilities and difficulty; here collaboration may be

possible to encourage walkers to use less sensitive areas or to avoid certain times

of year.

Design Facilities to Conceal Visitors

10.13. Many waders and wildfowl are sensitive to the sight of pedestrians such that the

flight distances may be significantly less if the visitors are not seen. Such measures

have been proposed for numerous situations including:

Brent geese in relation to new cycleways, where vegetation or artificial

screens have been advocated (Goss-Custard 2008); and


73

Wildfowl on open water shared with watercraft, where floating screens of

vegetation have been proposed (Batten, 1977).

10.14. A review of disturbance impacts on birds is provided in Hockin et al (1992) and

expanded in Hill et al., (1997) in relation to environmental impact assessment

considerations. Other options here may include re-aligning paths such that visitors

are screened or not silhouetted against skylines.

10.15. As a compensatory measure it is likely that these could be implemented relatively

rapidly and in response to small-scale requirements on individual sites. Design

details plus a review of research on disturbance flight distances (ie the differential

sensitivity to disturbance exhibited by different species) is given in Kirby et al

(2004).

Design Facilities to Protect Natural Resources

10.16. Examples of such measures include the provision of boardwalks across sensitive

habitats such as dune and wetland. Anecdotally, such boardwalks are effective for

controlling the routes used by visitors at sites such as Blakeney Point (dunes; North

Norfolk) and Ranworth Broad (wetland; The Broads) (G.W. Hopkins pers. obs.).

Other documented studies on dunes consider boardwalks to be effective in

reducing trampling in European systems (Wood, 2001; Zwart, 2001), but within the

wider context of allowing natural processes to operate on dunes there is a potential

for limited disturbance to be a positive feature (Reimers, 2001). Other measures

demonstrated as being effective include the fencing of sensitive areas and

manipulating access points (USA; Carlson and Godfrey, 1989).

10.17. In addition to protecting from trampling effects even relatively subtle measures can

result in significant reductions in reducing impacts. For example, Pearce-Higgins et

al. (2007) demonstrated a significant reduction in the disturbance of golden plover

nests following the improvement works on an upland walking path, encouraging

walkers away from a more diffuse network of paths across a wider area.

10.18. Within this category the design of facilities- rather than the more strategic location

of facilities – is of merit in terms of small-scale responses to immediate need.

Establish Regulations

10.19. Although education is considered cost-effective in improving visitor behaviour it is

considered that the behaviour of some visitors can only be managed by regulation


74

(Great Barrier Reef; Alder, 1996). Regulations may be introduced as bye-laws or

voluntary codes of behaviour and then enforced by the use of rangers or wardens.

10.20. In The Broads there is a team of ten full-time rangers patrol, supplemented by six

summer rangers and two winter rangers (weekends and bank holidays) (Broads

Authority, 2012a), whose role is to assist visitors and enforce navigation. All

enforcement is in accordance with the Navigation Enforcement Policy, as advised

by the Navigation Committee and was last amended in 2009.

10.21. In terms of creating enforceable regulation of behavior, this would require strategic

changes. For the introduction of voluntary measures the actions could be smaller

scale and possibly introduced more rapidly (but see below for Implementation), with

precedents for such successful schemes including restrictions on winter navigation

and fishing in the upper Thurne to protect wintering wildfowl (see Thurnefisheries,

2011).

10.22. Many of the nature reserves are patrolled by wardens and site managers with a

view to overseeing visitor behaviour.

Establish Wildlife Sanctuaries

10.23. Two measures are categorised under this measure, namely the creation of clear-cut

sanctuaries away from disturbance and then the creation of zones where sites are

shared with other users.

10.24. Numerous instances are available of refuges as proposed or actual projects to

protect wintering wildfowl from disturbance including hunting (Fox & Madsen,

1997;) and visitors (Bregnballe et al., 2009), with species differing in their design

requirements of refuges with respect to habitat and proximity to disturbance (Evans

& Day, 2002). Within The Broads Ranworth Broad is closed to watercraft all year – a

measure imposed by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust as its owners – and seasonally on

Horsey Mere as a voluntary agreement among stakeholders.

10.25. Within lakes, the sharing or zoning of areas is widely deployed and seemingly

successful on various sites including gravel pits (Welsh Harp Management

Committee, 2012), the Trinity Broads (Broads Authority, 2012b) and parts of

Hickling Broad / Heigham Sound.


75

Interpretation and Education

10.26. The education of visitors, via the provision of interpretative materials is seen as an

important aspect of visitor management to reduce impacts on natural assets

(Orams, 1996). It is considered that such interpretative materials should lead to

more responsible behaviour and include information on natural assets and also site

management; indeed, the Wildlife Refuge Policy of the (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2001) states that ‚well-designed interpretive services can be our most

effective and inexpensive resource management tool‛.

10.27. Although there are few data from the UK to show a clear association between

interpretive resources and recreational impacts. Relevant work from elsewhere does

show that there is certainly a clear correlation between the level of understanding

and attitudes towards nature conservation; the most effective methods of delivering

interpretive material is via personal interaction and the availability of literature (Olson

et al.,1984). Further, for the majority of visitors provision of interpretive materials is

an effective method to ensure compliance with management restrictions, although

for a minority only enforcement is successful (Alder, 1996).

10.28. Within The Broads and North Norfolk, in addition to interpretive materials provided

on sites (such as information boards), in both areas leaflets are freely in many

locations to highlight the importance of nature conservation assets and their

protection. The Broadcaster magazine produced by the Broads Authority is printed

annually and includes information to visitors on facilities, management and

responsible behaviour.

SUMMARY OF CASE STUDIES

10.29. Examples of case studies where management actions have been deployed or

proposed to control and reduce the impacts of various types of disturbance are

presented below (Table 34).

Table 34. Example case studies of actual and potential management actions to reduce

visitor impacts.

Compensato

ry Measures

Species Habitat Country

/ Region

Source of

Disturbance

Effectivene

ss

Reference

Buffer

(exclusion)

zones of

250m to

protect

feeding

Wigeon

and other

wildfowl

Lowlan

d lakes

Denmar

k

Walkers Proposed

measure

Bregnballe

et al. (2009)


76

Compensato

ry Measures


/ Region

Source of

Disturbance

Effectivene

ss

Reference

birds

Disturbance

-free refuges

need to be

large

Buffer zones

to either be

proportional

to group

size or all

groups

beyond

buffer zone

for large

groups.

Seabirds Cliffs Scotlan

d

Groups of

walkers

Proposed

measure

Beale &

Monaghan

(2004)

Deployment

of voluntary

wardens

Waders Estuarin

e

River

Dee,

North

Wales

Walkers Increase in

numbers of

birds

Kirby et al. (1993)

Education,

keeping

visitors in

cars

Wildfowl Lowlan

d

wetland

Florida,

USA

Walkers Proposed

measure

Klein et al. (1995)

Introduce

buffer

(exclusion)

zone

Wildfowl

and

waterbirds

Lowlan

d

wetland

Florida,

USA

Watercraft Proposed

measure

Rodgers &

Schwikert

(2002)

Introduce

buffer

(exclusion)

zones for

walkers

Coot Lowlan

d

wetland

German

y

Dog barking Proposed

measure

Randler

(2006)

Re-

alignment of

footpath

Golden

plover

Upland England Walkers Reduction

of

disturbanc

e to

nesting by

birds by

controlling

visitor

movement

s

Pearce-

Higgins et al. (2007)

Reducing

group sizes

(number of

walkers)

Currawon

gs (crow-

like birds)

Lowlan

d forest

Australi

a

Walkers Proposed

measure

Geist et al. (2005)

Reducing

group sizes

(number of

walkers)

Woodland

birds

Scrub Spain Walkers

(schoolchildr

en)

Proposed

measure

Remacha

et al. (2011)

Screening Brent

geese

Lowlan

d marsh

Devon Walkers and

cyclists

Proposed

measure

Goss-

Custard

(2008)

Screening Wildfowl Lowlan

d lake

England Boating Proposed

measure

Batten

(1977)


77

Compensato

ry Measures


/ Region

Source of

Disturbance

Effectivene

ss

Reference

Voluntary

restrictions

over winter

Wildfowl Lowlan

d lakes

The

Broads

Watercraft

and angling

Continued

use by

significant

numbers of

wildfowl

Thurne-

fisheries

(2012)

Zoning of

terrestrial

areas

Little tern Sand

dune

Great

Yarmout

h

Walkers Proposed

measure

Liley

(2008)

Zoning of

areas for

watercraft

Wildfowl Lowlan

d lake

England Watercraft Continued

use by

significant

numbers of

wildfowl

Welsh

Harp Joint

Consultati

ve

Committe

e (2012)

IMPLEMENTATION

10.30. It is recognised that the development of tourism within designated sites should be

based on information and for management to be responsive to need and

conditions, with the European Commission (2001) grouping the phases of a

management strategy as:

Strategy, policy and planning;

Offer, market and product;

Communication, promotion and awareness;

Assessing and Managing impacts, integrated quality management and co-

operation; and

At present interpretive materials are available in the form of information

boards at most sites managed by nature conservation organisations, with

more extensive facilities associated with visitor centres.

10.31. At present it is unclear as to the optimal mechanism for implementing

compensatory measures but this is a major requirement for ensuring delivery of

compensatory measures required to remove negative impocts or even to generate

positive impacts. for implementing a range of compensatory measures which have

the aim of making the scheme either impact neutral or indeed environmentally

positive.


78

10.32. . In terms of the development of the North-east Norwich Growth Area and NSOC,

the introduction of any compensatory measures may be phased as the project(s)

develop, in response to any requirements as determined from monitoring and

survey work or other evidence as provided by stakeholders, and in integration with

such compensatory or enhancement measures as may be implemented in response

to other plans and projects and as part of the ongoing enhancement of sites for

both conservation and visitor experience through investment and improvement

strategies, such as the Tourism Strategy. Clearly, the introduction of measures,

including the specification of precise designs, will require the co-operation of

stakeholders such as the Broads Authority,, yet vital to the implementation of some

management practices (Brouwer et al., 2003; Turner et al., 2003). As perceived,

successful decision-making among stakeholder groups should be adaptive,

responding to need, with stakeholders allowed to learn as part of the decision-

making process and results communicated clearly (Pouwels et al., 2011).

10.33. In terms of deploying the measures as identified above (Practical Management), the

suggested role of stakeholders is provided in Table 35; this shows measures

collectively for North Norfolk and The Broads although some measures may only be

appropriate in one area.

Table 35. Suggested role of stakeholders for the implementation of compensatory

measures.

Category Specific actions Target species /

feature

Principal

stakeholders

Increase predictability

of public use patterns

to promote

habituation to non-

threatening situations.

Limited, although

generally relevant to

other categories

Exclusion of dogs

Birds, principally

wildfowl and waders

Local Planning

Authority (LPA)

Individual

landowners

(conservation)

Encourage slow

moving and quiet

activities.

Discourage noisy

users

Electric boats

Birds, principally

wildfowl and waders

LPA

Watercraft

providers

Minimize area

influenced by human

activities.

Discourage

widespread use of

currently quiet areas

Breeding marsh

harrier

Wintering pink-

footed geese,

whooper and

Bewick’s swans

LPA

Landowners

providing facilities

Organisations

promoting

walking.

Design facilities to

conceal visitors

Screening of visitors Wildfowl and waders Individual

landowners

(conservation)

Design facilities to

protect natural

resources

Boardwalks

Careful routing of

paths

Vegetation

Birds

Individual

landowners

(conservation)

Establish regulations Enforceable

exclusion and

behaviour

Increased levels of

Birds, principally

wildfowl and waders

Local Authorities

Broads Authority

Fishing

organisations


79

Category Specific actions Target species /

feature

Principal

stakeholders

wardening

Watercraft

organisations

Establish wildlife

sanctuaries

Refuges

Zoning of users

Buffer zones

Vegetation

Wildfowl and waders

Individual

landowners

Anglers

Watercraft users

Interpretation and

education

Interpretive boards

and signs

Leaflets

Wardens

All features Nature

conservation

organisations

SYNTHESIS AND SUMMARY

10.34. As outlined above, for all of the designated features considered to be at risk of

disturbance or increased disturbance from greater numbers of visitors there are

potential measures to reduce impacts, from actions at individual sites and locations

to more strategic measures.

10.35. In practice, a suite of measures is likely to be appropriate for some species

particularly waders and wildfowl, where they occur widely and in substantial

numbers. Conversely some actions are likely to be more limited, particularly where

designated features are effectively limited to small areas of protected sites, such as

some dune vegetation in North Norfolk.

10.36. It is consequently considered that there are potential compensatory measures

available to reduce disturbance impacts on all species.


80

11 STAGE 3: REPEAT OF THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

11.1. As concluded in the review of potential compensatory measures, there are realistic

measures available for the reduction of disturbance impacts for all species. Given

that these are deployed to an appropriate extent then consequently it is considered

that any negative impacts on site integrity from potential growth in visitation

resulting from development in the North-east Norwich Growth Triangle can be

removed.

11.2. Based on the available visitor data for The Broads, the projections for the increases

in the numbers of future visitors resulting from an increased population in North-

east Norwich is considered low, less than 4% in the most cautious case. The

contribution to the increase in numbers to North Norfolk is considered to be

relatively less, based on the greater travel distance and the greater overall

popularity of North Norfolk.

11.3. Thus, based on the availability of realistic compensatory measures it is considered

that if such measures are implemented then impacts can be reduced sufficiently to

remove negative impacts on site integrity. As such, it is concluded that neither the

North-east Norwich Growth Area nor NS&OC will necessarily result in an impact on

the integrity of:

The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site, Broadland SPA; and



81

REFERENCES

Alder, J. (1996) Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, Cairns section of

the great barrier reef marine park. Environmental Management 20, 541–551.

Andersen, U.A. (1995). Resistance of Danish coastal vegetation types to human trampling.

Biological Conservation 71,223–230.

Anglian Water, Environment Agency & Natural England (2012). Joint Core Strategy for

Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk – Habitats Regulations Assessment Supplementary

Note. Cover letter to an amended version of Mott Macdonald (2010).

Batten, L.A. (1977). Sailing on reservoirs and its effects on water birds. Biological

Conservation 11, 49–58.

Beale, C.M. & Pat Monaghan, P. (2004) Human disturbance: people as predation-free

predators? Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343.

Beckett, M. & Bull, A. (1999) Flora of Norfolk. Margaret Beckett, Norfolk.

Boorman, L.A. & Fuller, R.M. (1977) Studies on the impact of paths on the dune vegetation

at Winterton, Norfolk, England. Biological Conservation 12, 203–216.

Bregnballe, T., Speich, C., Horsten, A. & Fox, A.D. (2009) An experimental study of

numerical and behavioural responses of spring staging dabbling ducks to human

pedestrian disturbance. Wildfowl Special Issue 2, 131–142.

Broads Authority (2006) Appropriate Assessment of the Core Strategy - Submission

Report. Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &C) (Amendment) (England and Wales)

Regulations 2006. September 2006. Available from: http://www.broads-

authority.gov.uk/authority/consultations/core-strategy/submission-core-strategy-dpd-

consultation.html

Broads Authority (2010) Broads Boat Census. Broads Authority, Norwich.

Broads Authority (2011) A Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Tourism in the Broads

2011 – 2015. Broads Authority, Norwich.

Broads Authority (2012a) Patrol. Available from: http://www.broads-

authority.gov.uk/boating/patrol.html

Broads Authority (2012b) Trinity Broads Management Plan. 2012-2017. Broads Authority,

Norwich.

Brouwer, R., Turner, R.K., Georgiou, S., Powe, N., Batemand, I.J. & Langford, I.H. (2003)


82

Social and deliberative approaches to support wetland management. In Managing

Wetlands, R.K. Turner, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh & R. Brouwer (eds), pp130-134. Edward

Elgar, Cheltenham.

Carlson, L.H. & Godfrey, P.J. (1989) Human impact management in a coastal recreation

and natural area. Biological Conservation 49, 141–156.

Clarke, R. & Watson, D. (1990) The hen harrier Circus cyaneus winter roost survey in Britain

and Ireland. Bird Study 84, 100-107.

Coles, R.W. & Bussey, S.C. (2000) Urban forest landscapes in the UK -progressing the

social agenda. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52: 181-188.

Coombes, E.G. & Jones, A.P. (2010) Assessing the impact of climate change on visitor

behaviour and habitat use at the coast: A UK case study. Global Environmental Change 20,

303–313.

Coombes, E., Jones, A., Bateman, I., Tratalos, J., Gill, J., Showler, D., Watkinson, A. &

Sutherland, W. (2009) Spatial and temporal modelling of beach use: A case study of East

Anglia, UK. Coastal Management 37, 94-115.

Cruickshanks, K., Liley, D. & Hoskin, R. (2010) Suffolk Sandlings Visitor Survey Report.

Footprint Ecology / Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Evans,

D.M. & Day, K.R. (2002) Hunting disturbance on a large shallow lake: the

effectiveness of waterfowl refuges. Ibis 144, 2-8.

DeLong, A. K. (2002) Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds — a literature

review of impacts and mitigation measures — prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife

Refuge. Appendix L (114 pp.) in Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final

environmental impact statement for the comprehensive conservation plan and boundary

revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland,

OR.

DfCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and Local

Government, London.

Doarkes (1995) Fen Mangement Strategy. English Nature, Norwich.

Dolman, P., Lake, I. R. & Bertoncelj, I. (2008) Visitor Flow Rate and Recreational Modelling

in Breckland. UEA, Norwich.

Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C. & Woolley, H. (2002) Improving Urban Parks, Play Areas

and Green Spaces.Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, London.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00063659009477044

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00063659009477044

http://researchpages.net/RHDS/publications/492

http://researchpages.net/RHDS/publications/492


83

EDP (2012) Tourism Business Survey. Capacity. Available from:

http://services.edp24.co.uk/norfolk/tourism-business-survey-

2011/content/features/capacity.aspx

English Nature (1999) Habitats Regulations Guidance Note. English Nature, Peterborough.

English Nature (2004) European Sites Guidance. English Nature, Peterborough.

European Commission (2001) Sustainable Tourism and Natura 2000. Guidelines, initiatives

and Good Practices in Europe. Office for the Official Publications of the European

Communities, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2007) Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the ‘Habitats Directive’

92/43/EEC. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

Evans, D.M. & Warrington, S. (1997) The effects of recreational disturbance on wintering

waterbirds on a mature gravel pit lake near london. International Journal of Environmental

Studies 53,167–182.

Fernandez, C. & Azkona, P. (1993) Human disturbance affects parental care of marsh

harriers and nutritional status of nestlings. The Journal of Wildlife Management 57, 602-

607.

Fox A.D. & Madsen, J. (1997) Behavioural and distributional effects of hunting disturbance

on waterbirds in europe: Implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 1-8.

Gamauf, A.; Preleuthner, M. (1996) Gamauf and Preleuthner (1996) nfluence of tourism on

the Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus) in the "National Park Neusiedlersee-Seewinkel"

(Austria). Abhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Österreich 29, 173-

193 (English abstract)

Geist, C., Liao, J., Libby, S. & D. T. Blumstein, D.T. (2005) Does intruder group size and

orientation affect flight initiation distance in birds? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation

28, 1-6.

George, M. (1992) The Land Use Ecology and Conservation of Broadland. Packard,

Chichester.

Gill, J.A., Watkinson, A.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (1996) The impact of sugar beet farming

practice on wintering pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus populations. Biological

Conservation 76, 95–100.

Gill, J.A., Norris, K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2001a) Why behavioural responses may not reflect

http://www.cabdirect.org/search.html?q=au%3A%22Gamauf%2C+A.%22

http://www.cabdirect.org/search.html?q=au%3A%22Preleuthner%2C+M.%22

http://www.cabdirect.org/search.html?q=do%3A%22Abhandlungen+der+Zoologisch-Botanischen+Gesellschaft+in+%C3%96sterreich%22


84

the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97, 265-268.

Glenn, N. (2006) Best Birdwatching Sites in Norfolk. Buckingham Press, Cambridgeshire.

Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F. & West, A.D. (2006) Critical thresholds of

disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biological Conservation 127,

88–97.

GNDP (2012) Greater Norwich Development Partnership. Joint Core Strategy. Greater

Nrowich Development Partnership, Norwich.

Guillemain, M., Hervé Fritz, H. & Duncan, P. (2002) The importance of protected areas as

nocturnal feeding grounds for dabbling ducks wintering in western France. Biological

Conservation 103,183–198.

Goss-Custard, J.D. (2008) National Cycle Network – Exe Estuary Cycleway. Update of the

Appropriate Assessment of the subsections from Turf Lock to Powderham Church. Report

to Devon County Council. Available from: www.devon.gov.uk/plandoc_91_3396.pdf

Grant, G. (2010) Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Great Yarmouth Waterfront Area

Action Plan. Further Preferred Options. October 2010. Available from: www.great-

yarmouth.gov.uk/view/GYBC110690

Great Yarmouth BC (2005) Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2021. Issues and

Options. Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Great Yarmouth.

Great Yarmouth BC (2009) Great Yarmouth Profile. Available from:

http://www.enterprisegy.co.uk/downloads/1/great_yarmouth_profile_2009%5B1%5D.pdf

Handley, J., Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Barber, A., Baker, B., Jones, C. & Lindley, S. (2003)

English Nature Research Reports. Number 526. Accessible Natural Green Space

Standards in Towns and Cities: A Review and Toolkit for their Implementation. English

Nature, Peterborough.

Herbert Woods (2012) Norfolk Broads Holidays and Short Breaks. Herbert Woods,

Norwich.

Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D. Tucker, G. Morris, R. & Treweek, J. (1997). Bird disturbance:

improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34,

275-288.

Hockin, D., Ounsted, M., Gormant, D., Hillt, V., Kellert, V. & Barker, M.A. (1992)

Examination of the Effects of Disturbance on Birds with Reference to its Importance in

Ecological Assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36, 253-286.

http://www.enterprisegy.co.uk/downloads/1/great_yarmouth_profile_2009%5B1%5D.pdf


85

Holling, M. & RBBP (2011) Rare breeding birds in the United Kingdom 2009. British Birds

104, 476-537.

Holman, I.P. & White, S.M. (2008) Synthesis of the Upper Thurne Research and

Recommendations for Management. Cranfield University, Cranfield.

Jefferies , D.J. (1987) The effects of angling interests on otters, with particular reference to

disturbance. In Angling and Widlife in Freshwaters, P.S. Maitland and A.L. Turner (eds) pp

23-30. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Edinburgh.

JNCC (2007) The Broads. Site Details. Available from:

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUcode=UK0013577

Jones, A., Bateman, I. & Wright, J. (2003) Estimating Arrival Numbers and Values for

Informal Recreational Use of British Woodlands. CSERGE / FC, Norwich.

Kirby, J.S., Clee, C. & Seager, V. (1993) Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to

wader roosts on the Dee Estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bulletin

68, 53-58.

Klein, R. J. T. & Bateman, I. J. (1998) The Recreational Value of Cley Marshes Nature

Reserve: An Argument Against Managed Retreat? Water and Environment Journal, 12,

280-285.

Klein, M.L., Humphrey, S.R. & Percival, H.F. (1995). Effects of ecotourism on distribution of

waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9, 1454–1465.

Kirby, J., Davidson, N., Giles, N., Owen, M. & Spray, C. (2004). Waterbirds and Wetland

Recreation Handbook: A review of Issues and Management Practice. The Wildfowl &

Wetlands Trust. Slimbridge.

Ledoux, L., Crooks, S., Jordan, A. & Turner, R.K. (2000) Implementing EU Biodiversity

Policy: A UK Case Study. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-03. CSERGE, Norwich.

Liley, D. (2007). Access to the Countryside and Bird Conservation: Priorities for Research.

Natural England Research Report 028. Footprint Ecology / Natural England.

Liley, D (2008). Development and the North Norfolk coast. Scoping Document on the

Issues Relating to Access. Footprint Ecology, Dorset.

Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Underhill-Day, J. & Tyldesley, D. (2008) Habitat Reuglations

Assessment: breckland Council SuBmission Core Strategy and Development Control

Policis. Breckland District Council, Dereham.

Liley, D., Jackson, D.B. & Underhill-Day, J.C. (2006) Visitor Access Patterns on the Thames

http://www.northnorfolk.org/ldf/documents/Development_and_the_North_Norfolk_Coast.pdf

http://www.northnorfolk.org/ldf/documents/Development_and_the_North_Norfolk_Coast.pdf


86

Basin Heaths. English Nature, Peterborough.

Leung, Y-F. & Marion, J.L. (1999) Spatial strategies for managing visitor impacts in national

parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17, 20-38.

Madsen, J. (1985) Impact of disturbance on field utilization of pink-footed geese in west

jutland, denmark. Biological Conservation 33, 53–63.

Madsen, J. (1998) Experimental refuges for migratory waterfowl in Danish wetlands. II.

tests of hunting disturbance effects. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35, 398–417.

Mott Macdonald (2010) Habitats Regulation Assessment. Joint Core Strategy for

Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk. Greater Norwich Development Partnership,

Norwich.

Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership (2008) Coastal and Grazing Marsh Habiat Action Plan.

Norfolk Biodiversity Partnership, Norwich.

Norwich City Council (2011) Norwich Key Statistics. Available from:

http://www.norwich.gov.uk/YourCouncil/documents/CityKeyStatsDec11v1.pdf

NNNS (2011) Bird and Mammal Report 2010. Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society,

Norwich.

Olson, E.C., Bowman, M.L. & Roth, R.E. (1994) Interpretation and nonformal environmental

education in natural resources management. The Journal of Environmental Education 15,

6–10.

Orams, M.B. (1996) A conceptual model of touristâwildlife interaction: the case for

education as a management strategy. Australian Geographer 27, 39–51.

Pouwels, R., Opdam, P. & R. Jochem, R. (2011) Reconsidering the effectiveness of

scientific tools for negotiating local solutions to conflicts between recreation and

conservation with stakeholders. Ecology and Society 16, 17-23.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., S. K. Finney, S.K., Yalden, D.W.& Langston, R.H.W. (2007) Testing

the effects of recreational disturbance on two upland breeding waders. Ibis 149, 45–55.

Remacha, C., Pérez-Tris, J. & Delgado J.A. (2011) Reducing visitors’ group size increases

the number of birds during educational activities: Implications for management of nature-

based recreation. Journal of Environmental Management 92, 1564–1568.

Randler, C. (2006) Disturbances by dog barking increase vigilance in coots Fulica atra.

European Journal of Wildlife Research 52, 265–270.

Rayment, R., Lewis, P., Henderson, R. & Broom, G. (2000) Valuing Norfolk’s Coast: The.

http://www.norwich.gov.uk/YourCouncil/documents/CityKeyStatsDec11v1.pdf


87

Economic Benefits of Environmental and Wildlife Tourism. RSPB, Sandy, Beds

Ravenscroft, N., Parker, B., Vonk, R. & Wright, M. (2007) Disturbance to Waterbirds

Wintering in the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA. Wildside Ecology, unpublished.

Rees, E.C., Bruce, J.H. & White, G. (2005) Factors affecting the behavioural responses of

whooper swans (Cygnus c. cygnus) to various human activities. Biological Conservation

121, 369–382.

Reimers, M. (2001) Can human erosion be accepted in the seaside dunes? From sand-

dyke to mountain scenery: an example form Romo, Denmark. In Coastal Dune

Management J.A. Houston, S.E. Edmondson & P.J. Rooney (eds) pp 223-226. University of

Liverpool Press, Liverpool.

Rodgers, J.A. & Schwikert, S.T. (2002) Buffer-Zone distances to protect foraging and

loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and Outboard-Powered boats

distancias. Conservation Biology 16, 216–224.

Scott Wilson (2010) Greater Norwich Development Partnership. Stage 2b Water Cycle

Study. Greater Norwich Development Partnership, Norwich.

Sharrock, J.T.R. (2010) The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland. Pyser, London.

Shaw, P. & Reeve, N. (2008) Influence of a parking area on soils and vegetation in an urban

nature reserve. Urban Ecosystems 11, 107-120.

Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Ulrika, K., Stigsdotter, U.K., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-

Jørgensen, F. & Randrup, T.B. (2010) Factors influencing the use of green space: Results

from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning 95,130–137.

Sutherland, W.J., Armstrong-Brown, S., Armsworth, P.R., Brereton, T., Brickland, J.,

Campbell, C.D., Daniel E. Chamberlain, D.E., Cooke, A.L., Nicholas K. Dulvy, N.K., Dusic,

N.R., Fitton, M., Freckleton, R.P.,Godfray, C., Grout, N., Harvey, H.J., Hedley, C., Hopkins,

J.J., Kift, N.B., Kirby, J., Kunin, W.E., MacDonald, D.W., Marker, B., Naura, M., Neale, A.R.,

Oliver, T., Osborn, D., Pullin, A.S., Shardlow, M.E.A., Showler, D.A., Smith, P.L., Richard J.

Smithers, R.J., jean-Luc Solandt, J.-L., Spencer, J., Spray, C.J., Thomas, C.D., Thompson,

J., Webb, S.E., Yalden, D.W. & Watkinson, A.R. (2006) The identification of 100 ecological

questions of high policy relevance in the UK. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 617–627.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jcfBAEPzioAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=sharrock&ots=FgL9qUTPyw&sig=D71JitTH2V98LT6z1bAXO43Y_EA

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7n32381246r0363/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7n32381246r0363/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/1083-8155/


88

ThurneFisheries (2011) Horsey Mere -Pike Fishing Trial 2011. Available from:

http://thurnefisheries.co.uk/

Turner, R.K., Brouwer, R., Georgiou, S., Bateman, I.J., Langford, I.H., Green, M. & Voisey,

H. (2003) Management of a multi-purpose, open access wetland: the Norfolk and Suffolk

Broads, UK. In Managing Wetlands, R.K. Turner, J.C.J.M. van den Bergh & R. Brouwer

(eds), pp 250-270. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2001) Draft Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses Policy

Pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Available from:

http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2001/01fr3681.html

Tyldesley, D. (2011) Assessing projects under the Habitats Directive: Guidance for

Competent Authorities. Report to the Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor

Visit England (2011) Annual Survey of Visits to Visitor Attractions. Available from:

http://www.visitengland.org/insight-statistics/major-tourism-

surveys/attractions/Annual_Survey/index.aspx

Visit England (2012) Top Towns 2011. Available from:

http://www.visitengland.org/Images/Top%20Towns%202011_tcm30-33056.pdf

Welsh Harp Management Committee (2012) Welsh Harp / Brent Reservoir Management

Plan. Welsh Harp Management Committee , Brent / Barnet.

Wood, A.M. (2001) Coastal erosion and torism in Scoltand: a review of protection

measures to combat coaslat erosion related to tourism activites and faciltlites. In Coastal

Dune Management, J.A. Houston, S.E. Edmondson & P.J. Rooney (eds) pp 227-232.

University of Liverpool Press, Liverpool.

Wildfrontier (2011) Broads Authority Development Management Policies DPD. Appropriate

Assessment (schedule of Proposed Minor Changes) – March 2011. Available at:

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads/live/search.html

Wildfrontier (2012) Broads Authority Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment of Site Specific

Policies. Broads Authority, Norwich.

Zwart, F. (2001) Dune management and communication with local inhabitats. In Coastal

Dune Management, J.A. Houston, S.E. Edmondson & P.J. Rooney (eds) pp 219-222.

University of Liverpool Press, Liverpool.

../../Horsey%20Mere%20-Pike%20Fishing%20Trial%202011.

http://www.visitengland.org/insight-statistics/major-tourism-surveys/attractions/Annual_Survey/index.aspx

http://www.visitengland.org/insight-statistics/major-tourism-surveys/attractions/Annual_Survey/index.aspx

http://www.visitengland.org/Images/Top%20Towns%202011_tcm30-33056.pdf

http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/broads/live/search.html


89


90

APPENDIX 1: COMPONENT SITES OF THE BROADS


91

Table 36. Component SSSIs of The Broads SAC and Broadland SPA. As understood, all of

these sites are components of The Broads SAC and Ramsar Site but Damgate Marshes and

Trinity Broads are not within the Broadland SPA.

SSSI Component

of SAC/SPA

Natural England Citation

Alderfen

Broad

SPA/SAC Classic succession from open water to carr woodland .

Nesting environment for a range of breeding birds. Several

species of water plant.

Ant Broads

and

Marshes

SPA/SAC Flood plain supporting extensive undeveloped, unpolluted

primary fen. Nationally important carr woodland and only

known site for several plant communities. Wide range of

breeding birds and wintering wildfowl. Nationally important

assemblage of fenland invertebrates.

Barnby

Broad and

Marshes

SPA/SAC Open water, carr woodland, fen, grazing marsh and dykes.

Threatened communities confined to Norfolk and Suffolk.

Outstanding assemblages of rare plants, birds and

invertebrates.

Broad Fen,

Dilham

SPA/SAC Fen, fen meadow, carr woodland and open water. Species

rich vegetation as a result of regular cutting of reeds. Range

of breeding and wintering bird species.

Bure

Broads

and

Marshes

SPA/SAC Wetland site of national and international importance.

Excellent example of unreclaimed marshland, supporting a

range of typical Broadland plant communities, including

probably the finest example of swamp alder carr in Britain.

Diverse and rare plants due to regular cutting for reed, sedge

and marsh hay. Restoration efforts have succeeded in

returning water plants to the broad. Supports rare marshland

birds and relict fen invertebrates.

Burgh

Common

and

Muckfleet

Marshes

SPA/SAC Important unreclaimed wetland, managed by traditional

mowing and grazing regimes. Wide range of floristically rich

habitats present including fen meadows. Site is also of

entomological and ontological interest.

Calthorpe

Broad

SPA/SAC Small, isolated broad having a low nutrient input and

retaining a diverse and productive aquatic flora and fauna.

Cantley

Marshes

SPA/SAC Primarily an improved grazing marsh, with areas of species

rich grassland and fen meadow. A range of soil types

supports a range of plant communities, dykes support a rich

and diverse aquatic flora and fauna, including two nationally

rare dragonflies. Marshes support an internationally

important population of wintering widgeon, and nationally

important populations of other wintering and breeding bird

species.

Crostwick

Marsh

SPA/SAC Excellent example of unimproved valley meadow, supporting

a range of plant communities and marshland bird species.

Damgate

Marshes,

Acle

SAC One of the richest areas of traditionally manages grazing

marsh and dykes in Broadland. The relatively nutrient poor

dykes support a rich aquatic flora and fauna, including

several uncommon species.

Decoy

Carr, Acle

SPA/SAC Wetland community characteristic of the region. Rare Arctic-

alpine mosses indicative of plant communities being

undisturbed since post-glacial times. Sedge and reedbeds

support uncommon fenland flora, and dyke networks support

a range of aquatic plants.

Ducan’s

Marsh,

Claxton

SPA/SAC Species rich fen and grassland communities maintained by

traditional management support many notable plant species.


92

SSSI Component

of SAC/SPA


Geldeston

Meadows

SPA/SAC A diverse flora resulting from traditional management,

graduated water table and range of soil types. System of

drainage dykes supports a diverse aquatic flora. Site

supports typical grazing-march bird species.

Hall Farm

Fen,

Hemsby

SPA/SAC Unimproved fen grassland with system of dykes. Supports

plant communities favouring both acidic and calcareous

conditions, resulting in high plant diversity. Dykes support a

range of aquatic flora and fauna, including a nationally rare

species of water snail.

Halvergate

Marshes

SPA/SAC The largest expanse of traditionally grazed marshes in

Broadland. A diverse habitat including well-developed

woodland, unimproved pasture, wet fen meadow, reedbed

and alder carr. Ditches represent a wide range of water

conditions with associated diverse aquatic flora and fauna,

including outstanding invertebrate assemblages. Site

supports populations of nationally and internationally

important wintering waterfowl.

Hardley

Flood

SPA Area of shallow lagoons and reedbeds with exposed soft

muds at low tide. Reedbeds support nesting nationally

important wildfowl and soft muds attract a range of wading

birds. Three rare species of fly have been recorded at the

site.

Limpenhoe

Meadows

SPA/SAC Large area of unimproved fen grassland with dykes.

Maintained by summer grazing, the fen grassland is

exceptionally diverse due to emerging springs. Dyke network

supports a range of emergent and aquatic plants, including

nationally rare and local species.

Ludham-

Potter

Heigham

Marshes

SPA/SAC One of the richest areas of grazing marsh remaining in

Broadland. Drainage dykes are of particular importance,

supporting several rare aquatic plants and a rich invertebrate

assemblage.

Poplar

Farm

Meadows,

Langley

SPA/SAC Small, spring-fed calcareous fen, with exceptionally diverse

meadows. Dykes contain clear spring waters and support a

rich aquatic flora.

Priory

Meadows,

Hickling

SPA/SAC An area of permanent grassland on damp, acidic peat.

Traditional annual hay-cut maintains an exceptionally rich

and varied flora. Acidic plant communities are rare in

Broadland. Drainage dykes support a rich aquatic flora.

Shallam

Dyke

Marshes,

Thurne

SPA/SAC Area of semi-improved pasture. Tussocky, undisturbed

grassland provides a habitat for several nesting wetland

birds. Site is considered the most important area of grazing

march for waders in Broadland. Clearwater drainage dykes

support a diverse aquatic flora.

Smallburgh

Fen

SPA/SAC Small, spring-fed valley fen of exceptional ecological interest.

Diverse plant community including a number of rare and local

species.

Sprat's

Water and

Marshes,

Carlton

Colville

SPA/SAC Spring-fed mixed fen, open water, alder carr and grazing

marsh. Fen community typical of Broadland. Rich floral

diversity due to high summer water levels, seasonal grazing

and reed cutting. Area also has high ornithological interest.

Stanley

and Alder

Carrs,

Aldeby

SPA/SAC The only extensive area of regularly flooded alder carr and

fen in the Waveney Valley. Site acts as a ‘wash’ in periods of

high river flow and supports a range of plants characteristic

to Broadland. Site has a rich invertebrate fauna and breeding


93

SSSI Component

of SAC/SPA


bird community, and part of the site is Qualifying as a

conservation area for otters.

Trinity

Broads

SAC A series of five shallow inter-connected lakes with fringing

reedswamp, wet woodland and fen. Isolation from the main

River Bure allows Trinity Broads to sustain a superior water

quality and associated aquatic floral diversity. It is one of the

few systems clear enough to sustain a charophyte flora.

Open water areas support nationally important populations

of breeding and wintering wildfowl. The site also supports a

rich invertebrate diversity, and otters are regularly recorded

here.

Upper

Thurne

Broads

and

Marshes

SPA/SAC The site comprises open water, woodland, grazing marsh,

marginal swamp and fen and is one of the best examples of

an unreclaimed wetland complex in Britain. Associated

broads and marshes support flora and fauna of national

importance. The site includes two of only four broads which

have not suffered significant deterioration in water quality

and offers an important site for research into the history and

conservation of the Norfolk Broads.

Upton

Broad and

Marshes

SPA/SAC One of only four broads that retain clear water and abundant

water plants, due to an isolated position preventing nutrient

enrichment and recreational over-use. Clear waters support

nationally rare water plants. Site has a rich invertebrate

assemblage and supports grass snakes and harriers.

Yare

Broads

and

Marshes

SPA/SAC Nationally important wetland site consisting of extensive

unreclaimed fen, carr woodland, open water and grazing fen.

Site supports high botanical and ornithological diversity


94

APPENDIX 2: FIGURE


95

Figure 1. Percentage of visitors to each of the four sites from each of the Norwich city postcode

districts (HGB: Hoveton Great Broad; Hick: Hickling; Ran: Ranworth; and Str: Strumpshaw).


96



Appendix 5.3: Arboricultural Report

ARBORICULTURAL REPORT

to BS 5837:2005 at

Land to the North East of Norwich City Centre Norwich Norfolk

NR7

Client: Beyond Green

Client Address: 1 Albemarle Way

Finsbury EC1V 4JB

Client Contact:

020 7549 2184 (Tel) 020 7549 2182 (Fax)

JCA Ref: 10249/TP

Arboricultural Report at: Land to the North East of Norwich City Centre, Norwich, Norfolk. JCA Ref: 10249/TP Page 2 of 24

JCA Limited 2011


JCA Limited 2011

Contents

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Purpose of the Report .................................................................................................................................4

1.2 Terms of Reference ....................................................................................................................................4

1.3 Scope of the Report ....................................................................................................................................4

1.4 Survey Details ............................................................................................................................................5

2. Site Description ...............................................................................................................................6

2.1 Land Use.....................................................................................................................................................6

2.2 Topography ................................................................................................................................................6

2.3 Treescape....................................................................................................................................................6

2.4 Visual Amenity Value ................................................................................................................................6

2.5 Age Class Mix ............................................................................................................................................6

2.6 Species Diversity........................................................................................................................................7

3. Status of the Trees...........................................................................................................................8

4. Tree Descriptions and Recommendations ....................................................................................8

5. Discussion.........................................................................................................................................9

5.1 Tree Condition & Recommended Works.......................................................................................................9

5.2 Potential Arboricultural Implications & Design Advice ..........................................................................11

6. Conclusions....................................................................................................................................13

Appendix 1: Tree Descriptions and Recommendations ..................................................................16

Appendix 2: Explanation of Tree Descriptions ................................................................................17

Appendix 3: General Guidelines........................................................................................................19

Appendix 4: Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations............................................................................20

Appendix 5: Author Qualifications ...................................................................................................21

Appendix 6: Tree Constraints Plan...................................................................................................22


JCA Limited 2011

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Report

1.1.1 A report is required at a large area of land to the North of Sprowston and Old Catton (north east of Norwich City Centre), Broadland, to provide detailed, independent, arboricultural advice on the trees present, in the context of potential development.

1.2 Terms of Reference

1.2.1 I am instructed by Beyond Green to visit the site and prepare my findings in a report.

1.2.2 For this purpose I have been supplied with a topographical survey, Drawing No. BG/A071324SUR/01.

1.2.3 Although the topographical survey is highly detailed; due to the size of this particular site and due to the volume of vegetation within it, it was not practical to plot every tree stem. As such, many of the large areas of vegetation were only indicated as a green line on the topographical survey.

1.2.4 To avoid inaccuracies with regards to tree stem positions on the Tree Constraints Plan at Appendix 6, many of these large areas have been surveyed as groups or woodlands in order to produce this report.

1.2.5 Where particularly good or poor specimens were observed on the edges of these groups and woodlands, they have been surveyed individually and plotted as accurately as possible on the Tree Constraints Plan at Appendix 6 by using measurements taken on site.

1.3 Scope of the Report

1.3.1 This report is compiled in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction.

1.3.2 Preliminary recommendations are given with a view to the long-term management of a sustainable tree cover.

1.3.3 All trees within the site boundary with a stem diameter above 75mm are included.

1.3.4 Where applicable trees outside the site boundary, but close enough to be affected by the proposed development, are included.

1.3.5 The specific design of any proposed development is not generally taken into account at this stage.


JCA Limited 2011

1.4 Survey Details

1.4.1 The survey took place during the month of August 2011.

1.4.2 The survey was conducted by Toby Parsons.

1.4.3 Inspection was made at ground level. Further investigation, such as climbed inspections or decay detection surveys, may be recommended where appropriate.

1.4.4 Measurements were obtained using clinometers, specialist tapes or electronic distometers. Where this was not possible measurements were estimated.


JCA Limited 2011

2. Site Description

2.1 Land Use

2.1.1 The majority of this large site is arable agricultural land with its associated buildings and residential dwellings.

2.1.2 The site also encapsulates several large established woodland plantations, paddock areas, an area of private parkland and several sports fields.

2.2 Topography

2.2.1 Generally speaking, the site is approximately level. However, there are many minor undulations throughout the site

2.3 Treescape

2.3.1 To the south of the site are the residential areas of Sprowston and Old Catton, which currently form the north eastern fringe of Norwich city. There areas contain occasional mature garden trees and many mature street trees.

2.3.2 To the north, west and east of the site is mainly arable agricultural land with well established field boundary hedgerows, which include many mature trees of good form. Occasional woodland plantations were also observed.

2.3.3 The vegetation within the site itself consists of generally excellent quality mature individual specimens, some large woodland plantations and well established field boundary hedgerows.

2.3.4 The trees and other items of vegetation on this site have a significant impact on the local treescape.

2.4 Visual Amenity Value

2.4.1 The trees, groups, woodlands and hedgerows are important established landscape features that add to the rural/agricultural nature of this area. As such, they collectively provide an excellent visual amenity to the surrounding area.

2.5 Age Class Mix

2.5.1 The trees surveyed ranged in age from young to over-mature.


JCA Limited 2011

2.6 Species Diversity

2.6.1 Species surveyed include Rowan, Crab Apple, Hawthorn, Norway Maple, Oak, Ash, Plum, Sweet Chestnut, Field Maple, Sycamore, Willow, Plum, Leylandii, Lawson Cypress, Laurel, Elm, Spruce, Birch, Beech, Cedar, Cherry, Aspen, Poplar, Lime, Scots Pine, Hornbeam, London Plane, Whitebeam, Horse Chestnut, Tulip Tree, Liquidambar, Privet, Alder and Hazel. The predominant species were Oak and Hawthorn, with other species being occasional, or even single, specimens.


JCA Limited 2011

3. Status of the Trees

3.1 The area that was surveyed in order to produce this report is governed by Broadland District Council.

3.2 A check has yet to be made to the council with regards to Tree Preservation Orders or

Conservation Areas enforced on this site. This is due to the shear size of the site and the volume of items of vegetation within it, and also that it is unlikely that the whole site will be developed in one phase.

3.3 As such, we would recommend that status checks of the trees within areas be done

prior to when it is proposed to develop individual areas. 3.4 In this instance we would recommend that it is assumed that the trees within the site are

protected, and that the Local Authority be consulted prior to the removal of, or work on any tree on site.

4. Tree Descriptions and Recommendations

4.1 Full details of all individual trees, groups, woodlands and hedges surveyed are recorded in the tables at Appendix 1. A full explanation of the tables can be found at Appendix 2.

4.2 Please refer also to the Tree Constraints Plan at Appendix 6 (and Section 1.2.5) for tree locations.


JCA Limited 2011

5. Discussion

5.1 Tree Condition & Recommended Works

5.1.1 The tree survey revealed a total of 605 items of vegetation (390 individual trees, 128 groups of trees, 76 hedges and 11 woodlands). Of these, 136 trees/groups/woodlands were identified as retention category ‘A’, 319 trees/group/hedges were identified as retention category ‘B’, 123 trees/groups/hedges were identified as retention category ‘C’ and 27 trees/groups were identified as retention category ‘R’. Please refer to Appendix 2 for retention category and definition criteria.

5.1.2 27 trees/groups (T33, T44, T73, T75, T83, T92, G137, T185, T207, T230, T235, T237, T242, T243, G266, T283, T322, T350, G381, T384, T409, T435, T438, T507, T524, T543 and T552) were identified as retention category ‘R’. These trees require removal for arboricultural reasons regardless of any on site development, detailed below:

• T322 is considered to be unsafe due to the presence of the wood decaying fungi Ustulia deusta at its base, and the trees position within falling distance of the adjacent road. As such, it should be removed as soon as it is reasonably practicable; its removal is of high priority.

• The remaining trees have been recommended for removal to prevent them from becoming dangerous trees or in order to benefit adjacent trees; their removal is of a lower priority.

5.1.3 Some tree pruning works are recommended for reasons of public safety and to ensure the long-term health of the trees, as detailed at Appendix 1. Please note that some of these recommendations may not be necessary at present due to the current land use and limited public access, however, the works should be undertake if the area is developed or the land use changes.

5.1.4 Where a full detailed inspection of trees was inhibited by restricted access or by the presence of ivy/epicormic shoots/understorey vegetation, as detailed at Appendix 1, it is advised that these trees be re-inspected for any possible defects when the ivy/epicormic shoots/understorey vegetation has been removed or when access has been made available.

5.1.5 Please note that Ivy on trees is not ideal from an arboricultural perspective, as it can potentially hide defects and it increases the sail effect of the crown. However, it can provide an excellent ecological habitat for various species including bats. Due to the uninhabited rural nature of the majority of the site, the potential for some of these trees to be used by bats or other species is increased. As such, we would recommend that an ecologist be consulted prior to removing Ivy from these trees.


JCA Limited 2011

5.1.6 Trees which have been noted to have significant structural or physiological defects, as detailed at Appendix 1, should be monitored (re-inspected and re-assessed) on an annual basis to assess if their condition is still acceptable. Although these trees were considered to be in an acceptable condition at the time of the inspection, the defects observed may lead to their early demise of render them unsafe in the future.

5.1.7 Those trees which overhang the public footpaths or public highways, detailed at Appendix 1, shall require future maintenance in order to maintain clearance heights for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. These heights should be 5.6m above a road and 2.5m above a footpath.

5.1.8 There are many trees on site, particularly many of the individual Oak specimens that are reaching over maturity and are close to becoming veteran trees. Veteran trees are trees that have reached their full potential and are entering a stage of decline, although it should be noted that this decline would be very slow and that these trees are likely to contribute for many, many years to come. Ecologically, these trees are incredibly important as they provide habitats for a huge array of invertebrates, especially those that are associated with dead and decaying wood. From a safety point of view veteran trees may not be ideal as they often have cavities and large quantities of deadwood which could potentially pose a risk. However, with the correct management such as restricting access or diverting paths or roads away from these trees, they can be left to slowly decline without the need for radical remedial work. These trees also form important landscape features with not only ecological value, but also cultural value. As such, every effort should be made to retain and incorporate these trees into the final design.

5.1.9 The numerous hedgerows and woodlands within this site are also likely to have significant ecological value, and due to how well they have been managed over the years, they also provide excellent landscape features. As such, every effort should be made to retain and incorporate them into the final design.

5.1.10 The species and age diversity of existing trees on site is excellent; however is it possible that some trees may require removal to facilitate development on site. As such, careful consideration must be given to designating areas to be replanted during the initial design phase to ensure continued tree cover.


JCA Limited 2011

5.2 Potential Arboricultural Implications & Design Advice

5.2.1 The full details of the proposed development are not known at present. However, the following comments can be made about the site in terms of its tree cover in relation to a potential development.

5.2.2 During development the part of the tree most commonly under threat, and most commonly ignored, is the rooting system. When trees are damaged, particularly the roots, their long-term health and stability can be affected. Most development activity can have an impact on the future condition and safety of a tree, and therefore careful planning and management of tree protection should ensure a continued sustainable tree cover with minimal stress to existing trees.

5.2.3 There are a numerous high amenity trees, groups, woodlands and hedgerows within this site that form well established natural landscape features. They will enhance any proposed development and care should be taken at the design stage to ensure that these trees, groups, woodlands and hedgerows are retained (please refer to Sections 5.1.8 & 5.1.9).

5.2.4 In order to ensure that the retained trees on site are properly protected during the development phase, the tree rooting zones are to be considered. For the purpose of development the rooting zone of the tree is known as the Root Protection Area or RPA. The RPA of each tree or group is marked on the Tree Constraints Plan at Appendix 6 and represents the rooting zone which, where possible, should remain undisturbed. The protection of retained trees can therefore be achieved by creating a Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) based on the RPAs.

5.2.5 Damage caused by any construction activity such as demolition, soil stripping, and provision of services needs to be considered at the design stage. Care should be taken to avoid damage to tree roots when existing structures such as tarmac surfaces are removed within a RPA.

5.2.6 The laying of access roads, driveways, parking areas or any other hard surfaces planned in proximity to retained trees needs to be considered. There are many solutions available to construct hard surfaces over RPAs without causing damage to trees.

5.2.7 Boundary walls or other light structures can be constructed without damage to roots through the use of piled foundations rather than the more traditional strip foundations.

5.2.8 The location of drainage and utilities within the RPA can be achieved if need be, using special techniques and supervision.

5.2.9 The position of the site compound is a major consideration. It is recommended that this, which typically includes the site office, facilities, toilets, storage of materials and parking, is located away from trees and outside the RPA.


JCA Limited 2011

5.2.10 Consideration must be given to movement of both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. If possible traffic should be diverted away from the RPAs. If this is not possible a range of temporary surfaces are available to distribute the weight of traffic and allow the roots to receive moisture and air.

5.2.11 Generally, the alteration of ground levels within the RPA is not acceptable, however, should ground levels need to be lowered in areas adjacent to trees or within the minimum distance recommended, appropriate measures should be taken to minimise the detrimental effects on the trees and their root systems. With regards to raising levels, it is necessary to maintain adequate supplies of moisture and oxygen through the soil to the tree roots. Therefore, no material should be placed within the RPA without arboricultural advice.

5.2.12 The shade that will be cast by the retained trees must also be considered. Where buildings are to be positioned within the shade cast area of trees, these should be designed in order to maximise light levels. If required, JCA can provide a shade cast prediction plan.

5.2.13 Many development sites contain areas of nature conservation interest. Trees and hedgerows, in particular, provide an important habitat for birds, bats, invertebrates and fungi and appropriate attention needs to be paid to preserving habitats throughout the development process. JCA can provide ecological and bat surveys where required.

5.2.14 Where a landscape planting scheme is proposed, consideration must be made at the planning stage as to where this is to be implemented on site. Such locations should be protected in order to prevent soil compaction and/or contamination and should therefore form part of the Construction Exclusion Zone. JCA can provide Tree Planting Schemes where required.


JCA Limited 2011

6. Conclusions

6.1 The trees surveyed were generally found to be in good condition.

6.2 27 trees/groups have been recommended for removal for arboricultural reasons. These are discussed in Section 5 and detailed at Appendix 1.

6.3 Some pruning works were recommended for reasons of public safety and to ensure the long term health of the trees. These are summarised in Section 5 and detailed at Appendix 1.

6.4 Various trees require re-inspection when the Ivy/epicormic shoots/understorey vegetation that prevented detailed inspection has been removed. These are summarised in Section 5 and detailed at Appendix 1. Please also refer to Section 5.1.5.

6.5 Various trees require annual monitoring to assess if their condition is still acceptable due to the presence of structural or physiological defects. These are summarised in Section 5 and detailed in Appendix 1.

6.5.1 There are a numerous high amenity trees, groups, woodlands and hedgerows within this site that form well established natural landscape features. They will enhance any proposed development and care should be taken at the design stage to ensure that these trees, groups, woodlands and hedgerows are retained.

6.6 Due to the size of the site and the volume of vegetation within it, recommendations have been made to check for the status of the trees as and when it is proposed to develop individual areas. At this moment in time we would recommend that it is assumed that the trees within the site are protected and that the Local Authority be consulted prior to the removal of, or work on any tree on site.

6.7 All development work carried out in close proximity to trees should be done so in a

manner sympathetic to their needs. Otherwise the condition of the trees may deteriorate in the months and years following the development, leading to a loss of amenity and potentially hazardous trees.

6.8 Care should be taken at the design stage to ensure that the retained trees are protected. The protection of retained trees can be achieved by the creation of a Construction Exclusion Zone based on the Root Protection Area of a tree. The Root Protection Area of each tree or group is marked on the Tree Constraints Plan at Appendix 6.

6.9 The proposed development should be accompanied by an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) detailing the specific protection measures necessary for each tree. This should specify fencing standards and positions (the creation of the Construction Exclusion Zone), acceptable construction techniques and necessary tree works.

6.10 Upon instruction JCA Ltd are able to provide a comprehensive Arboricultural Method Statement in order to ensure the continued health of trees throughout the proposed


JCA Limited 2011

development. We are also able to provide tree planting schemes and organise tree works.


JCA Limited 2011

Appendices

Appendix 1 Tree Descriptions and Recommendations Ref:10249/TP

Age

Species

Latin Name W E

Semi-mature

Semi-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Norway Maple

Acer platanoides

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Norway Maple 2.4 2.4

Acer platanoides

Early-mature

Norway Maple 3 3

Acer platanoides

Early-mature

Norway Maple 2 2

Acer platanoides

Semi-mature

English Oak Est 6 5.5

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Hawthorn & Plum

Crataegus monogyna & Prunus sp

Semi-mature

See plan

See planMixed species

C

C

Occasional vegetation Situated on adjacent land within residential

gardens. No major visible defects. Species include Privet, Elder, Plum

and Hawthorn.

No action required. MOD 20-40

FAIR FAIR

FAIR FAIR

MOD

To 3 0+To 10

B

6

To 3 0To 12

Small group of Hawthorn and Plum. Possibly part of an old hedgerow. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required. 20-40

C

2

10 2 38

5.5 Multi-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to

crown lifting. Crown overhangs the boundary over the adjacent garden. Metal

screw in stem at 1m with some dark staining present. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required. HIGH 40+

C

3

6 2.5 23

2

Situated within H4. Previously reduced. Acceptable condition at present. No major visible defects.


C

2.4

7 2 29

3



C

6 2 26

2.4



MOD 40+GOOD GOOD1 0To

10 at base

Well maintained boundary hedge situated on adjacent land in between housing estate and open fields. No

major visible defects.

See plan

C

5 trees forming linear group. Situated on adjacent land. All trees previously reduced and now with immature re-growth. No major visible defects.

No action required. MOD 20-40FAIR FAIRSee planTo 5.5

2To 30

0

MOD 40+ BGOOD GOOD

GOOD GOODTo

10 at base

See plan (ave. 2.5 all round)

4

9

10

Mixed species linear group. Situated on adjacent land. Species include

Rowan, Crab Apple, Hawthorn and Alder. Occasional pruning wounds

due to crown lifting. No major visible defects.

Ave. 4.5

Ave. 2

Ave.15

1

5

6

7

8

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory

Well maintained boundary hedge situated on adjacent land in between housing estate and open fields. No


No action required. MOD 40+ C

Observations Recommendations

No action required.

FAIR FAIR

FAIR FAIR

FAIR FAIR

No action required.

GOOD FAIR

G

H

G

Tree Ref.

1

2

3

H

T

T

T

T

G

G

Mixed species

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory

Observations RecommendationsTree Ref.

Early-mature

Early-mature

Privet

Ligustrum ovalifolium

Early-mature

Field Maple 3.5 3.5

Acer campestre

Early-mature

Plum 3 3

Prunus sp

Semi-mature

Hawthorn & Lawson cypress

Crataegus monogyna &

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana

Early-mature

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Mature

English Oak 6.5 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

See plan

See plan

Mixed species

Mixed species

11To 13

2Est

to 38

8 trees in a row situated just within the rear gardens of the adjacent properties. Species include Silver Birch, Norway Maple and Oak. Stems not plotted

on topographical surevy, hence surveyed as a group. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown

lifting. No major visible defects. Limited inspection due to location.

No action required. GOOD FAIR HIGH 40+ B

12 2 0Est

to 10LOW 40+ C

Well maintained boundary hedge belonging to the adjacent property.

No major visible defects.No action required. GOOD FAIR

13 6.5 2.5Est 30

3.5 Situated on adjacent land within H12. No major visible defects. Limited

inspection due to location. Dimensions estimated as a result.

Minor dieback noted.

No action required. FAIR

3.5

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

14 5.5 040 at base

3

Multi-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. Previously reduced

now with immature re-growth.No action required. FAIR

Est 2.5

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

15To 4.5

1.5Est

to 17

Mixed species group Situated on adjacent land within rear garden of

the adjacent properties. Limited inspection and dimensions estimated

due to position.

No action required. FAIRSee plan FAIR MOD 40+ C

16To 5.5

0Est

to 30

Mixed species linear group forming the rear boundary of the adjacent

properties. Species include Hawthorn, Leylandii, Elder and Oak. Limited

inspection due to location. Dimensions estimated.

No action required. FAIRSee plan FAIR MOD 20-40 C

17 To 3 0.5

Est to 24

at base

2 well trimmed/maintained Hawthorn. No major visible defects.

No action required. FAIRSee plan (ave. 1.5

all round)GOOD MOD 40+ C

18 15 093

over Ivy

7 Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the

boundary. No major visible defects although significant Ivy prevented

detailed inspection. Stem not plotted on topographical survey.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects.

GOOD

Est 6

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

19 To 6 0To 25

Hedgerow group. Maintenance now lapsed. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODSee plan FAIR MOD 40+ C

20 16 3.5125 over Ivy

8.5 Situated on boundary with the adjacent property. Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning

wounds due to crown lifting. Significant Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Stem not

plotted on topographical survey.


GOOD

Est 7

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

G

H

T

T

G

G

G

T

G

T

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Leyland Cypress & Laurel

X Cupressocyparis leylandii & Prunus

Mature

English Oak Est 7.5 8

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Mature


Quercus robur

Mature


Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 8 8

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

English Oak 5.5 6

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 6 6

Quercus robur

Early-mature


Quercus robur

21 1.5 0To 10

Well maintained hedge, situated on boundary with the adjacent property.

No action required. GOODSee plan GOOD LOW 20-40 C

22 14 3.585

over Ivy

6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Some dieback noted.

Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Stem not plotted on

topographical survey.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects. Prune out dieback.

FAIR

7.5

FAIR HIGH 20-40 B

23To 2.5

0To

15 at baseMixed species

Mixed species field boundary hedgerow. Species include Plum, Hawthorn, Ivy and Ash. Excellent habitat and screening properties.

No action required. GOODSee plan GOOD MOD 40+ B

24 11 3Est 58

8 Situated within H23. Limited inspection as a result. Crown overhangs the road. Ivy to 6m prevented detailed inspection. Large branch stub at 6m due to past snapped limb. Stem

not plotted on topographical survey.


GOOD

6

FAIR MOD 40+ B

25 1.5 3.578

over Ivy

6 Situated within H23. Limited inspection as a result. Crown

overhangs the road. Ivy to 9.5m prevented detailed inspection. Some deadwood noted. Stem not plotted on



GOOD

6

FAIR MOD 40+ B

26 11 385

over Ivy

6 Situated within H23. Limited inspection as a result. Crown overhangs the road. Major Ivy

prevented detailed inspection. Some deadwood noted. Stem not plotted on



GOOD

8

FAIR MOD 40+ B

27 To 7 0To


Field boundary hedgerow. Species include Hawthorn, Holly, Field Maple

and Oak. No major visible defects. Provides excellent screen and habitat.

No action required. GOODSee plan FAIR MOD 40+ B

28 12 285

over Ivy

Est 7 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Situated within

H27. No major visible defects. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Stem not plotted on topographical

survey.


GOOD

7.5

GOOD MOD 40+ A

29 12 267

over Ivy

Est 6 Situated within H27. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Major Ivy prevented



GOOD

5

GOOD MOD 40+ A

30 13 2.5125 over Ivy

Est 6 Situated within H27. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Major Ivy prevented



GOOD

6.5

GOOD MOD 40+ A

H

T

H

T

T

T

H

T

T

T

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Early-mature

Ash 6 5.5

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak 1 1

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 8.5 Est 9

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 7.5 Est 8.5

Quercus robur

Mature


Quercus robur

Early-mature


Quercus robur

31 To 6 0To


Mixed species field boundary hedgerow. Species include Plum and

Hawthorn. Excellent habitat and screening properties.


32 13 2120 at

base

Est 6 Stem not plotted on topographical survey. Multi-stemmed (3 stems) at ground level

with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Dense Ivy

prevented detailed inspection. Acceptable condition at present.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects if area is developed.

FAIR

5

GOOD MOD 20-40 B

33 7 475

over Ivy

Est 1Dead Ivy clad tree. Acceptable

condition at present due to land use, however, it will require removal if the

area is developed.

Remove if the area is developed.

DEAD

5

DEAD DEAD <10 R

34To 5.5

3.5130 0ver Ivy

2 Oak trees growing within H31. Stems not plotted on topographical survey, hence surveyed as a group. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of

both trees.


GOODSee plan GOOD MOD 40+ A

35To 4.5

0To


Mixed species field boundary hedgerow. Species include Hawthorn, Oak and Elder. Excellent habitat and screening properties. Occasional gaps

noted.


36To 4.5

0To 10

Mixed species

Mixed species field boundary hedgerow. Species include Plum, Hawthorn, Oak, Elder and Field

Maple. Excellent habitat and screening properties.

No action required. GOODSee plan FAIR HIGH 40+ B

37 17 4135 over Ivy

7.5Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs

the road. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD

10

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

38 15 495

over Ivy

8.5 Twin-stemmed at 3.5m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs

the road. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Significant ivy

prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD

8

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

39 17 4135 over Ivy

6Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs

the road. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD

8.5

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

40 12 578

over Ivy

6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs

the road. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Some significant

deadwood noted over the road.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects

and remove deadwood.

FAIR

1.5

FAIR HIGH 20-40 B

H

T

T

G

H

H

T

T

T

T

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 3 Est 4

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Elm 2 3

Ulmus sp.

Mature

English Oak 5 Est 5.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 Est 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Mature

English Oak 6 7.5

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

English Oak 3.5 3.5

Quercus robur

41 12 483

over Ivy

1 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Crown overhangs

the road. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Deadwood noted. Sparse upper crown. Likely to be in decline.


and remove deadwood. Monitor

annually.

FAIR

1

FAIR HIGH 10-20 C

42 7.5 0.5 18

0

Situated adjacent to T41. Stem not plotted on topographical survey. No

major visible defects.No action required. GOOD

4

FAIR MOD 10-20 C

43 12 3 84

5.5 Twin-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the road.

Significant old bark wound at 0 to 1m on road side. Minor Ivy to stem. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually. GOOD

5

FAIR HIGH 20-40 B

44 12.5 395

over Ivy

6 Twin-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the road. Significant wound with

cubical brown decay at base. Unnaceptable condition in road side

position.

Remove. FAIR

7

POOR HIGH <10 R

45 To 3 0 To 9Mixed species

Well maintained hedgerow adjacent to playground. No major visible

defects.No action required. GOODSee plan GOOD MOD 40+ B

46To 4.5

0.5To

26 at base

Group of Hawthorn adjacent to playground. Likely to have once been

part of the adjacent long field boundary hedgerow.

No action required. GOODSee plan GOOD LOW 20-40 C

47 13 2.585

over Ivy

7 Stem not plotted on topographical survey. Occasional pruning wounds

due to crown lifting. Minor deadwood noted. Situated within hedgerow. Ivy to 5m prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD

5

GOOD MOD 40+ A

48To 4.5

0 to 8Mixed species

Mixed species hedgerow situated between footpath/cycle path and the

adjacent field. Species include Hawthorn and Field Maple. Provides

excellent screen and habitat.


49To 5.5

0Ave.23

Mixed species

Mixed species linear group situated between footpath/cycle path and road. Species include Plum, Hawthorn and Field Maple. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection of all specimens.

No action required. FAIRSee plan FAIR HIGH 20-40 C

50 5 1.5120 at

base

4Multi-stemmed at 1m with a balanced

crown. Re-growth from old stump. Some decay present close to base. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually due to basal decay.

FAIR

3.5

FAIR HIGH 20-40 B

T

T

T

T

H

G

T

H

G

T

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature


Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Mature


Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 7.5 Est 8.5

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Semi-mature

Semi-mature

Semi-mature

Early-mature

Field Maple

Acer campestre

Early-mature

51 14 2.5 97

6.5Multi-stemmed at 4m with a balanced

crown. Crown overhangs the road. Minor deadwood throughout. Minor

Ivy to stem.

No action required. GOOD

8

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

52 4.5 0.5Ave. 25

Mixed species

2 Oak and I Field Maple forming a linear group. Only 1 stem plotted on topographical survey. Ivy prevented

detailed inspection of all stems. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required. FAIRSee plan FAIR HIGH 40+ B

53 14 2.5 124

7.5Twin-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Overhanging

footpath and road. Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD

8

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

54 14.5 2.5 124

7Multi-stemmed at 5m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the footpath and road. Deadwood noted. Stem not


Deadwood. GOOD

8

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

55To 7.5

0.5Ave. 27

Mixed species

2 Field Maple and 1 Oak forming one crown. Crown overhangs the footpath and road. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of all stems. Acceptable condition at

present.


56 To 8 0.5To 33

Mixed species

Hawthorn and Field Maple forming one crown. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of all stems. Acceptable condition at

present.

No action required. GOODSee plan GOOD MOD 20-40 B

57 To 9 2.5Ave. 27

Mixed species

4 Field Maple and 1 Hawthorn in linear group. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection of all stems.


58 To 8 2Ave. 26

Mixed species

Field Maple and Hawthorn forming a linear group adjacent to to footpath

and road. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of all stems. Acceptable

condition at present.


59 to 10 2

To 40

over Ivy

Linear group of Field Maple. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented

detailed inspection of all stems. Acceptable condition at present.


60To 12

2.5To 35

Mixed species

Mixed species group. Species include Plum Spruce, Birch, Hawthorn, Willow, Cherry

and Laurel. Stems not plotted on topographical survey, hence surveyed as a

group. Limited inspection due to being positioned in what appears to be private

residential land. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODSee plan GOOD HIGH 40+ A

T

G

T

T

G

G

G

G

G

G

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Goat Willow 3.5 Est 7

Salix caprea

Early-mature

Beech

Fagus sylvatica

Mature

Cherry Est 6 Est 6

Prunus sp

Early-mature

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature to mature

Early-mature

Semi-mature to early-mature

Mature

English Oak 5.5 6.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak

Quercus robur

61 8 2.544 at base

3.5 Multi-stemmed (3 stems) at ground level with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the footpath.Situated on the edge of G60. No major visible

defects.


3

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

62 3 0To

15 at base

Well maintained hedge. Situated on the boundary with 318 Buxton Road

and the adjacent fields. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODSee plan GOOD LOW 40+ B

63 10 3 54

Est 6 Situated within the garden of 318 Buxton road. Stem not plotted on the

topographical survey. Limited inspection due to position.

Dimensions estimated as a result.


Est 6

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

64To 10

0 to 25Mixed species

Mixed species group situated within the rear gardens of properties on Buxton Road.

Species include Leyandii, Yew, Sycamore and Norway Maple. Stems not plotted on topographical survey. Limited inspection due to location and due to uncut mature

crops in the adjacent field.

No action required. FAIRSee plan FAIR MOD 20-40 B

65 2 0To

25 at base

Field boundary group. No major visible defects. Surveyed from a

considerable distance away due to the presence of mature uncut crops

preventing access.

Re-inspect when crops have been

harvested and access is available.

FAIRSee plan FAIR LOW 20-40 C

66Est

to 140

Est To 75Mixed species

Gappy Hawthorn hedge row with occasional mature Oak and semi-mature

Elm trees. No stems plotted on the topographical survey. Surveyed from a considerable distance away due to the

presence of mature uncut crops preventing access.



FAIRSee plan FAIR LOW 40+ B

67Est

to 170

Est to 75

Mixed species

Gappy Hawthorn hedge row with occasional mature Oak trees. No

stems plotted on the topographical survey. Surveyed from a considerable distance away due to the presence of

mature uncut crops preventing access.



FAIRSee plan FAIR MOD 40+ B

68 To 6 0Ave. 25 at baseMixed species

Unmanaged field boundary hedgerow adjacent to playing fields. No major visible

defects although Ivy prevented detailed inspection of some stems. Ocasional

specimaems have recenly failed and are obstructing the footpath.

Remove failed specimens.

FAIRSee plan FAIR LOW 40+ C

69 12 2 46

6 Situated within H68. Vertical with a balanced crown. Dead Ivy in crown.

No major visible defects. Minor deadwood noted. Acceptable



6

FAIR MOD 40+ B

70To 15

3

To 89

over Ivy

Linear group of 7 mature Oak trees within H68. No stems plotted on the topographical survey. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of all stems. No

major visible defects.Minor deadwood noted throughout.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects if

land use changes.GOODSee plan GOOD HIGH 40+ A

T

H

T

G

G

G

G

H

T

G

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

English Oak 8 9.5

Quercus robur

Semi-mature to mature

Mature

English Oak 7.5 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8 8.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 3 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4.5 4

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6.5 9

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 6

Quercus robur

71 16 2 131

6.5 Twin-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Overhanging playground and fields. Minor

deadwood throughout. Bark wound at base with some dysfunctional wood

present.

Monitor annually due to bark wound.

GOOD

10.5

FAIR HIGH 40+ B

72To 16

2To 105

Mixed species

Unmanaged gappy hedge with mature Oak trees throughout. Individual stems not

plotted on the topographical survey, hence surveyed as a group. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of many stems. Deadwood and hanging branches noted over the adjacent

playing field.

Crown clean, particularly where

crowns overhang the playing fields.

GOODSee plan FAIR HIGH 40+ A

73 14 2106 over Ivy

7.5 Situated within G72. Stem not plotted on topographical survey. Significant decay cavity at 2 to 3m. Excellent

habitat value, but potentially unstable.

Remove completely or cut to a 3m

deadwood habitat and monitor

annually.

FAIR

8.5

FAIR HIGH 10-20 R

74 18 2 123

9.5 Situated at the southern end of G72. Stem not plotted on the topographical survey.

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Overhanging playing field. No

evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects.


9

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

75 13 1 87

5.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Major cavity at

base. Acceptable condition at present. Due to land use, but unacceptable if

the area is to be developed.

Remove. FAIR

8

POOR MOD <10 R

76 13 0.5135 over Ivy

5.5

Single stemmed and slightly leaning with a balanced crown. Major Ivy



FAIR

8

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

77 12 0.5120 over Ivy

4.5

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented

detailed inspection.


FAIR

4.5

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

78 13.5 0.5 92

7 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Large cavity to stem

at 0.5 to 2m. Will require heavy reduction in order to avoid possible

collapse.

Pollard/top at 3m and monitor

annually.GOOD

9

POOR MOD 10-20 C

79 14 1 91

5.5Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced

crown. Deadwood and very minor dieback noted. Acceptable condition

at present.

Monitor annually due the minor

dieback.FAIR

10.5

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

80 13 0.5 85

4.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Cavity at base with some decay to 6m. Excellent habitat

value. Acceptable condition at present. Due to land use.

Reduce crown by 5m to stabalize and contain. Monitor the remainder annually.

FAIR

4

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

T

G

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 5 6.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4.5 5.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4 4

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak 8 10.5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 6 10.5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 6 6.5

Quercus robur

Young to semi-mature



81 13 0.5 81

6 Single stemmed and slightly leaning with a balanced crown. Minor

deadwood and vandal damage noted to the stem. Acceptable condition at

present.


9.5

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

82 15 1.5 95

4.5Multi-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Minor decay to stem at 2.5m at old pruning wound. Some large

deadwood noted.

Deadwood if area is developed and

montor stem wound annually.

FAIR

4

FAIR LOW 20-40 B

83 11 195

over Ivy

3Cavity at base with decay. Sparse

crown with dieback noted. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection.

Limited long term future.

Remove. FAIR

5

POOR MOD <10 R

84To 5.5

0To


Unmanaged Hawthorn and Elder hedgerow situated between 2 fields. No major visible defects. Excellent

screening and habitat.


85 18 0.5 114

7.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of

significant pruning. No major visible defects. Minor deadwood noted. Fine

specimen.


9.5

GOOD MOD 40+ A

86 16 1 132

8 Large specimen with sizeable stem wound which covers 30% of stem

circumference. Acceptable condition at present. Due to land use, however it may require future works of the

area is developed.

Monitor annually. FAIR

10

POOR MOD 10-20 C

87 13 2 141

6Single stemmed and vertical with a

balanced crown. Several decay pockets noted at base. Acceptable


Reduce by 5m to stabalize and

contain.GOOD

6.5

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

88 To 6 0Est

to 25Mixed species

Mainly over grown Bramble with occasional young/semi-mature Plum, Hawthorn and Elder growing along field boundary. No major visible

defects. Good habitat.

No action required. FAIRSee plan FAIR MOD 20-40 C

89To 20

0.5To 59

Mixed species

Mixed species linear group separating agricultural fields and Redmayne playing fields. Species include Scots Pine, Alder. Poplar, Lime, Leylandii and Beech. Stems not plotted on topographical surevy. No major visible defects. Provides excellent

natural screen.


90To 18

1To 55

Mixed species

Mixed species linear group separating agricultural fields and Redmayne playing fields. Species include Scots Pine, Alder. Poplar, Lime, Leylandii and Beech. Stems not plotted on topographical survey. No major visible defects. Provides excellent

natural screen.


T

T

T

H

T

T

T

G

G

G

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Goat Willow

Salix caprea

Early-mature

Horse Chestnut 5.5 5

Aesculus hippocastanum

Early-mature

Lime 3.5 4

Tilia sp.

Early-mature

Hornbeam

Carpinus betulus

Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

English Oak 5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 2

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Lime

Tilia sp.

Mature

English Oak 5.5 5

Quercus robur

83

91To 10

2To

38 at base

2 Goat Willow forming one crown. No major visible defects. Acceptable

condition at present.No action required. FAIRSee plan FAIR MOD 20-40 C

92 12 285 at base

5 Multi-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. Stem wounds and

included bark at base. Bleeding Canker of Horse Chestnut and Leaf

Miner infection noted . Poor specimen. Limited long term future.

Remove. POOR

Est 6

POOR LOW <10 R

93 6 027 at base

3 Twin-stemmed at 0.5m with a balanced crown. Dense epicormic growths at base. Bark wounds at

0.5m. Sparse upper crown. Acceptable condition at present.


Est 3

FAIR LOW 20-40 C

94To 11

2To

46 at base

2 Hornbeam forming 1 crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to

crown lifting. No major visible defects.


95To 11

2To


1 Hornbeam and 1 Lime forming 1 crown. Occasional pruning wounds

due to crown lifting. No major visible defects.


96To 10

2Ave. 39

Mixed species

Mixed species group. Species include Lime, Hawthorn, Plum and Oak. Only 6 stems

ploted on topographical survey however, 16 trees are in situ hence surveyed as a group. 1 Oak tree within the group had basal decay

with fungal fruiting bodies present.

Remove decayed Oak tree from the

group.GOODSee plan FAIR MOD 40+ B

97 16 2.5 68

6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. 2 large dead branch stubs in upper crown.

Tag number 10235.

Remove or shorten the dead branch

stubs.GOOD

6

FAIR MOD 40+ B

98 17 2 93 MOD 20-40 B

6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown has been reduced in the past. Ganoderma

fungal bracket at 1m. Tag number 10234.


7.5

99 To 9 2Ave. 30

5 lime trees forming a linear group however only 3 stems are plotted on

the topographical survey. Hence surveyed as a group. No major visible

defects.

No action required. GOODSee plan (ave. 3.5

all around)

100 10 2.5

4.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Has undegone some past management to control its size. Some deadwood and branch stubs noted. Some dark staining noted at

base.

Monitor annually due to dark staining.

FAIR

5

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

GOOD MOD 40+ A

FAIR

G

G

G

T

G

T

T

G

T

T

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Lime 5.5 5

Tilia sp.

Early-mature

Lime 4 4.5

Tilia sp.

Mature

English Oak 7.5 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash 2.5 5.5

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak Est 6 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Sycamore 3 3

Acer pseudoplatanus

Early-mature

Laurel

Prunus laurocerasus

Early-mature

Lime 4.5 5

Tilia sp.

Early-mature

Lime 4 4

Tilia sp.

Early-mature

Lime 4 4

Tilia sp.

B

4

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

4

T 110 8 2 30

4Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of

significant pruning. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

6

T 109 8 2 34

4

Multi-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+46

5Multi-stemmed at 2.5m with a

balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible

defects.

No action required.T 108 11 2

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

C

3

G 107 4.5 0Est

to 25Well maintained Laurel group. No

major visible defects.No action required. FAIR

FAIR FAIR MOD 40+

B

8

T 106 8 2.5 20

3Twin-stemmed at 1.5m with a

balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible

defects.

No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

C

5.5

T 105 14 2.5 88

5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the building. Cavity at base filled with glass bottle. Some deadwood noted and wood pecker holes in the

upper crown.

Reduce by 4m due to cavity at base and position adjacent to building. Monitor

annually.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

7

T 104 11 2.543 at base

6

Twin-stemmed at 1m with an unbalanced crown. Minor deadwood

noted.No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

5

T 103 18 2 96

8 Twin-stemmed at 5m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the

building. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Deadwood over building. Some dark staining noted at

stem base. Tag number 10232.

Deadwood and monitor annually

due to dark staining.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

5

T 102 9 2 30

4.5Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of


No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+35

4.5Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Epicormic

growths at base.


See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Lime 4 3.5

Tilia sp.

Early-mature

Lime 5 5

Tilia sp.


Early-mature

Norway Maple

Acer platanoides

Semi-mature


Early-mature

Lime

Tilia sp.



Early-mature

Beech

Fagus sylvatica

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo 35

Linear group of Beech and Leylandii. No major visible defects. Provides

excellent screen. Stems not plotted on topographical survey.

No action required. GOODSee planG 120To 13

0

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo 43

Mixed species linear group. Species include Beech, Field Maple, Ash and

Oak. No major visible defects. Provides excellent screen. Stems not


No action required. GOODSee planG 119 To 9 1.5Mixed species

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo 45

Group of Lime and Field Maple. No major visible defects. Stems not

plotted on the topographival survey.No action required. GOODSee planG 118 to 12 0

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo 43

4 Lime trees forming 1 crown no major visible defects. Stems not plotted on topographical survey.


0

FAIR MOD 40+ BTo 31

Group of Alder and Plum situated adjacent to H115. Stems not plotted on topographical survey. No major

visible defects.


0.5

GOOD LOW 40+ CTo

10 at base

Well maintained boundary hedgerow. Species include Hawthorn and Field

Maple. No major visible defects.No action required. GOODH 115 2.5 0

FAIR MOD 40+ BAve. 30

5 Norway Maple forming 1 crown. Situated to the north of the chicken

wire fence. No major visible defects. Stems not plotted on the

topographical survey, hence being surveyed as a group.

No action required. FAIRG 114To 12

1.5

GOOD MOD 40+ A

B

5

G 113To 14

1Ave.30

Mixed species group.Species include Hawthorn, Cherry, Beech, Maple, Scots Pine and Oak. Only

15 stems plotted on the topographical survey however, over 70 trees are actually in situ, hence surveyed as a group. No major visible defects.

Provides excellent natural feature.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

3.5

T 112 10 1.5 36

5 Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant

pruning. Minor wound noted at base. Occasional small snapped branches

noted. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+T 111 8 1.5 28

3 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of

significant pruning. No major visible defects. Dense epicormic growths

noted at base.

No action required.

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Norway Maple

Acer platanoides

Early-mature

Early-mature


Quercus robur

Early-mature


Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 7 6

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Elder

Sambucus nigra


Poplar

Populus sp

Early-mature

English Oak 6.5 6.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

FAIR LOW 20-40 CTo

25 at base

Mixed species group of trees and shrubs. Species include Hawthorn,

Plum and Elder. Very limited inspection due to uncut crops preventing adequate access.

No action required. FAIRG 130 To 6 0

FAIR MOD 40+ B

B

Est 6.5

H 129To 11

0To 35

Mixed species hedgerow group of trees and shrubs. Species include

Hawthorn, Plum, Cherry and Elder. Very limited inspection due to uncut crops preventing adequate access.


GOOD GOOD LOW 40+66




GOOD MOD 20-40 BAve. 18

Small plantation of Poplar trees. No major visible defects. Provides

excellent screen and cover.No action required. GOODG 127

To 12

0.5

FAIR LOW 40+ C

C

7.5

G 126Est to 5

0To 20

Elder and bramble group situated in field within the fenced area. No major

visible defects, however the groups position within the field of uncut

crops prevented detailed inspection.


FAIR POOR MOD 10-20

B

3.5

T 125 11 1130 at

base

6.5 Multi-stemmed at 1.5m with a balanced crown. Previously pollarded, and now with mature re-growth. Significant decay at base and at pollard point. Acceptable condition at

present. Due to land use, but it would be prudent to re-pollard to avoid collapse.

Re-pollard at old pollard point and monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

B

6

T 124 9 0.5 43

4Situated within H122. No major

visible defects. Dense undergrowth and uncut crops prevented detailed

inspection.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+35

6Situated within H122. No major

visible defects. Dense undergrowth and uncut crops prevented detailed

inspection.


FAIR LOW 40+ BTo

33 at base

Unmaintained field boundary hedgerow of Hawthorn, Elm, Field Maple and Plum. Occasional gaps

and small trees noted.

No action required. FAIRSee planH 122 To 6 0Mixed species

GOOD LOW 40+ BTo

38 at base

7 trees forming 1 crown. Only 5 stems plotted on the topographical survey, hence surveyed as a group. No evidence of significant pruning.

No major visible defects.


0.5

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature


Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 6.5 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Ash Est 3 6

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

Ash Est 6 7

Fraxinus excelsior

Over mature


Quercus robur

Mature

Ash Est 6 8

Fraxinus excelsior

B

est 7

GOOD FAIR LOW 40+

C

Est 8

T 140 17 375 at base

6.5 Twin-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Stem not plotted on the topographical survey. No major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 10-20

B

6

T 139 18 3180 over Ivy

7 Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Sitauted on the edge of G132. Stem not plotted on

topographical survey. Significant Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Decay at base with an

unidentifiable dried fungal fruiting body present. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

Monitor annually and consider crown reduction if the land

use change.

GOOD FAIR LOW 40+

R

6.5

T 138 16 3 65

8 Twin-stemmed at 2.5m with a slightly unbalanced crown. Situated on the

edge of G132. Stem not plotted on the topograpgical survey. Included bark noted at 2.5m. Acceptable condition

at present.

No action required.

FAIR POOR LOW <10Ave.27

7 8 stems forming 1 crown. Situated on the edge of G132. Stems not plotted

on the topographical survey. Ganoderma fungal fruiting bodies at

base. Limited long term future.

Remove.G 137 12 0.5

FAIR MOD 40+ BAve. 28

Mixed species group separating agricultural land and the adjacent sports field. Species include Field Maple, Scots Pine, Hazel and Oak.

Provides excellent screen and cover. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODG 136To 12

0.5

GOOD MOD 40+ B

B

6

G 135To 12

0.5Ave. 27

Mixed species group separating agricultural land and the adjacent sports field. Species include Field Maple, Scots Pine, Hazel and Oak.

Provides excellent screen and cover. No major visible defects.


GOOD FAIR LOW 40+76

over Ivy

7 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning

wounds due to crown lifting. Ivy prevented detailed inspection.

Acceptable condition at present due to land use.


FAIR LOW 20-40 CAve. 17

Mixed species field boundary hedge. Species include Holly, Hazel,

Hawthorn and Plum. Occasional gaps noted. No major visible defects.

No action required. FAIRSee planH 133 To 6 0

GOOD MOD 40+ A

To 85

(ave. 28)

Mixed species group of trees and shrubs. Species include Field Maple, Oak, Ash, Hawthorn, Plum and Elder. No major visible defects. Stems not

plotted on topographical survey, hence surveyed as a group.


0

FAIR HIGH 20-40 BTo 35

Mixed species group of trees and shrubs. Species include Hawthorn,

Plum, Cherry and Elder. Very limited inspection due to uncut crops preventing adequate access.


0

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed speciesSee plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

English Oak 7.5 7.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash 7 7

Fraxinus excelsior


Mature

English Oak & Ash

Quercus robur & Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Lawson Cypress Est 3.5 Est 3.5


Early-mature

English Oak Est 4 Est 5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak Est 5 4

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

B

5

G 150 To 2 0Est

to 20

Mixed species hedges forming boundaries between residential properties and adjacent fields.

Species include Laurel, Plum and Hawthorn.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

5.5

T 149 11 3Est 35

4 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No major visible

defects. Stem not plotted on topographical survey. Dense

undergrowth prevented detailed inspection.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

B

Est 3.5

T 148 13 3Est 45

Est 5Situated on adjacent land. No major visible

defects. Twin-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Limited

inspection due to location, and dimensions estimated as a result. Stem not plotted on


No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+Est 31

Est 3.5 Situated on adjacent land. No major visible defects. Limited inspection

due to location. Dimensions estimated as a result. Stem not plotted

on topographical survey.

No action required.T 147 12 0.5

FAIR HIGH 40+ BTo 7

at base

Well maintained field boundary hedgerow.

No action required. GOODSee planH 146 2.5 0

FAIR HIGH 40+ BEst

to 40

Field boundary group of trees. Species include Oak, Goat Willow, Hawthorn and Field Maple. Densly

planted nature of the group prevented detailed inspection.


0Mixed species

GOOD MOD 40+ AEst

to 65

Mixed species linear group situated on adjacent land. Species include Beech, Oak, Hawthorn and Plum. Stems not plotted on the topographical survey. No major visible defects. Limited inspection due to location,

and dimensions estimated as a result.

No action required. GOODG 144Est

to 162

GOOD LOW 40+ A

B

Est 6

G 143To 17

0.5Est

to 65

Mixed species linear group situated on adjacent land. Species include Beech, Oak, Hawthorn and Plum. Stems not plotted on the topographical survey. No major visible defects. Limited inspection due to location.

Dimensions estimated as a result.


GOOD GOOD LOW 40+

B

7.5

T 142 16 2.565 at base

9 Twin-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. Situated on the edge of

G132. Stem not plotted on the topographical survey. No major visible defects. Ivy

prevented detailed inspection. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40T 141 19 4 140

7.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Stem not plotted on the topographical survey. Situated on

the edge of G132. Minor decay present at base. Acceptable condition

at present.

Monitor annually.

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 6 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak 6 7

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 7.5 7.5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 5 6

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 5 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4 5.5

Quercus robur

A

5

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

7

T 160 11 3 40

5

Situated within H158. No major visible defects. Minor Ivy to stem.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-4098

over Ivy

6

Situated within H158. Some very minor dieback noted. Acceptable

condition at present.Monitor annually.T 159 12 3

FAIR LOW 40+ BTo

15 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedgerow of Hawthorn, Plum and

Field Maple. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODSee planH 158 2.5 0Mixed species

FAIR MOD 40+ B

A

7

H 157 2.5 0To

15 at base




GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

8

T 156 15 3.5135 over Ivy

Est 8Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the road. Significant Ivy prevented



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

6.5

T 155 16 3.5125 over Ivy

Est 5Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the road. Situated within H153. Ivy



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+120 over Ivy

Est 7 Twin-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the road.

Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Situated within H153. Minor wound at 0.5m. Significant Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


T 154 14 3.5

FAIR MOD 40+ B

A

7

H 153 2.5 0To

15 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedge of Hawthorn, Plum and Field

Maple. No major visible defects.No action required. GOOD

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+120

7Situated within H151. Stem not

plotted on the topographical survey. Significant Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


T 152 15 4

FAIR MOD 40+ BTo

15 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedge of Hawthorn and Field Maple.

No major visible defects.No action required. GOODH 151 2.5 0

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 6.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 5 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 6

Quercus robur

A

6

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

7

T 170 13 358

over Ivy

5

Situated within H161. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

A

3

T 169 14 3 120

6.5

Situated within H161. Dead Ivy to stem. Slightly sparse crown.

Acceptable condition at present.Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

7

T 168 13 3.597

over Ivy

7Situated within H161. Single

stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Significant Ivy prevented



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

6

T 167 14 3.5 48

7

Situated within H161. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. Minor deadwood noted.No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

A

7

T 166 12 3.5 45

6

Situated within H161. Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Slightly

sparse crown noted.Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

6

T 165 13 3.543

over Ivy


stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No major visible defects. Ivy



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

6.5

T 164 15 370

over Ivy


stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No major visible defects. Ivy



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

6

T 163 15 3.5 55

6 Situated within H161. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. No major visible defects. Hedge prevented detailed inspection

of the trees base.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+48

7

Situated within H161. No major visible defects. Hedge prevented

detailed inspection of the trees base.No action required.T 162 14 3

FAIR MOD 40+ BH 161 2.5 0To

15 at base



No action required. GOODMixed species

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature


Mature

English Oak 7 8

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Early-mature

Goat Willow 3.5 3.5

Salix caprea

Early-mature

Ash

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature


Early-mature

Goat Willow 4 4

Salix caprea

C

4

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40Est

27 at base

4 Multi-stemmed at 1m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects. Dense Bramble at base prevented



GOOD HIGH 40+ ATo 35

Mixed species linear group consisting mainly of a low hedgerow with occasional larger uncut trees. Species include Oak,

hawthorn and Field Maple. Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey. No



0Mixed species

GOOD HIGH 40+ BTo 31

Mixed species linear group on raised banking between Buxton Road and

footpath. Species include Oak, Field Maple, Hawthorn and Hazel. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. No major

visible defects.


0.5Mixed species

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo

15 at base

Well maintained boundary hedge. No action required.GOODH 177 To 3 0

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

C

3.5

G 176To 15

6Ave. 27

Situated on adjacent land. Dimensions estimated as a result. Six

stems forming one crown. Excessively crown lifted. Acceptable



FAIR FAIR MOD 40+26 at base

3.5 Stuated within G174. Stem not plotted on the topographical survey.

Multi-stemmed at 0.5m with a balanced crown. No evidence of



GOOD MOD 40+ B

A

6

G 174To 2.5

0Ave

5

Mixed species linear group of Field Maple, Hawthorn, Birch, Plum and

Goat Willow. No major visible defects.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+Est

60 at base

Est 6

Situated within W172. H171 prevented detailed inspection. Minor Ivy noted. No major visible defects.



Mixed species woodland group. Species include Oak. Scots Pine and Spruce.

Situated to the north of H171, and spreading east. The majority of the woodland is not

even indicated on the topographical survey. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODW 172To 17

0.5

FAIR MOD 40+ BH 171 2.5 0To

15 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedge of Plum and Hawthorn.


Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory



Mature

English Oak Est 8 9

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 9 8

Quercus robur


Mature

English Oak 6.5 4

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 7 Est 7

Quercus robur

Mature

english Oak Est 6.5 6.5

Quercus robur


English Oak Est 7 9

Quercus robur



FAIR HIGH 40+ BTo 30

Linear group along field boundary and road. Species include Hawthorn, Field Maple,

Walnu, Oak and Hazel. Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey, hence surveyed as a group. Provides good screen

and habitat.


0.5

FAIR HIGH 40+ B

A

8

G 189To 13

0.5To 35

Linear group along field boundary and road. Species include Hawthorn, Field Maple,

Oak and Hazel. Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey, hence surveyed

as a group. Provides good screen and habitat.


GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

6.5

G 188To 14

2.5To 78

7

2 trees forming 1 crown. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of both

stems.


GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

C

3

T 187 13 365

over Ivy

6.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning

wounds due to crown lifting. Significant Ivy and undergrowth prevented detailed inspection.


FAIR FAIR HIGH 20-40

R

3

T 186 11 4To 35

3 Twin-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. Has undergone some

very poor past management due to utility clearance. Acceptable


No action required.

POOR POOR HIGH <10110 over Ivy

4 Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Unidentifiable shrivelled

fungal fruiting bodies at base. Potentially unstable. Limited long

term future.

Remove.T 185 12 2.5

FAIR HIGH 20-40 B

A

8.5

G 184To 10

0To 28

Mixed species linear group on banking between Buxton Road and

footpath. Occasional pruning wounds. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of most stems. Acceptable condition at

present.


GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

8

T 183 17 3 110

7 Situated on raised banking between Buxton Road and footpath. Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced

crown. Occasional pruning wounds. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+99

over Ivy

8

Situated within G181. Dense Bramble and Ivy prevented detailed inspection.

Large deadwood over road.

Deadwood and remove Ivy and Bramble and re-

inspect for defects.

T 182 17 2.5

FAIR HIGH 40+ BG 181 To 6 0To

25 at base

Mixed species field boundary group. Species include Hawthorn, Apple and Hazel. Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey. No major

visible defects.


Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Semi-mature

Mature

English Oak 7 Est 8

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Field Maple

Acer campestre

Over mature

English Oak 6 3.5

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Beech 6 5.5

Fagus sylvatica

Early-mature

Hornbeam 3.5 5.5

Carpinus betulus

Early-mature

Beech 5 5

Fagus sylvatica

B

5

FAIR GOOD LOW 40+

B

5

T 200 13 1 61

7

Twin-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. No major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

B

7

T 199 13 145 at base


crown. Slightly suppressed by the adjacent Beech trees. Minor

deadwood noted.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR LOW 40+49

7Twin-stemmed at 2.5m with a

balanced crown. Minor epicormic growths at base. Acceptable condition

at present.


GOOD MOD 40+ BTo 40

Mixed species group of Hawthorn, Plum and Field Maple situated within H195 on the edge of the sports field. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of some of the stems.

Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey.


1

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo 43

Mixed species group of Hawthorn and Field Maple situated within H195

on the edge of the sports field. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of some

of the stems. Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey.


1

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

B

4.5

H 195 1.5 0 To 8

Well maintained mixed species boundary hedge of Hawthorn and



FAIR GOOD HIGH 20-40120 over Ivy

5

Major Ivy and Elm suckers at base prevented detailed inspection. No



T 194 14 3

FAIR HIGH 20-40 C

C

7

G 193 To 7 0.5To

30 at base

Linear group situated on grass strip between road and footpath. No major

visible defects. Some poor past management noted due to utility

clearance.


FAIR FAIR HIGH 20-40110 over Ivy

4 Multi-stemmed at 3m with an unbalanced crown. Poor past

management due to utility clearance. Major Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


T 192 13 2.5

GOOD HIGH 40+ BTo 5Mixed species hedgerow (Hawthorn

and Hazel) forming the front boundary of residential property.

No action required. GOODH 191 2.5 0Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Early-mature

Beech 5 5

Fagus sylvatica

Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

English Oak 4 3

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

leylandii

X Cupressocyparis leylandii

Early-mature

Elm 4.5 3

Ulmus sp.


Early-mature

Norway Maple 5 5

Acer platanoides

Early-mature

Norway Maple 5 6

Acer platanoides

C

5.5

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

2.5

T 210 14 0.5 46


balanced crown. Some included bark noted at 2m. Acceptable condition at

present.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-4029




FAIR MOD 40+ B

R

3

G 208To 13

0Ave. 35 at base

Mixed species group made up mainly of Lawson Cypress with occasional Beech and Field Maple. No major

visible defects. Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey.


DEAD DEAD DEAD <10Est 40

4

Dead tree. Stem not plotted on topographical survey.

Remove.T 207 10 4

GOOD MOD 20-40 B

B

3.5

G 206 To 8 0Ave. 23

Group of Leylandii situated around fenced area. No major visible defects.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+32

4.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Situated directly to

the west of G204. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible

defects. Minor deadwood noted.



Mixed species linear group of Hawthorn and Field Maple adjacent

to the road and sports field. No major visible defects.


0.5

GOOD MOD 40+ B

B

6

G 203To 12

1.5To 42

2 Beech and 1 Oak forming 1 crown. No major visible defects.


GOOD FAIR MOD 40+59


crown. Very minor stem wound at base, occluding well. No major

visible defects.


FAIR MOD 40+ BG 201 to 16 2.5To

55 at base

2 Oak, 2 Hornbeam and 1 Scots Pine forming one crown. No major visible

defects. Deadwood throughout. Acceptable condition at present.


Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur


Early-mature

Norway Maple 5 5

Acer platanoides

Early-mature

English Oak 7 5

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Horse Chestnut 3 4


Early-mature

Early-mature

Beech 5 5

Fagus sylvatica

Early-mature

Red Horse chestnut

4.5 5.5

Aesculus x carnea

Early-mature

London plane 5.5 7

Platanus x hispanica

Early-mature

Turkey oak 10 Est 9

Quercus cerris

A

9

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

6

G 220To 18

3To 79

11 2 trees forming 1 crown. The tree to the west is Multi-stemmed at 1.5m ,

and the tree to the east is single stemmed. Minor deadwood noted. No


No action required.

FAIR GOOD LOW 40+

C

5

T 219 13 1.5 41

6.5Single stemmed and vertical with a

balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. No


No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 10-20

B

5

T 218 7 2 35

5 Multi-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. Early signs of Bleeding

Canker of Horse Chestnut noted with bark cracking and exudates to stem.

Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR HIGH 20-4041 at base

5 Situated within H216. Twin-stemmed at ground level with a balanced

crown. Minor included bark at base at the twin stemmed point. Stem not

plotted on the topographical survey.


GOOD HIGH 40+ B

C

3

H 216 2.5 0To

10 at base

Well maintained mixed species boundary hedge of Hawthorn,

Berberris and Cotoneaster. Provides excellent screen. No major visible

defects.


FAIR FAIR LOW 20-40

B

5

T 215 5 127

over Ivy

4 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Ivy noted to stem. Moderate Leaf Miner infestation noted. Acceptable condition at

present.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

B

5

T 214 11 0.540 at base

6

Multi-stemmed at 1m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR LOW 40+44


significant pruning. No major visible defects. Situated on the edge of G212.


FAIR MOD 40+ B

B

7

G 212To 12

0To 28

Mixed species group which includes the field boundary hedge. Species

include Hawthorn, Oak and Norway Maple. No major visible defects.

Individual stems not plotted on the topographical survey.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+T 211 13 039 at base

6.5

Twin-stemmed at 1m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects.

No action required.

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Turkey oak 7.5 7

Quercus cerris

Early-mature

London plane 8 6.5

Platanus x hispanica

Early-mature

Swedish Whitebeam

4 4

Sorbus intermedia

Early-mature

Semi-mature

English Oak 2 0

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak Est 9 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Field Maple

Acer campestre

Over mature

English Oak 4 4

Quercus robur

R

2

POOR POOR HIGH <10135 over Ivy

5

Major dieback in top. Ganoderma fungal fruiting bodies at base. Very

limited long term future.Remove.T 230 10 2

FAIR HIGH 40+ Cto 22 Group of Field Maple, loosely

forming part of H226. No major visible defects.

No action required. FAIRG 229 To 7 0.5

GOOD HIGH 40+ B

B

6.5

G 228To 15

3

Ave. 85

over Ivy

5 trees in a row along field boundary/road. Only 4 stems plotted on the topographical survey hence surveyed as a group. Ivy prevented

detailed inspection of all stems. Minor dieback noted.


FAIR

FAIR FAIR HIGH 40+120 over Ivy

8

Situated within H226. Significant Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Slightly sparse crown noted.


T 227 17 3

FAIR MOD 40+ C

C

2

H 226 To 4 0To

15 at base

Well maintained boundary hedge. Species include Hawthorn and Plum.

Occasion gaps noted. No major visible defects.


FAIR FAIR HIGH 40+5 at base

2Twin-stemmed at 0.5m with an unbalanced crown. Occasional

pruning wounds. No major visible defects.


GOOD HIGH 40+ B

C

4

H 224 To 3 0To

10 at base

Well maintained boundary hedge. Species include Hawthorn and Plum.

Occasion gaps noted. No major visible defects.


FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

7

T 223 5.5 2 26

4 Multi-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. Situated within H216. Small

leaves and slightly sparse crown noted. Acceptable condition at

present.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

A

8

T 222 16 2.5 45



No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+G 221To 16

1To 67

10

2 trees forming 1 crown. Minor deadwood noted. No major visible

defects.No action required.

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature


Over mature

English Oak Est 7 5

Quercus robur

Over mature


Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 5 4

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak Est 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 3 3

Quercus robur

Mature


Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak Est 8 8

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak Est 8 8

Quercus robur

A

8

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

10

T 240 18 3 140

8.5

large specimen. Deadwood noted. Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD GOOD LOW 40+

C

6

T 239 17 3 140

8

large significant specimen. No major visible defects. Epicormic growths to

stem.No action required.

FAIR FAIR LOW 10-20

R

3

T 238 15 2

Est 120 over Ivy

6

Stag headed specimen. Completely smothered in Ivy. Possibly in decline.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects, and remove dieback if area is developed.

FAIR POOR LOW 10-20

A

7

T 237 13 265

over Ivy

1

Virtually dead tree. Only the very lower growths are bearing foliage.

Remove.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

R

5

T 236 11 0.5

130 over

growths

7.5Over mature specimen in hedgerow.

No major visible defects. Dense epicormic growths throughout prevented detailed inspection.

Monitor annually.

POOR POOR DEAD <10

A

8

T 235 16 5Est 120

4

Large dead tree. Remove.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

Est 7

T 234 14 3Est 130

7.5Situated on adjacent land. Stem not plotted on topographical survey. No

major visible defects. Position prevented detailed inspection.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+Est 130

Est 6.5 Tree stem not plotted on topographical survey. Appears to be

situated within the rear garden of number 26. Limited inspection due to

location.


FAIR HIGH 40+ B

To 85

over Ivy

Mixed species linear group along road consisting mainly of Oak and Hawthorn. Doesn’t appear to form part of the development area. Ivy

prevented detailed inspection of some of the stems.


0Mixed species

FAIR MOD 40+ BH 231 To 3 0To

15 at base

Field boundary hedgerow made up of Elder, Hawthorn, Holly and Field

Maple. Occasional gaps noted. It part forms the rear boundary of the adjacent properties gardens.

No action required. FAIRMixed species

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature


Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 7 7

Quercus robur

Over mature


Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 5 5

Quercus robur


Mature

English Oak 7.5 8

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 6 6.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash 4 4

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak 6.5 6

Quercus robur

Early-mature

AGOOD MOD 40+GOODSee planEst

to 37

Mixed species group situated within the allotmant gardens.species include Beech, Oak and Cherry. Limited inspection and

dimensions estimated as a result. No major visible defects. Stems not plotted on the


No action required.G 250To 12

1

95

6.5

6.5

MODGOODNo major visible defects. Major Ivy

prevented detailed inspection.No action required. FAIRT 249 11 2

BMOD 40+

40+

CMOD 20-40

B

6

T 248 11 237 at base

1

5

Twin-stemmed at ground level with an unbalanced crown due to

suppression from adjacent trees. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD

FAIR FAIR

B

7

T 247 12 3 43

6 Multi-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the footpath

and road. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Stem not plotted on the



GOOD FAIR MOD 40+104

6.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the footpath and road. Occasional

pruning wounds due to crown lifting. No major visible defects. Stem not plotted on the topographical survey.


GOOD MOD 40+ B

A

Est 5.5

G 245 To 7 0To 25

Mixed species group adjacent to field and footpath. Species include Goat Willow, Oak and Hazel. No major visible defects. Provides excellent

screen.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

R

6

T 244 16 2 77


significant pruning. No major visible defects. Minor Ivy to stem.

No action required.

FAIR POOR MOD 10-20

R

7.5

T 243 17 3Est 110

6 Situated on the boundary with adjacent off site land. Limited

inspection as a result. Significant wounds at base with decay.

Potentially unstable. Limited long term future.

Remove.

POOR POOR MOD <10

C

6

T 242 15 3 90

8 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Significant wound with decay at base and to the lower

branches over the site. Damage most likely caused by fire. Potentially

unstable as a result.

Remove.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40T 241 15 3 65

8

Significant dieback in top. 1 large dead branch over site that is cracking

at the attachment point.

Remove damaged/dead

branch and reduce by at least 4m all

over.

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Early-mature

English Oak 4.5 4.5

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

English Oak 4 1

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Semi-mature

Early-mature

Semi-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Mature

English Oak 8.5 8.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 9

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

English Oak 2 5

Quercus robur

BFAIR MOD 40+FAIR

2

A

10

T 260 6.5 1Both stems

22

4.5Twin-stemmed at ground level with an unbalanced crown. No evidence

of significant pruning. No major visible defects. Forms part of H257.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

8.5

T 259 13 3 107

9.5

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood

throughout. Fine specimen.No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+120 over Ivy

8.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Overhanging field and the adjacent footpath. No major

visible defects. Significant Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


T 258 17 3

GOOD HIGH 40+

AGOOD MOD 40+

BH 257To 3.5

0To

10 at base

Well maintained hedgerow separating the paddock from the adjacent

housing estate. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

See plan

See plan

To 38

7 trees on a row within churchyard. Species include Field Maple, English Oak & Sweet Chestnut. Stems

not plotted on the topographical survey hence surveyed as a group. Occasional pruning wounds

due to crown lifting. Crowns overhang the boundary into site. no major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIRSee plan

G 256To 15

2

B

H 255 To 2 0To

15 at base

Well maintained allotment/churchyard boundary hedge. No major visible defects.

No action required. CGOOD

FAIR MOD 20-40

MOD 40+

To 35

2 trees (1 Walnut & 1 Sycamore) forming 1 crown. Occasional pruning

wounds. No major visible defects.No action required.

FAIR

GOODSee plan

22

4

Situated within the allotment gardens. Occasional pruning wounds. Limted

inspection due to location.No action required.

G 254To 10

2

40+

B

C

40+

T 253 7 2

3

GOOD FAIR MOD

FAIR MOD

25

4.5Multi-stemmed at 2.5m with a



No action required.

4.5

T 252 9 2

GOOD MOD 40+ BG 251To 12

0To 30

Mixed species group of trees bordered by a well maintained boundry Leylandii hedge. No major visible defects. Occasional trees overhang the hedge into the site. Stems not


No action required. FAIRSee planMixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Early-mature

English Oak 5 5

Quercus robur

Early-mature


Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Mature

Horse Chestnut 7 7


Early-mature

Early-mature


Quercus robur

Mature


Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

GOOD LOW 20-40

BGOOD LOW 40+

BH 270 2.5 0Mixed species

Well maintained field boundary hedge of Hawthorn and Plum.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

Generally well maintained field boundary hedge of Hawthorn and

Plum. Occasional gaps noted.No action required.

68

6

Mixed species

To 12 at base

See plan

See plan

To 12 at base

H 269 2.5 0

40+

CLOW 20-40

BGOOD LOW

10

T 268 15 4Situated on the edge of woodland group. No major visible defects.


FAIR FAIRAve.38

6

3 stems at base forming 1 crown. Minor area of dead bark noted to 1

stem. Acceptable condition at present.Monitor annually.

6.5

T 267To 16

2

POOR LOW <10

CFAIR LOW 10-20

RG 266To 16

2To 35

1 Sycamore and 1 Ash forming 1 crown. Both trees are virtually dead.

Limited long term future.Remove.

FAIR

POORSee plan

7

B

Est 12

T 265 17 1Ave stem 37

6 9 stems at base. Early onset of Bleeding Canker of Horse Chestnut

noted. Acceptable condition at present, however it is likely to have a

limited long term future.

Monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

A

5

T 264 19 3135 over Ivy

Est 11Multi-stemmed at 4m with an

unbalanced crown. Has possibly lost a large limb in the past. Major Ivy



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

5

T 263 9 2Est 28

6Situated just out of site within the

rear garden of the adjacent residential property. Limited inspection as a result. No major visible defects.

No action required.



stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Ivy and hedgerow prevented

detailed inspection


T 262 8 2

GOOD HIGH 40+ BH 261 To 6 0To

15 at base

Boundary hedgerow separating the field from the rear gardens of the adjacent properties. Occasional

sections are well maintained. Species within the hedge include Hawthorn,

Plum and Oak.

No action required. GOODSee plan

Mixed species

Mixed species

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Ash 4.5 4.5

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak 7.5 9

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 10 9

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 6 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 9

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 7.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

7

BGOOD LOW 40+GOODSee planTo

15 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedge made up of Plum and

Hawthorn.No major visible defects.No action required.

GOOD

H 280 2 0Mixed species

T 279 15 2 GOOD MOD 40+

C

A115 over Ivy


crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Minor deadwood noted. Ivy


No action required.

8

FAIR FAIR MOD 10-20

B

7

T 278 15 2.5

Est 120 over Ivy

8 Twin-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Significant dieback noted. Branch stubs noted due to past lost

limbs. Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


Also reduce by 3.5m in order to try and rejuvinate crown.

POOR GOOD MOD 20-40

B

7.5

T 277 15 4Est 98

6Twin-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Deadwood throughout. Sparse upper crown. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

A

7.5

T 276 14 260

over ivy

6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood

noted. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Slightly sparse upper

crown.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

7

T 275 15 285

over Ivy

7.5

Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. No major visible defects. Ivy



GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

A

10

T 274 13 1 65


significant pruning. No major visible defects. Minor stem wounds noted.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 20-40

B

6

T 273 16 3 105

12

Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Minor stem wounds noted. No

major visible defects.No action required.

GOOD FAIR LOW 40+

C

4.5

T 272 16 2 86


balanced crown. Minor stem wounds with decay at 1m & 3m. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR LOW 20-40Est 27

4.5 Situated within H270. No major visible defects. Hedge prevented

detailed inspection of base. Minor deadwood and dieback noted.



JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Mature

Sycamore 5 6.5

Acer pseudoplatanus

Mature

Sycamore 5 6

Acer pseudoplatanus

Mature

English Oak 5 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 6 5.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4.5 6.5

Quercus robur

See plan

See plan

See plan

B

7

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

6

T 290 12 2.575

over Ivy

5.5Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Ivy prevented



FAIR GOOD LOW 20-40

A

6

T 289 14 3 75


balanced crown. Some minor dieback noted. Minor bark wound at base. Ivy



and crown. Monitor annually because of

dieback.


5.5 Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant

pruning. Ivy and position within the hedgerow prevented detailed

inspection. Minor flail damage noted to stem at 2.5m.


T 288 10 2.5

GOOD MOD 40+

BGOOD MOD 40+

BH 287 To 6 0Mixed species

To 25 at base

Generally well maintained field boundary hedge of Hawthorn, Plum

and Field Maple. Occasional sections have been left unmanaged.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

To 25 at base

Generally well maintained field boundary hedge of Hawthorn, Plum

and Field Maple. Occasional sections have been left unmanaged.

No action required.

GOOD

H 286 To 6 0Mixed species

H 285 2 0 MOD 40+

B

7

GOOD MOD 20-40

BGOOD

FAIR

Mixed species

To 20 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedge consisting of Hawthorn and

Ivy. No major visible defects.No action required.

R

6

T 284 12 2.5 95

6Situated within hedgerow. Stem

wound at 3m with some dark exudates noted. No major visible

defects.

Monitor annually.

POOR POOR MOD <10

B

6

T 283 15 378

over Ivy

5

Virtually dead tree. Limited long term future.

Remove.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-4063

over Ivy

6

Situated within H281. No major visible defects. Significant Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD MOD 40+ BH 281 2 0Mixed species

To 15 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedge made up of Plum and

Hawthorn.No major visible defects.No action required. FAIRSee plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 8 6.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5.5 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 7.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash 4 5

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak 7 6

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Ash 3 3

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak 6 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6.5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 8

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 5 5

Quercus robur

B

6

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

8

T 300 15 388

over Ivy

7

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Significant Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


FAIR FAIR MOD 40+

B

6.5

T 299 17 4106 over Ivy

10

Multi-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood noted Ivy



GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

B

5

T 298 15 3100 over Ivy

6




GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

C

3.5

T 297 13 175

over Ivy

6




FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

C

8

G 296 11 1To

25 at base

3

2 Ash tree forming 1 crown. No major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 10-20

C

5

T 295 14 0.5125 over Ivy

8 Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection. Decay wound at 2.5m, and a small Laetiporus sulphureus

fungus at 4m.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects,

and monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

A

6

T 294 16 460 at base

2

Twin-stemmed at 0.5m with a balanced crown. Ivy prevented



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

8

T 293 16 3 78

7Vertical with a balanced crown.

Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

7.5

T 292 16 3103 over Ivy

7Multi-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Minor Ivy and

deadwood noted. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+T 291 16 2.5 93

7.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Minor deadwood noted. No major visible

defects.

No action required.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 5 6.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash

Fraxinus excelsior

Semi-mature

Ash 4 4

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak 5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 6

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

English Oak 0 2

Quercus robur

Early-mature

ash 5 4

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature


Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 6.5 6.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 Est 7

Quercus robur

C

6

FAIR POOR MOD 10-20

B

7

T 310 16 2130 over Ivy

5.5 Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Cavity at base. Acceptable condition at present due to land use however,

the tree may require removal on safety ground if the area is developed.

Monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

A

9.5

T 309 15 2125 over Ivy

9

Minor deadwood noted. No major visible defects although Ivy prevented



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

C

4

T 308 17 3.5130 over Ivy

11

Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood noted. Ivy



FAIR FAIR LOW 20-40

B

2

T 307 11 3.5Ave. 27

5Multi-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. Some stem wounds

noted as a result of flail damage. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

B

5

T 306 6 0.5 15

2 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Occasional

pruning wounds as a result of cutting back from the field. No major visible

defects.

No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

6

T 305 11 4115 over Ivy

7

Minor dieback noted. Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

C

3

T 304 12 3110 over ivy

5

Twin-stemmed at 3.5m with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented



FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40Ave 16

4

10 small stems forming 1 crown. Minor stem wounds noted.

Acceptable condition at present. No action required.G 303

To 11

1

FAIR MOD 20-40

BFAIR MOD 20-40

CG 302To 13

2To 27

Group of Ashs tree forming 1 crown. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD

FAIR

5

See plan

T 301 13 387

over Ivy

6

Vertical with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

English Oak 6.5 6.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 5 Est 5.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 6.5 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8 7.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Ash 6 6

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 8 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Semi-mature

Sycamore 3 3

Acer pseudoplatanus

BGOOD HIGH 20-40FAIR

4

To 25 at base

4

2 Sycamore forming 1 crown. Situated within H319. No major

visible defects.No action required.G 320

To 10

3

GOOD HIGH 40+

AGOOD MOD 40+

BH 319To 2.5

0Mixed species

To 20 at base

Well maintained mixed species field boundary hedge. Continuation of

H224. Species include Sycamore, Ash and Hawthorn. No major visible

defects.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

7

See plan

120 over Ivy

7 Situated within H285. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds

due to crown lifting. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


T 318 13 3

GOOD MOD 40+

BFAIR MOD 40+

BH 317 2 0Mixed species

To 15 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedgerow. Species include Plum

Hawthorn and Elm.No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

6

See plan

70 at base

6.5

Situated within H315. Multi-stemmed at 1m with a balanced crown. No

major visible defects.No action required.T 316 16 4

GOOD MOD 40+

BFAIR MOD 20-40

BH 315 2 0Ave.25

Well maintained field boundary hedgerow. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

7.5

See plan

B

6.5

T 314 16 3.5110 over ivy

8

Vertical with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood noted. Major Ivy



GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

C

6

T 313 10 345 at base

5

Multi-stemmed at 1m with a balanced crown. No major visible defects. Ivy



FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

6.5

T 312 11 3.5 38

5 Twin-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Stem

bark wound at 1m. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40T 311 10 345 at base

6.5Twin-stemmed at ground level with a

balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects. Slightly sparse crown noted.

Monitor annually.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory



Mature

Beech 7 8

Fagus sylvatica

Semi-mature

Scots Pine 4.5 4.5

Pinus sylvestris

Early-mature

Norway Maple 5 5

Acer platanoides

Mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 9 5.5

Quercus robur

Mature

Sycamore 6 6

Acer pseudoplatanus

Mature

English Oak 9 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 9

Quercus robur

B

5

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

A

8.5

T 330 19 1.5 76

10 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown due to past suppression. Dense epicormic

growths within crown. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

C

7

T 329 20 2.5 77

6Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood


No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 10-20

B

8

T 328 19 2.5 82


significant pruning. Extensive bark wounding at base with a possible

hollow stem. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

C

7

T 327 20 2.5 82

5.5 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. No evidence of

significant pruning. Some wounding present at base. Acceptable condition

at present. Due to land use.

Monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR MOD 10-20

B

9.5

T 326 21 2 105


balanced crown. Extensive wounding at base with some decay. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

Monitor annually.

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

C

6

T 325 21 1.5 96

10 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Small leaves

noted. Some bark wounding noted at base.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR LOW 10-20

B

4.5

T 324 10 2.5 42

4 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Significant

wound to stem. Acceptable condition at present. Due to land use.

Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD LOW 40+

R

4

T 323 12 0.5 33

4.5Situated on the edge of G321. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIR POOR MOD <1069

7.5 Situated on the edge of G321. Single stemmed and leaning with an

unbalanced crown. Ustulina deusta fungus present at base. Potentially

unstable as a result.

Remove.T 322 17 2.5

GOOD HIGH 40+ AG 321To 19

0Mixed species

To 70

Mixed species group (Oak, Ash and Sycamore) situated adjacent to road

and paddocks. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of most stems. No major visible defects. Stems no plotted on


Re-inspect annually due to road side

position.GOODSee plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

English Oak 10 11

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 3

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Wellingtonia 4.5 4.5

Sequoiadendron giganteum

Early-mature

Leylandii




Over mature

Lime 8 7.5

Tilia sp.

Early-mature

Wellingtonia 4 4


BGOOD MOD 40+GOOD

4

B

10

T 340 13 2 37



No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40137


significant pruning. extensive wounding at 0 to 1m. Acceptable

condition at present due to land use. Dense crown noted.

Monitor annually.T 339 19 2

GOOD MOD 40+

AGOOD HIGH 40+

AG 338 to 18 2Mixed species

Ave.35

Mixed species group. Species include Oak. Sweet Chestnut, Beech, Leylandii and Western red Cedar.

Stems not plotted on the topographical survey, hence surveyed as a group. Occasional minor stem

wounds noted. Provides excellent screen and habitat.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

See plan

See plan

Ave. 35

Mixed species group of Sycamore, Beech, Oak and Sweet Chestnut. No

major visible defects. Stems not ploted on topographical survey, hence

surveyed as a group.

No action required.

GOODSee plan

G 337To 18

2.5Mixed species

G 336 to 16 HIGH 40+

B

4.5

GOOD LOW 40+

BGOOD

GOOD

0To

30 at base

Densly planted group of predominately Leylandii. No major visible defects. Provides excellent natural screen. Individial stems not plotted on topographical survey.

No action required.

B

9.5

T 335 13 0.5Est 35

4.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Metal tree protective

guard prevented accurate stem measurement. Mature Elder at base is

growing into crown.

Remove Elder to benefit the

Wellingtonia.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

9.5

T 334 18 2.5 85

3.5 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Large ripped

branch stub in upper crown due to past lost limb. Minor wounding at

base. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

C

12

T 333 19 2 111

5Single stemmed and vertical with a slightly unbalanced crown. Some minor wounding noted at base. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 10-20

C

9

T 332 18 1.5 95


significant pruning. bark wounds at base with several small cavities. Stem

is possibly hollow at base.

Reduce by 5 to 6m to stabalize and contain. Monitor

remainder annually.

GOOD FAIR MOD 10-20T 331 21 2 137

8 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown due to past suppression. Extensive wounding at base. Branch stubs within crown as a result of past lost limbs.

Young Ganoderma fungal fruiting bodies at base.

Reduce by 5 to 6m to stabalize and contain. Monitor

remainder annually.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory



Mature

English Oak 5.5 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 5 6.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Norway Maple 6 6

Acer platanoides

Mature

Sycamore 10 11

Acer pseudoplatanus

Mature

Cherry 6.5 7

Prunus sp

Semi-mature


Mature

Sycamore 6 7

Acer pseudoplatanus

POOR

A

R

5

T 350 16 5

FAIR LOW 40+

Est 70

6

Situated within H158. The tree is almost completely defoliated. Very

limited future. Remove. POOR MOD <10

To 110 over Ivy

Stems not plotted on the topographical survey. Field Maple, Sycamore and Oak forming part of H157. No major visible defects. Ivy

prevented detailed inspection of some of the stems.


GOOD

GOOD

See plan

See plan

To 25 at base

No action required.

G 349To 14

0Mixed species

MOD 20-40

C

7

FAIR MOD 10-20

BFAIRRow of uncut trees within H157. No

major visible defects. Group adds good diversity to the hedgerow.

G 348 To 9 2Mixed species

C

11.5

T 347 12 2 73

7 Multi-stemmed at 2.5m with a balanced crown. Significant dark exudates from stem. Sparse upper crown. Acceptable condition at

present due to land use.


10-20

C

6

FAIR LOW 10-20

FAIR FAIR MODT 346 14 2 89

9.5 Multi-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. Significant bark loss to stem

with dark exudates noted. Sparse upper crown. Acceptable condition at


FAIR

Monitor annually.

B

6

T 345 12 2 43

6 Twin-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant

pruning. Stem wound with decay at 0 to 2m. Acceptable condition at


Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

C

6.5

T 344 15 2.5 71

7 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Minor bark

wounds noted at base. Very minor dieback noted.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

C

7

T 343 15 3 55

3.5Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Progressive

dieback in top. Tree in slow decline.

Monitor annually.


6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Major dieback in

top. Limited long term future. Acceptable condition at present due

to land use.

Monitor annually and remove if the land use changes.

T 342 16 2

GOOD MOD 40+ AG 341To 19

0Mixed species

To 63

Mixed species group (continuation of G338) Species include Oak, Sycamore and Elder. Stems not plotted on the topographical survey, hence

surveyed as a group. Occasional minor stem wounds noted. Provides excellent screen and habitat. Occasional snapped hanging branches

noted.

Remove snapped hanging branches as

required.GOODSee plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory




Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Early-mature

Sycamore 6 5

Acer pseudoplatanus


Mature


Quercus robur

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

A

A

12

T 360 18 4

40+

115

Est 8 Situated within G359. Stem not plotted on the topographical survey. Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown that is biased to the south. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


GOOD MOD 40+GOOD

See plan

FAIR

GOOD GOOD HIGH

A

C

6

G 359To 17

0 to 50

Mixed species group inbetween the road and the farm cottages. Species include Sycamore, Oak, Hawthorn, and Holly. No major visible defects.

Excellent screen and habitat. No major visible defects.

No action required.

T 358 16 4

GOOD HIGH 20-40

60 at base

6Situated on the edge of G359. Twin-

stemmed at 0.5m with a balanced crown. Stem wound with decay at

2m. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually. FAIR LOW 10-20

Ave. 30

Mixed species woodland group. Species include Oak, Sweet Chestnut,

Hawthorn, Elm and Scots Pine. No stems plotted on topographical survey. Occasional dead Elm

observed. No major visible defects.

Remove dead Elms as required.

GOOD

GOOD

See plan

See planW 357To 17

0Mixed species

C

H 356 2.5 0Ave. 20

Very well maintained field boundary hedgerow. Provides excellent screen

and habitat.No action required. BGOOD

FAIR LOW 20-40

MOD 40+

To 42

Mixed species group mainly consisting of Leylandii with

occasional broadleaf trees. No major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIR

FAIRSee planG 355To 17

1Mixed species

B

G 354To 17

3To 35

Once part of G353, now separated due to a section being cleared from the overhead power cables. Species within group include Scots Pine, Black Pine and Beech. No major

visible defects.

No action required. CFAIR

GOOD MOD 40+

MOD 40+

To 43

L shaped group around farm buildings. Species within group include Scots Pine, Black Pine and Beech. Provides excellent

natural screen. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of some of the stems. Some

minor deadwood noted.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

est to 30

Vegetation forming the garden of the residential part of Red Hall Farm. Limited access prevented detailed

inspection.

No action required.

G 353To 15

2

GOODG 352To 15

0

40+

MOD 40+

A

A

GOOD GOOD HIGHG 351To 18

0To 40

Mixed species group surrounding Red Hall Farm. Species include Scots Pine, Oak, Holly, Hazel and Sycamore. No major

visible defects. Provides excellent screen and habitat. Stems not plotted on


No action required.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Early-mature

Leylandii 4.5 4.5


Early-mature

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Norway Maple 4.5 4.5

Acer platanoides

Early-mature

Norway Maple 4 4

Acer platanoides

See plan

See plan

4

See plan

See plan

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

GOOD31


stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant

pruning.

No action required. 40+

B

B

40+

T 370 10 2.5

GOOD GOOD HIGH

GOOD HIGH

Est 27

4.5Situated within H368. Single

stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant

pruning.

No action required.

4.5

T 369 7 2.5

GOOD HIGH 40+

BGOOD LOW 40+

BH 368 To 3 0To

20 at base


No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

See plan

See plan

To 20 at base

Continuation of H366. Well maintained field boundary hedgerow.

No major visible defects.No action required.

GOODSee plan

H 367 To 3 0

B

H 366 To 3 0To

20 at base


No action required. BGOOD

GOOD LOW 40+

HIGH 40+

Est to 25

Well maintained boundary hedge of residential property made up of Plum

and Hawthorn. No major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIR

GOOD

Est 40 at base

4.5 Twin-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. No evidence of

significant pruning. No major visible defects. Stem not plotted on the


No action required.

4.5

H 365 to 6 0Mixed species

FAIR HIGH 40+

B

CT 364 12 2.5

GOOD FAIR HIGH 40+

B

H 363 2 0To

15 at base

Well maintained boundary hedge of residential property made up of

Lonicera and Lawson Cypress. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

H 362 to 8 0To

25 at base

Mixed species hedgerow with occasional uncut trees. Species

include Sycamore, Hawthorn and Elder.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+G 361To 11

0To

30 at base

Vegetation forming the garden of the Red Hall Farm cottages. Limited

access prevented detailed inspection. Species include Cherry, Lawson Cypress, Willow and Lonicera.

No action required.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Semi-mature

Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Early-mature

Ash 6 6

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 6

Quercus robur


Mature

Lime 6 5.5

Tilia sp.

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

CGOOD HIGH 20-40FAIR

5.5

75

6

Situated at the entrace of the golf courese. Sparse upper crown, with

dieback and chlorotic foliage.

Reduce crown by 30% to remove

dieback and monitor annually.

T 380 17 4

FAIR HIGH 40+

BFAIR MOD 40+

AG 379To 15

0Est

to 40

Mixed species group adjacent to the road, running north east from the entrance of the golf course up

to the layby. No major visible defects. Species include Ash, Sycamore, Elm, Hawthorn and Laurel.

Only indicated on the topographical survey as an intermittent green line.

No action required.

GOOD

GOODSee plan

6

B

7

T 378 16 389

over Ivy

5

Situated within H376. Previously crown reduced. Major ivy prevented



GOOD GOOD MOD 40+Est 95

7 Situated within H376. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects. Ivy



T 377 10 3

GOOD MOD 40+

BGOOD MOD 40+

BH 376 2.5 0

FAIR

To 20 at base

Well maintained mixed species field boundary hedgerow. Species include Hawthorn, Plum, Elm, Hornbeam and

Holly. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

See plan

See plan

B

B

5.5

H 375 2.5 0To

20 at base

Well maintained mixed species field boundary hedgerow. Species include Hawthorn, Plum, Elm and Holly. No


No action required.

T 374 10 2

GOOD HIGH 40+

33

6

Situated within H373. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible

defects. No action required. GOOD HIGH 40+

To 18 at base


No action required.

GOOD

GOOD

See plan

See planH 373 To 3 0

B

G 372 To 9 0Est

to 22

Group of Scots Pine and Oak. No major visible defects. Stems not

plotted on the topographical survey.No action required. AGOOD

GOOD HIGH 40+

HIGH 40+

To 18 at base


No action required. GOODSee planH 371 2.5 0

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

English Oak

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4 4.5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 6 8

Quercus robur

Over mature

Elder 3 3

Sambucus nigra

Semi-mature

Sycamore 1 1

Acer pseudoplatanus

Semi-mature

Sycamore

Acer pseudoplatanus

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak 8 6

Quercus robur

Mature

Lawson Cypress 2.5 6


Young to mature

5

2

2

1

GOOD HIGH 40+

BGOOD HIGH 20-40

AW 390To 19

0Mixed species

Est to 70

Large woodland plantation group (Sprowston Plantation). Crowns overhang

the road.Species include Ash, Lime Sycamore, Oak, Hazel, Horse Chestnut and

Hawthorn. No major visible defects. Excellent habitat and screening.

No action required at present, however it would be prudent to survey the roadside

trees for defects on an annualy basis.

FAIR

GOODSee plan

B

11

T 389 17 3 48

6Situated within the front garden of No

3. Twin-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. Ivy noted to stem.

No major visible defects.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD HIGH 20-40130

8 Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the road.

Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Significant deadwood

noted.

Deadwood and remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects.

T 388 17 4

GOOD HIGH 40+

CFAIR HIGH 20-40

BG 387 to 15 3Mixed species

FAIR

FAIR

See plan

See plan

Group of Sycamore on the edge of the golf course adjacent to the road.

Approximately 14 semi-mature stems forming 1 crown. No major visible

defects.

No action required.

18 at base

Ave.35 at base

Linear row of trees consisting of mainly Ash and Sycamore.

Continuation of G379. Crowns overhang the road. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of most stems.

Remove Ivy as required and re-


Ave. 25

Twin-stemmed at 0.5m with a balanced crown. No evidence of



G 386To 10

2

HIGH 40+

RDEAD <10

B

DEAD DEAD

GOODGOOD

B

12

T 384 6 2Est

30 at base

3

Dead specimen adjacent to the road. Remove.


B

4

T 383 20 5136 over Ivy

11 Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Crown overhangs the road. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of base. Sparse upper crown with deadwood

and dieback.

Reduce crown by 30% to remove

dieback, and remove Ivy from around the trees base and re-




the road. Major dieback in top. Stem wound at 3m.

Reduce crown by pruning out the dieback, and

monitor annually.

T 382 14 2

POOR LOW <10 RG 381To 17

4To 130

2 Oak trees on the edge of the golf course forming 1 crown. Crowns overhang the

road. Deadwood throughout. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of both stems. Both trees have decay pockets at base. Unacceptable

on this busy roadside position.

Remove. FAIRSee plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Ash 4 7

Fraxinus excelsior

Young to mature

Early-mature

English Oak 4 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 2

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 7 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 5.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 3

Quercus robur

5

B

6


B

4

T 400 16 4 97

8

Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Some deadwood

and dieback noted.

Remove deadwood and reduce crown to

remove dieback.


B

5

T 399 18 10 69

5

Single stemmed and vertical with a high balanced crown. Some dieback

noted.

Remove deadwood and reduce crown to

remove dieback.

FAIR GOOD HIGH 40+

B

Est 11

T 398 16 2 96


balanced crown. Minor dieback noted. Acceptable condition at

present.

Monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR HIGH 20-40

B

11

T 397 16 7 87

5

Multi-stemmed at 5m with an unbalanced crown. Deadwood noted

over the road.Deadwood.

FAIR FAIR HIGH 40+

B

4

T 396 18 5 120

8 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Crown overhangs the road. No major visible defects. Deadwood noted. Ivy prevented


Deadwood, and remove Ivy and re-

inspect stem for defects.

FAIR GOOD HIGH 40+

B

6

T 395 18 5100 over Ivy


slightly unbalanced crown. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Some

deadwood noted.




B

4

T 394 18 5 111

6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Significant

deadwood in upper crown. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of the

stem.



GOOD FAIR MOD 40+71

5.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning

wounds due to crown lifting. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Minor

stem wound at 3m.


T 393 18 5

FAIR HIGH 40+

BGOOD HIGH 40+

BG 392To 18

0Mixed species

To 50

Mixed species linear group between the main road and open fields. Species include

Oak, Ash, Sycamore and Hawthorn. Generally in good condition but some dead specimens were observed within the group.

Remove dead specimens.

FAIR

FAIRSee plan

49

3 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Situated on the

edge of G90. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


T 391 16 4

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 3.5 3

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 6.5 5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 5 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Semi-mature to over mature


Mature

English Oak 7 5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 4 4

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 4 8

Quercus robur

5.5

Mixed species

B

6

GOOD FAIR MODRemove Ivy and re-inspect for defects.

20-40

R

3

T 410 16 3135 over Ivy

6



DEAD DEAD DEAD <10

B

6

T 409 16 n/aEst 73

4

Dead tree within G407. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

Remove or reduce to a standing

deadwood habitat if land use changes.

FAIR FAIR LOW 20-4084

7

Situated within G407. Dieback in top. Dead Ivy to stem. Acceptable

condition at present.No action required.T 408 16 5

FAIR MOD 40+

AGOOD LOW 40+

BG 407 to 17 1To 65

Field boundary group of trees. Species include Oak and Hawthorn. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection of some stems. Occasional dead specimens observed. Acceptable condition at present. Individual stems not plotted on

the topographical survey,

Monitor group annually.

GOOD

FAIR

See plan

See plan

To 65

Field boundary hedgerow with mature trees. Species include Ash, Hawthorn and Horse Chestnut. Provides excellent screen and

habitat. Ivy prevented detailed inspection of most stems. Occasional stems have failed

and are lying on the floor.

Clear fallen stems as required.

GOOD

G 406 to 18 0Mixed species

T 405 11 2 GOOD HIGH 40+

B

A83

7 Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Some minor

deadwood noted. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

7


B

6

T 404 8 1.5140 over Ivy

5 Squat specimen. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Squat

specimen. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Acceptable

condition at present due to location.

No action required.


A

7.5

T 403 16 2.592

over Ivy


balanced crown. Minor bark wound at base. Deadwood over road. Minor Ivy

to stem.

Deadwood.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

6.5

T 402 17 2.5 124


the footpath and road. Minor deadwood noted.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD HIGH 40+T 401 17 370

over Ivy

7 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Crown overhangs

the footpath and road. Deadwood noted. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.

Deadwood and remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

English Oak 7.5 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 3 10

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Sycamore

Acer pseudoplatanus

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 8 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 8

Quercus robur

Young to mature

Over mature

Beech 11 9

Fagus sylvatica

Mature

English Oak 7.5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 9

Quercus robur

20-40FAIR GOOD MOD

FAIR

Mixed species

Mixed species

B

10

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

B

8

T 420 17 3

Est 120 over Ivy

9




GOOD FAIR LOW 20-40

C

10

T 419 16 3

Est 95

over Ivy

8

Situated on the edge of W417. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection.



8 Situated on the edge of W417. Twin-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Wound at 7m

due to past lost limb. Wooly Aphid infestation noted to stem, which will likely

lead to Beech Bark Disease .


GOOD MOD 40+ A

A

9

W 417To 18

0To 80

Large woodland group called Fox Burrow Plantations. Species within include Ash, Oak, Hawthorn, Beech and Field Maple. No major visible

defects. Excellent Landscape feature.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

8

T 416 16 3 112




No action required.

GOOD GOOD LOW 40+65


crown. No major visible defects. Situated within H414. Stem not



GOOD MOD 40+ BTo 25

Well maintained field boundary hedgerow of Plum and Hawthorn.

Occasional sections not cut. Excellent natural screen and habitat.

No action required. GOODH 414 To 4 0

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

B

10

G 413To 16

0.5To 58

2 Sycamore forming 1 crown. No major visible defects.


C

7

T 412 17 4 78

5Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown due to suppression and dieback. Acceptable condition at

present. Due to land use.

Monitor annually.

10-20T 411 13 3 150

7

Multi-stemmed at 2m with a balanced crown. Significant cavity at 2m.

Excellent ecological value.

Reduce heavily by up to 40% to

minimize chances of collapse.

FAIR MOD

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 8.5 8.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 6.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 6.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 5.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 6.5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9 8

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 11 8

Quercus robur

A

9.5

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

10

T 430 18 2140 over Ivy

10Twin-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Evidence of past snapped

limbs from within crown.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

6.5

T 429 13 3 125

7 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Minor bark wound at

base. Deadwood throughout. Acceptable condition at present due

to land use.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

C

7

T 428 14 2105 over Ivy

6.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Dead Ivy to stem

prevented detailed inspection. Slightly sparse upper crown with

deadwood.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR MOD 10-20

B

5.5

T 427 12 2125 over Ivy

5 Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Significant dieback noted. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Large

wound to central stem due to past lost limb. Rather poor specimen.

Monitor annually.

FAIR GOOD LOW 20-40

A

8

T 426 16 3110 over Ivy


balanced crown. Minor dieback noted. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.

Remove Ivy and re-inspect for defects,

and monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

7

T 425 15 2120 over Ivy

6

Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood noted. Ivy



FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

B

7.5

T 424 15 2 83


balanced crown. Slightly sparse upper crown noted. Acceptable condition at

present.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

B

6.5

T 423 14 2140 over Ivy


balanced crown. Major ivy prevented detailed inspection. Some minor

deadwood noted.


GOOD FAIR LOW 20-40

B

8

T 422 14 0.5125 over Ivy

6.5Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Some evidence of past

lost limbs observed.


FAIR GOOD MOD 40+T 421 16 3 75

7

Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. No major visible defects.No action required.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 8 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8 8

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 10.5 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 10 5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 10 12

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 9

Quercus robur

B

9

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

10

T 440 18 378

over ivy

9 Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. Large wound to secondary stem at 6.5m. Acceptable condition at


Monitor annually.

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

R

7

T 439 18 3.5 135

13.5 Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Deadwood, branch stubs and hanging branches noted. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

Crown clean if the land use changes.

POOR POOR MOD <10

A

8

T 438 18 5 89

7.5 Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a slightly

unbalanced crown. Large Ganoderma fungal fruiting bodies at

base. Limited long term future.

Remove.

GOOD GOOD MOD 20-40

B

8

T 437 16 3130 over ivy

9Situated on the edge of G390. Multi-

stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


GOOD FAIR LOW 20-40

R

10

T 436 17 4110 over Ivy

7 Situated on the edge of G390. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented detailed

inspection. Minor bark damage at base.


POOR FAIR MOD <10

A

6

T 435 15 4120 over Ivy


crown. Major dieback noted. Only lower branches are bearing foliage.

Limited long term future.

Remove.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

C

7

T 434 11 2128 over Ivy

4




POOR FAIR LOW 10-20

A

7

T 433 12 473

over Ivy


balanced crown. Significant deadwood and dieback. Rather poor

specimen.

Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

8

T 432 9 2Est 68


balanced crown. Significant undergrowth prevented detailed

inspection.

Remove undergrowth and re-inspect for defects.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+T 431 12 3100 over Ivy

6

Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

English Oak 8 8.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 2 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 8.5

Quercus robur

Young to mature

Mature

English Oak 8.5 10

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 9 11.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 9 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 10 9.5

Quercus robur

Mixed species

B

Est 7

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

B

Est 8

T 450 17 3 76

10Situated on the edge of W446. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Minor deadwood and branch

stubs noted.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

8

T 449 17 3 84

9.5Situated on the edge of W446. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Some large deadwood noted.


No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

Est 7

T 448 18 4 120

10 Situated on the edge of W446.svb Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Split branch in lower

crown. Acceptable condition at present..

No action required.


9Situated on the edge of W446. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Some large deadwood noted.



GOOD MOD 40+ A

B

8

W 446To 18

0To 75

Woodland group known as Spanish Plantation. Species include Sweet

Chestnut Oak, Ash. Hawthorn, Sycamore and Elm. Ocasional dead

specimens noted. Excellent landscape feature.


GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

7

T 445 17 2.5 88

9 Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds

due to crown lifting. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

B

7

T 444 16 3 87

7 Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Wound in upper crown due

to past lost limb. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

B

6.5

T 443 18 569

over Ivy

7.5 Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with an

unbalanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Significant Ivy



FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

A

7

T 442 17 2.5 64

7.5Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. Slightly sparse crown with small leaf noted.

Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+T 441 18 3 76

8

Situated on the edge of W417. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. No major visible defects.No action required.

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 8 10

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak Est 6 8

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash 4 6

Fraxinus excelsior


Young to over mature

Over mature

English Oak 11 11

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5 10

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 9

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 12 10

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9.5 12

Quercus robur

Mixed species

Mixed species

A

9.5

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

13

T 460 18 3 125

9 Multi-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Multiple pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Some deadwood and

branch stubs noted. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

8

T 459 19 3.5 138

8 Multi-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Multiple pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Some deadwood and

branch stubs noted. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

B

6

G 458To 17

3To 88

7

Situated on the edge of W455. Some deadwood and branch stubs noted. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

A

12

T 457 16 3 83

7.5 Situated on the edge of W455. Single stemmed and vertical with an

unbalanced crown. Some deadwood and branch stubs noted. Acceptable

condition at present. Some dark staining noted to stem.

Monitor annually.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+132

11 Situated on the edge of W455. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Some deadwood and branch stubs noted. Acceptable condition at

present.


GOOD LOW 40+ ATo 110

Mixed species woodland group. Contuination of of W417. Species include

Ash, Sycamore, Oak, Elm and Sweet Chestnut. No major visible defects.

Excellent natural feature. Occasional dead specimen noted. Acceptable condition at

present.


0

GOOD LOW 40+ B

B

6

G 454 To 7 0.5Ave. 26

Linear group of Oak with occasional Goat Willow. No major visible

defects.No action required. GOOD

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

9

T 453 13 2 39

5Situated on the edge of W446. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced


No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

B

Est 7

T 452 17 3 74

8 Situated on the edge of W446. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Deadwood and branch stubs


No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+T 451 17 4 91

10 Situated on the edge of W446. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Deadwood and

branch stubs noted Acceptable condition at present..

No action required.

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

English Oak 5.5 14

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 10 5.5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 11 13

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 7.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Hornbeam 5 6

Carpinus betulus

Semi-mature

Beech 3 3

Fagus sylvatica

Semi-mature

Beech 3.5 4

Fagus sylvatica

Mature

Sycamore 5 9

Acer pseudoplatanus


Early-mature

Leylandii


Mixed species

GOOD MOD 40+ CTo

25 at base

Well maintained garden boundary hedge for 'The Lodge'. No major

visible defects.No action required. GOODH 470 2.5 0

GOOD HIGH 40+ A

B

9

W 469To 20

0Est

to 80

Large woodland group called Shrubbery Plantation. Species include Oak, Ash, Sycamore and Leylandii. No major visible defects. Excellent

natural landscape feature.


FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

A

3.5

T 468 17 3Est

98 at base

5 Situated on the edge of Shrubbery Plantation. Twin-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. Ivy and epicormic growths at base prevented


No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

3

T 467 7 1.5 27



No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

6.5

T 466 6 1 26



No action required.

FAIR GOOD HIGH 40+

B

6

T 465 17 2 29



No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

A

13.5

T 464 18 4 92

10 Situated on the edge of W455. Multi-stemmed at 4.5m with a balanced crown. Significant Deadwood in

lower crown. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

8.5

T 463 20 8 124

12 Situated on the edge of W455. Multi-stemmed at 4.5m with a balanced crown. Significant Deadwood in

lower crown. Acceptable condition at present due to land use.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

11

T 462 17 3.5 95

5.5Twin-stemmed at 4m with a balanced crown. Deadwood and branch stubs


No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+T 461 18 3 127

9Multi-stemmed at 4m with an

unbalanced crown. Some deadwood and branch stubs noted. Acceptable


No action required.

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Yound to semi-mature



Early-mature

Hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna

Mature

Lime 8 8.5

Tilia sp.

Early-mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Mature

Cherry 7 7

Prunus sp

Early-mature

Wellingtonia 5 5


Early-mature

Oak species 7 7

Quercus sp

Early-mature

Crab Apple 5.5 5

Malus sylvestris

B

4.5

GOOD GOOD MOD 20-40

B

7

T 480 7 1 28



No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

5

T 479 14 1 41



No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

7

T 478 12 0 65



No action required.


A

9

T 477 16 1 75




No action required.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

A

7.5

T 476 16 1 73




No action required.


9Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced

crown. No evidence of significant pruning. Minor deadwood noted. Acceptable condition at present.


GOOD MOD 40+ BTo

25 at base


No action required. GOODSee planH 474 To 3 0

GOOD HIGH 40+ AEst

to 90

Continuation of W469 (Shrubbery Plantation) running up to the

plantation to the north. Species include Oak, Leyland Cypress, Cherry and Hawthorn. Stems not plotted on

the topographical survey.

No action required. GOODSee planW 473To 20

0Mixed species


Mixed species group of Sycamore and Oak. Stems not plotted on the topographical survey. No major

visible defects.


0Mixed species

GOOD LOW 40+ BAve. 15

Mixed species Young to semi-mature plantation group. Species include Maple, Willow, Spruce and Holly.

No action required. GOODSee planG 471 To 8 0Mixed species

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Tree of Heaven 5.5 4.5

Ailanthus altissima

Early-mature

Tree of Heaven 6.5 6.5

Ailanthus altissima

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 7.5 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Yew

Taxus baccata

Young to mature

Over mature

English Oak 11.5 13

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 5.5 5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 7 3

Quercus robur

Mature

Turkey oak 7.5 10

Quercus cerris

A

10

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

2

T 490 22 2.5 103


crown. Occasional deadwood and branch stubs noted.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD LOW 40+

B

7

T 489 13 253

over Ivy

6 Situated on the edge of W486. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Part forming a larger crown with the adjacent T488. No major visible defects. Minor Ivy to stem.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD LOW 40+

A

13

T 488 13 2 44

1 Situated on the edge of W486. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Part forming a larger crown with the adjacent T489. No major

visible defects.

No action required.


12 Situated on the edge of W486. Twin-stemmed at 5m with a balanced

crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. No major visible

defects.Fine specimen.


GOOD HIGH 40+ A

To 90

(ave. 40)

Well established mixed species woodland group called Coppersholes Plantation. Species include Leyland Cypress, Oak, Lime, Sweet Chestnut, Larch, Hazel, Sycamore and Elm. Occasional dead

specimens observed. Excellent landscape feature.


0

GOOD MOD 40+ B

B

8

H 485 3 0

Est to 25

at base

Well maintained garden boundary hedge.




balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Minor

dieback noted.


FAIR MOD 40+ B

B

6

G 483To 17

0To

65 at base

Mixed species group of trees and shrubs forming the garden of Beeston

St Andrew Hall. Species include Laurel, Holly, Holm Oak and Leyland

Cypress. No major visible defects.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

5

T 482 9 0.5 29



No action required.




No action required.

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

English Oak 5 6

Quercus robur

Mature

Turkey oak 10 7

Quercus cerris

Over mature

English Oak 14 9

Quercus robur

Over mature

Turkey oak 8.5 5.5

Quercus cerris

Over mature

Oak species 8.5 16

Quercus sp

Mature

English Oak 7.5 2

Quercus robur

Over mature

Turkey oak 7.5 13

Quercus cerris

Over mature

Turkey oak 11.5 11.5

Quercus cerris

Over mature

Turkey oak 11 13

Quercus cerris

Mature

English Oak 11.5 8

Quercus robur

C

11


B

8

T 500 16 4 88

7 Twin-stemmed at 4.5m with an unbalanced crown. Dark staining

noted to stem. Various branch stubs noted and major split in mid crown.

Potentially unstable.

Reduce by 50% to stabalize.


B

13

T 499 23 3 155

12Multi-stemmed at 5m with a balanced crown. Deadwood and branch stubs noted. Crown overhangs the road.

Slightly small leaves noted.

Monitor annually, and crown clean over the road.


A

10

T 498 20 3 115


balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Some

dark staining noted to stems.

Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

12.5

T 497 21 3 117

10 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Minor


No action required.


B

15

T 496 18 4 94

6.5 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. Some deadwood

and dieback noted. Wood pecker holes noted in upper crown.


Monitor anually.


C

13

T 495 22 3.5 137


crown. Dark staining noted throughout. Possible Pythopthora

infection.

Monitor annually.


B

15

T 494 23 5 101

7.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Large shrivelled and unidentifiable fungal fruiting body at base. Internal decay

likely.

Monitor annually.


C

7.5

T 493 22 3 124

10 Twin-stemmed at 5m with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds

due to crown lifting, (healing slowly). Deadwood and branch stubs noted. Some dark staining at base of the

lower limb to the south.

Monitor annually.


B

4

T 492 16 4 98

9

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Large stem wound at 8m. Sparse crown with dieback.

Monitor annually.

FAIR GOOD HIGH 40+T 491 15 3 63

5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Slightly suppressed

by the adjacent T490. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting.

Becoming slightly stag headed. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually.

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

English Oak 7.5 12

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 13 11

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Lonicera

Lonicera nitida

Early-mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur


Mature

Beech 9 4

Fagus sylvatica

Early-mature

Ash 6 6

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

Ash 3 8

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

Cherry

Prunus sp

FAIR MOD 10-20 C

C

4

G 510To 12

4To 38

2 Cherry trees forming 1 crown. Both trees rather poor insignificant

specimens. Acceptable condition at present.


FAIR FAIR LOW 10-20

C

6

T 509 17 155 at base

5Twin-stemmed at ground level with an unbalanced crown. Some decay

and included bark at base. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR LOW 10-20

R

7

T 508 18 0.5 68

8Single stemmed and vertical with an

unbalanced crown due to suppression. Wound with decay at base.


Monitor annually.

FAIR POOR MOD <1083

4 Single stemmed and leaning with an unbalanced crown. Major decay at

0m to 3m. Limited long term future. Stem not plotted on topographical

survey.

Remove.T 507 17 2.5

GOOD MOD 40+ B

B

7

G 506To 17

1To 58

Situated on the edge of W486. 2 Ash and 1 Oak forming 1 crown. No


FAIR GOOD HIGH 40+83





GOOD MOD 20-40 C

C

10.5

H 504 1 0

Est to 5 at

base

Garden boundary hedge. No major visible defects.



B

10

T 503 19 2 134

8 Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown due to suppression from the adjacent tree. Unidentifiable

dried fungal bracket at 6m on old pruning wound.

Monitor annually.


A

10

T 502 21 3 148

10

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Dark staining noted

from old pruning wound at 4m.Monitor annually.


11 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Minor


No action required.

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

Ash 9 6

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

English Oak 2 6

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 0 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Field Maple 6 6

Acer campestre

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak 6 7

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9 8

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 7 6

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

C

8

POOR FAIR MOD 10-20

A

6

T 520 14 4

Est 120 over Ivy


balanced crown. Some dieback noted. Major Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

8

T 519 14 375

over Ivy

7Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Stem not plotted on the

topographical survey,


GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

9

T 518 15 0.5

Est 140 over Ivy




FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

C

6

T 517 15 0.5140 over Ivy




POOR FAIR MOD <10150 over Ivy

5Stem not plotted on the topographical survey. Tree completely smothered in

Ivy. Major dieback. Limited long term future.

Reduce to a standing deadwood habitat if land use changes.

T 516 13 0.5

FAIR MOD 20-40 B

B

6

H 515 To 8 0To

25 at base

Mixed species hedgerow with occasional uncut trees. Species

include Hazel, Plum and Hawthorn. Occasional gaps observed. Individual

stems not plotted on the topographical survey.


GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

C

6

T 514 13 2 37

6

Situated within hedgerow. No major visible defects. Dense growth at base

prevented detailed inspection.No action required.

GOOD FAIR LOW 40+

B

6

T 513 12 4 28

5.5Situated on the edge of W486. Single

stemmed and leaning with an unbalanced crown. No major visible

defects.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD LOW 40+

C

8

T 512 16 4 33

6Situated on the edge of W486. Single

stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. No major visible

defects.

No action required.

FAIR FAIR LOW 20-4093 at base

9Situated on the edge of W486. Twin-

stemmed at 0.5m with a balanced crown. Included bark at 0.5m.


Monitor annually.T 511 17 3.5


JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Early-mature

Field Maple 6 6

Acer campestre

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak 3 7

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 13.5 10

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Mature

Mature

Mature

English Oak 5 4

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 8

Quercus robur

B

8

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

C

5

T 530 15 2.588

over Ivy

8




FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

Est 85

over Ivy

7

Tree completely smothered in Ivy. Unable to comment on condition at

present.


T 529 11 4

FAIR MOD 20-40 CTo

28 at base

Mixed species field boundary hedgerow of Hawthorn, Hazel, Holly and Plum. Occasional gaps and uncut

sections observed.

No action required. FAIRH 528 To 6 0

GOOD MOD 40+ B

B

4

H 527 2 0To

25 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedgerow of Hawthorn and Plum.


GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

11

T 526 16 3115 over Ivy

8

Multi-stemmed at 2.5m with an unbalanced crown. Major ivy prevented detailed inspection.


GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

R

6

T 525 16 3130 over ivy

10


inspection.


POOR POOR LOW <10120 over Ivy

5

Virtually dead specimen smothered in Ivy. Limited long term future.

Remove.T 524 12 3

GOOD MOD 40+ B

B

6

H 523 2.5 0Ave. 25 at base

Well maintained field boundary hedge. No major visible defects.


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+Ave. 30

6Situated within H521. 5 stems

forming 1 crown. No major visible defects. Stems not plotted on the

topgraphical survey.

No action required.G 522 11 3

GOOD MOD 40+ BH 521 To 8 0To 30

Mixed species hedgerow with occasional uncut trees. No major

visible defects. Good screening and habitat value.


Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 8 8.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6 7.5

Quercus robur


Early-mature

English Oak 4.5 4.5

Quercus robur

Young to mature

Over mature

English Oak 7.5 12.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 9 9

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak

Quercus robur

Early-mature

FAIR MOD 20-40 C

Est to 15

at base

Small insignificant section of hedgerow made up of Privet, Ivy and

Hawthorn.No action required. FAIRH 540

To 3.5

0

FAIR LOW 20-40 C

C

8.5

G 539To 14

2Ave 45

3 Oak trees forming 1 crown. Stems not plotted on the topographical survey. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection of all stems. Acceptable condition at present.


FAIR FAIR LOW 20-40

C

6

T 538 14 3120 over Ivy

8 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Ivy prevented

detailed inspection Some dieback noted. Acceptable condition at

present.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR LOW 10-20

C

10.5

T 537 14 285

aver Ivy


balanced crown. Ivy prevented detailed inspection Slightly chlorotic

leaves noted.

Monitor annually.


8.5Multi-stemmed at 4m with a balanced

crown. Significant dark staining at base. Minor dieback noted.



GOOD MOD 40+ A

B

4.5

W 535To 18

0Est

to 70

Mixed species woodland group. Species include Alder, Ash and Oak.

Excellent Landscape feature. No major visible defects.


FAIR GOOD MOD 40+35 at base

4.5Situated within H533. Twin-stemmed at 1.5m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No



FAIR MOD 20-40 C

B

7.5

H 533 To 7 0Ave. 25 at base

Mixed species hedgerow of Elm, Plum, Field Maple and Hawthorn. Majority of Elms have since died.

Remove dead Elms as required.

FAIR

GOOD FAIR LOW 20-40

A

8

T 532 14 2110 over Ivy

7

No major visible defects. Major Ivy prevented detailed inspection.



9

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Minor Ivy noted to

stem.No action required.

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Early-mature

Early-mature

Mature

English Oak 7 5

Quercus robur

Mature

Ash 9 9

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

Plum 6.5 5

Prunus sp

Early-mature

English Oak 8 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash 6 5

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

English Oak 6 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 6.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

English Oak 6 4.5

Quercus robur

B

6

FAIR GOOD HIGH 40+

B

7.5

T 550 12 1 56



No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

B

8

T 549 19 4130 over ivy

7

Twin-stemmed at 5m with a balanced crown. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection. Minor dieback noted.


GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

C

5.5

T 548 19 4107 0ver Ivy


wounds due to crown lifting. Significant Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

8

T 547 11 0.5 28

5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No major visible defects. Small secondary stem at 0.5m is rubbing main stem and

causing wound. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

3

T 546 10 0.5 65




No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 20-40

B

8

T 545 7 0.580 at base

5

Twin-stemmed at ground level with a balanced crown. No major visible

defects.No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

R

7

T 544 14 373

over Ivy


wounds due to crown lifting. No major visible defects. Ivy prevented



POOR POOR MOD <10120 over Ivy

6Situated within H451. Major Ivy

prevented detailed inspection. Decay present at base. Major dieback

present. Limited long term future.

Remove.T 543 12 4

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo

25 at base


Hawthorn, Field Maple and Elm. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODSee planH 542 2.5 0Mixed species

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo

25 at base


Hawthorn, Field Maple and Elm. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODH 541 2.5 0Mixed species

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 6.5 7

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 6

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Ash 5 4

Fraxinus excelsior

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak 7.5 7.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 5.5 5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

Over mature

English Oak Est 13.5 13.5

Quercus robur

Early-mature

FAIR LOW 40+ C

A

13

H 560 To 4 0To

26 at base

Mixed species hedge surrounding 1 and 2 Manor Farm Cottage's. No


GOOD GOOD MOD 40+165 over Ivy

13


inspection. Fine specimen.No action required.T 559 21 3

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo

28 at base

Well maintained Hedgerow of Elm, Field Maple and Hawthorn. A small section of of the hedge borders the garden of the adjacent Manor Farm Cottage. No major visible defects.

No action required. GOODH 558 To 5 0

GOOD MOD 40+ C

B

8

H 557To 2.5

0To

25 at base

Small section of well maintained field boundary hedge of Plum, Hawthorn and Field Maple. No major visible

defects.


FAIR FAIR MOD 40+

B

6

T 556 16 3.5 83


balanced crown. Ivy prevented detailed inspection. Minor deadwood

noted. Stem bark wound 3m.

No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 40+100 over Ivy

7.5Situated within H554. Multi-stemmed

at 4m with a balanced crown. Significant Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.


T 555 14 3

GOOD MOD 40+ C

C

5

H 554 2 0To

25 at base

Small section of well maintained field boundary hedge of Plum, Hawthorn,



FAIR FAIR MOD 40+

R

8

T 553 10 0.520

over Ivy

1Single stemmed and vertical with an unbalanced crown. No evidence of

significant pruning. No major visible defects. Suppressed by adjacent tree.

No action required.

POOR POOR MOD <10

B

6

T 552 17 3115 over Ivy

6

Major dieback noted. Central stem is completely dead. Limited long term

future.Remove.

GOOD FAIR HIGH 20-40T 551 14 2Est 58

5.5Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No major visible defects Bramble at base prevented


Remove Bramble and re-inspect for

defects.

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory



Early-mature

Ash 7 7

Fraxinus excelsior

Mature

Cherry 8 8

Prunus sp


Over mature

Turkey oak 13 12

Quercus cerris

Over mature

Turkey oak 13 13

Quercus cerris

Mature

Turkey oak 12 11

Quercus cerris

Early-mature

Young to mature

Early-mature

English Oak 8 6.5

Quercus robur

C

6

FAIR FAIR LOW 40+80

5.5

Situated on the edge of W569. No major visible defects. Rather scrappy

specimen.No action required.T 570 18 4

GOOD MOD 40+ AEst

to 85

Mixed species woodland group. Species include Oak, Hawthorn, Hazel, Ash,

Sycamore, Cedar and Leylandii. Indicated on the topographical suvey with a vague

green line. No major visible defects. Excellent natural feature.


0

FAIR MOD 40+ B

A

Est 7

H 568 To 5 0To

25 at base

Mixed species field boundary hedgerow. Species include Hawthorn and Elm. No major visible defects.


GOOD FAIR MOD 40+

A

Est 8

T 567 20 2.596

over Ivy


significant pruning. No major visible defects. Ivy to stem prevented


No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

11

T 566 20 4Est 92

13

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Situated in the rear

garden of Park farm.No action required.





FAIR HIGH 40+ B

B

6

G 564To 18

0Est

to 75

Mixed species group around Park farm. Species include Sycamore, Elm, Oak, Ash, Cherry, Cedar and Lawson

Cypress. Good screen and habitat. Occasional dead specimens noted.


GOOD GOOD HIGH 20-40

B

8

T 563 13 2.5Est 54

6.5 Multi-stemmed at 1m with a balanced crown. No evidence of significant pruning. No major visible defects.

Situated within the front garden of the farm cottage.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 40+58

over Ivy

5Situated on the edge of G561. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced

crown. Ivy prevented detailed inspection.


T 562 15 3


Mixed species group. Species include Sycamore, Field Maple, Ash, Oak and Plum. Crowns overhang the road. No

major visible defects. Occasional dead specimens noted.

Remove dead specimens as

required.GOODSee planG 561

To 20

0Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature


Quercus robur


Mixed species

#N/A

Over mature

Sweet Chestnut 9 9

Castanea sativa

Over mature

English Oak 12 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 9 12

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8 13

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8 7

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Early-mature

Leylandii


Early-mature

GOOD HIGH 40+ AAve 30

Mixed species group of Sweet Chestnut, Oak, Ash and Leylandii. No major visible defects. Stems not plotted on the topographical survey.


1

GOOD MOD 40+ BTo

40 at base

Large Leylandii group. No major visible defects. Not plotted on the

topographical survey.No action required. GOODG 579

To 18

0

FAIR LOW 20-40 C

B

Est 9.5

H 578 To 6 0

Est to 27

at base

Mixed species hedgerow of Elm and Hawthorn. No major visible defects.


FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

A

13

T 577 18 1.5 120


significant pruning. No major visible defects. Occasional branch stubs

noted.

No action required.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

11

T 576 22 4 120

9 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning wounds due to crown lifting. Some


No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

A

11

T 575 20 3 97

13 Situated on the edge of W569. Multi-stemmed at 8m with a balanced

crown. Some significant bark wounds in upper crown. Acceptable condition

at present.

Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

A

9.5

T 574 23 3 135

10Situated on the edge of W569. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No major visible defects. Fine

specimen.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR LOW 20-40200+

7 Situated on the edge of W569. Stem not plotted on topographical survey.

Twin-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Deadwood and decay noted.

Very fine veteran specimen.


GOOD LOW 40+ B

B

10

G 572To 18

4To 69

Mixed species group of Ash, Elder and Plum. Individual stems not

plotted on topographical survey. No major visible defects.


GOOD GOOD LOW 40+T 571 18 2 89



No action required.

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Over mature

Atlas Cedar 6 6

Cedrus atlantica

Early-mature

Young to mature

Semi-mature

Early-mature

Atlas Cedar 7 5

Cedrus atlantica

Mature

English Oak 10 6.5

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 5 8

Quercus robur

Semi-mature

Tulip Tree 4 4

Liriodendron tulipifera

Semi-mature

Indian Bean tree 3.5 2

Catalpa bignonoides

Over mature

English Oak 11 9

Quercus robur

A

11

GOOD GOOD HIGH 20-40

C

2.5

T 590 23 2.5 151

14 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. No major visible defects. Minor stem wound at base. Deadwood throughout. Acceptable


No action required.

FAIR FAIR LOW 20-40

C

4

T 589 5 0.5 18

2.5

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Slightly sparse

crown noted.No action required.

FAIR FAIR MOD 20-40

B

10

T 588 8 125 at base

4Twin-stemmed at 0.5m with a balanced crown. Various stem

wounds noted. Acceptable condition at present.

No action required.


B

9

T 587 20 3.5 129

9 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Stem wound in

upper crown. Significant Deadwood noted. Acceptable condition at


Deadwood if land use changes.


B

6

T 586 19 2 109

13Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Wound present at base, and to stem in upper crown. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually.

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+36





Group of Vegetation within the garden of Beeston hall. Species include Monterey

Cypress, Tulip Tree, Liquidamber, Sycamore, Holly and Ash. Not plotted on topographical survey, hence surveyed as a

group. No major visible defects.


0

GOOD MOD 40+ ATo 80

Vegetation forming the garden of Beeston hall. Species include Yew, Oak, Beech and Rhododendron. Not

plotted on topographical survey, hence surveyed as a group.


0

GOOD LOW 40+ B

C

7

G 582To 11

0.5Ave. 25

Mixed species group within the rear garden of Beeston Hall. Species include Norway Maple, Honey Locust and Oak. No major

visible defects. Only a few stems plotted on topographical survey, hence surveyed as a

group.


POOR POOR LOW 10-20150

9

Previously heavily reduced due to significant decay to stem. Acceptable

condition at present.Monitor annually.T 581 12 1.5

Mixed species

Mixed species

Mixed species

See plan

See plan

See plan

JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 5.5 9

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 6.5 13

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7.5 5.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 6.5 13

Quercus robur

Early-mature

Ash 8 10

Fraxinus excelsior

Over mature

English Oak 7.5 8.5

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 8.5 7

Quercus robur

Over mature

English Oak 9 8

Quercus robur


Over mature

English Oak 13 14

Quercus robur

A

14

GOOD FAIR LOW 40+170

10Vertical with a balanced crown. Deadwood observed. Ocasional

branch stubs noted due to past lost limbs. Fine specimen.


GOOD HIGH 40+ A

A

11

G 599To 18

0Ave. 33

Mixed species group situated around the pond. Species include Ash,

Sycamore, Oak and Rowan. No major visible defects.


GOOD GOOD HIGH 40+

B

9

T 598 21 2 123


balanced crown. Minor bark wounds at base. Acceptable condition at

present.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD MOD 40+

C

10

T 597 21 2 113

7Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Dense epicormic growths to lower stem. No major

visible defects.

No action required.

POOR FAIR HIGH <10

B

12

T 596 20 5 127

9.5 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Dieback in top. Slightly small leaves noted. Dark exudates to stem. Likely to be in

decline.

Monitor annually.

FAIR FAIR HIGH 40+

B

15

T 595 17 2 75

5Multi-stemmed at 4m with an

unbalanced crown due to suppression from adjacent trees. No major visible

defects.

No action required.


B

9

T 594 22 3 122


balanced crown. Several large branch stubs noted. Acceptable condition at

present.

Monitor annaully.


B

11.5

T 593 22 2 111

6 Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Minor wounds at base. Deadwood and woodpecker

holes in the upper crown. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually.


A

5.5

T 592 20 2.5 145

9.5

Multi-stemmed at 5m with a balanced crown. Multiple branch stubs within

crown due to past snapped limbs.

Crown reduce by 30% to stablize and

contain.





No action required.


JCA Limited 2011


Age

Species

Latin Name W E

CrownSpread

Am

en

ity V

alu

e

He

igh

t (m

)

Cro

wn

He

igh

t (m

)

Dia

me

ter

(cm

)

Str

uct

ura

lC

on

diti

on

Ph

ysio

log

ica

l Co

nd

itio

n

N

S

Life

Exp

ect

an

cy(y

rs)

Re

ten

tion

Ca

teg

ory


Mature

English Oak 5.5 6

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 9 8

Quercus robur

Mature

English Oak 7 7

Quercus robur

Mature

Ash 11 9

Fraxinus excelsior

Semi-mature

English Oak 4.5 5

Quercus robur

B

5

GOOD GOOD MOD 40+

B

26

3.5

T 604 14

T 605 5 0.5

3

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Occasional pruning

wounds due to crown lifting. No major visible defects.

No action required.

GOOD FAIR MOD 20-40

C

7.5



9.5

99 over Ivy

9

Multi-stemmed at 3m with a balanced crown. Ivy prevented detailed

inspection.

A

9

102

5

Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Significant dieback

noted. Rather poor specimen.

Crown reduce by 30% by cutting back into live wood and monitor remainder

annually.

GOOD

T 603 19 3

HIGH 40+

CMOD 20-40

8

T 602 22 3 104


balanced crown. Minor bark wounds noted at base. Acceptable condition at

present.

No action required.

FAIR GOOD

GOOD

T 601 18 3 88

7 Situated on the edge of G559. Single stemmed and vertical with a balanced crown. Some dieback noted and dark

staining to stem. Acceptable condition at present.

Monitor annually.

JCA Limited 2011


JCA Limited 2011

Appendix 2: Explanation of Tree Descriptions

A2.1 Measurements

A2.1.1 HEIGHT of the tree is measured from the stem base in metres. Where the ground has a significant slope the higher ground is selected.

A2.1.2 CROWN HEIGHT is an indication of the average height at which the crown begins.

A2.1.3 STEM DIAMETER is measured at 1.5 metres above (higher) ground level. Where the tree is multi-stemmed at this point; the diameter is measured close to ground level, just above the root buttress.

A2.1.4 CROWN SPREAD is measured from the centre of the stem base to the tips of the branches in all four cardinal points.

A2.2 Evaluations

A2.2.1 AGE CLASS of the tree is described as young, semi-mature, early-mature, mature, or over-mature.

A2.2.2 PHYSIOLOGICAL CONDITION is classed as good, fair, poor, or dead. This is an indication of the health of the tree and takes into account vigour, presence of disease and dieback.

A2.2.3 STRUCTURAL CONDITION is classed as good, fair or poor. This is an indication of the structural integrity of the tree and takes into account significant wounds, decay and quality of branch junctions.

A2.2.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY is classed as; less than 10 years, 10-20 years, 20-40 years, or more than 40 years. This is an indication of the number of years before removal of the tree is likely to be required.


JCA Limited 2011

A2.3 Retention Categories

A2.3.1 A (marked green on the plan) = retention most desirable.

These trees are of high quality and value with a good life expectancy. They may be further sub-divided as follows:

A1) Particularly good examples; perhaps rare or unusual species, or forming an essential part of arboricultural features e.g. avenues.

A2) Groups of trees having a significant landscape impact or with excellent screening properties, or those softening the effect of existing structures.

A3) Those having significant conservation or historical value e.g. veteran trees.

A2.3.2 B (marked in blue on the plan) = retention desirable.

These trees are of moderate quality and value with a significant life expectancy. They may be further sub-divided as follows:

B1) Trees that might be included in the high category but because of their numbers or slightly impaired condition, are downgraded in favour of the better individuals.

B2) Groups of trees forming distinct landscape features, thereby attracting a higher collective rating than they might as individuals.

B3) Trees with clearly identifiable conservation or other cultural benefits.

A2.3.3 C (marked in grey on the plan) = trees which could be retained.

These trees are of low quality and value, and are in adequate condition to remain until new planting could be established. They may be further sub-divided as follows:

C1) Trees not qualifying in higher categories.

C2) Groups of trees which do not form a distinct landscape feature.

C3) Trees with very limited conservation or other cultural benefits.

A2.3.4 R (marked in red on the plan) = trees for removal.

These trees are in such a condition that any existing value would be lost within 10 years. This may be due to any of the following:

1) Failure is likely due to serious, irredeemable, structural defects.

2) Removal of other category R trees will render them exposed and unstable. 3) They are in serious, overall decline or are dead. 4) They are of low quality and suppressing adjacent trees of better quality. 5) Diseases are present which may affect the health of adjacent trees.

These trees should be removed or treated in such a way as to make them safe where they have high ecological value, such as in a woodland setting.


JCA Limited 2011

Appendix 3: General Guidelines

A3.1 All work must be to BS 3998: 2010 - ‘Recommendations for tree work’.

A3.2 Staff carrying out the work must be qualified, experienced and ideally be Arboricultural Association approved contractors. They should be covered by adequate public liability insurance.

A3.3 This report is based upon a visual inspection. The consultant shall not be responsible for events which happen after this time due to factors which were not apparent at the time, and the acceptance of this report constitutes an agreement with the guidelines and the terms listed in this report.

A3.4 Any defects seen by a contractor or the employer that were not apparent to the consultant must be brought to the consultant's attention immediately.

A3.5 No liability can be accepted by JCA Limited in respect of the trees unless the recommendations of this report are carried out under the supervision of JCA and within JCA’s timescale.

A3.6 It is advisable to have trees inspected by an arboricultural consultant regularly. In this instance it is recommended that these inspections are made every year.


JCA Limited 2011

Appendix 4: Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations

Arboriculture The cultivation of trees in order to produce individual specimens of the greatest ornament, for shelter or any primary purpose other than the production of timber.

Canker Disease damaged area of a tree, usually caused by fungus or bacteria. Co-dominant Stem A stem which has grown in direct competition to the main stem and which

has formed a substantial size influencing the appearance of the tree. Crown Lift The removal of the lowest branches, usually to a given height. It allows

more residual light and greater clearance underneath for vehicles, etc. Crown reduce The reduction of a tree’s height or spread while preserving its natural shape. Crown thin The removal of some of the density of a tree’s crown, usually 5-25%

allowing more light through its canopy and reducing wind resistance. Deadwood Either dead branches, or a procedure involving the removal of dead, dying

and diseased branches. Dieback Where branches are beginning to show signs of death usually at the tips in

the crown. Epicormic shoots Small branches that grow in uncharacteristic clusters around the base or the

stem of a tree, usually as a result of bad pruning or some other stress factor. Formative pruning The trimming of a tree to remove weaknesses and irregularities which may

lead to problems. The formative pruning operation is aimed at reducing the potential for future weaknesses or problems within the tree’s crown.

Included bark Where the bark on two adjoining branches or stems is growing tight

together, forming a joint with limited physical strength. Pollarding A method of tree management in which the main trunk of the tree is cut at

about 4m, and the resulting branches are then cropped on a regular basis. Remedial pruning The removal of old stubs, deadwood, epicormic growth, rubbing or crossing

branches and other unwanted items from the tree’s crown. Sometimes referred to as crown cleaning.

RPA Root Protection Area – The theoretical rooting area of a tree as defined in

BS5837: 2005 Trees in relation to construction. Topping Topping is a form of pruning that removes terminal growth leaving a ‘stub’

cut end. Topping causes serious health problems to a tree.


JCA Limited 2011

Appendix 5: Author Qualifications Principal Consultant and Managing Director Jonathan Cocking F.R.E.S., Tech. Cert. (Arbor.A), PDipArb (RFS) FArborA CBiol MSB. MICFor. Jonathan is a Registered Consultant and Fellow of the Arboricultural Association and sits on its Professional Committee. He has 31 years experience in the Arboricultural profession and served for eight years as Senior Arboriculturist with a large local authority before establishing JCA in 1997. He has since developed JCA’s portfolio of services and its extensive client base. Jonathan is a Chartered Biologist, a Chartered Arboriculturalist and an Expert Witness with much experience of litigation work. Technical Coordinator Toby Thwaites BSc (Hons), HND (Arboriculture). Toby joined JCA in 1998 after graduating in Ecology at the University of Huddersfield and has since graduated in Arboriculture at the University of Lancashire. A former JCA team leader and Consulting Arboriculturist, Toby was promoted to Technical Coordinator and now oversees all office and on-site activities at JCA and is on hand to offer technical support and advice. Consulting Staff: Arboriculture Andrew Bagshaw FD (Arboriculture). Andrew joined JCA in 2005 having gained several years experience in tree surgery and landscaping. He is trained in aerial rescue and is JCA’s principal first aid person. Andrew has obtained a foundation degree in Arboriculture at the University of Lancashire, is QTRA qualified and is a JCA team leader who manages an office of Consulting Arboriculturists. Adam Winson BSc (Hons), ND (Arboriculture) MSc (Arboriculture and Urban Forestry). Adam is a Professional Associate of the Institute of Chartered Foresters and an Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. Prior to joining JCA Adam worked as a tree surgeon. During his BSc in Environmental Conservation he gained the CPRE award for best dissertation. Adam has recently obtained an MSc in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. Robert Godwin BA (Hons), MSc (Arboriculture and Urban Forestry), MArborA. Robert is a Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association and a Professional Associate of the Institute of Chartered Foresters. He has a degree in Landscape Planning & Management and has several years experience as a Consulting Arboriculturist. Robert has recently obtained an MSc in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. Victoria Black FD (Arboriculture). Victoria has been with JCA since 2002 building her knowledge of the Arboricultural business. She has recently obtained her foundation degree in Arboriculture at the University of Lancashire. Andrew Bussey Andrew joined JCA having spent 12 years doing tree surgery for various private companies and a Local Authority. He has various NPTC qualifications, is QTRA qualified and is currently studying for his Arboricultural Technicians Certificate. Toby Parsons Cert. Arb. (RFS), Tech. Cert. (Arbor.A). Toby joined JCA after spending 6 years working as a senior climber for various Arboricultural contractors in the East Midlands and the South-West. He has gained the Level 2 Certificate in Arboriculture (RFS), the Arboricultural Associations Technicians Certificate and is QTRA qualified. Raphael Skerratt BSc (Forestry) FArborA. Raphael covers the London area for JCA. He ran his own Arboricultural businesses since 1972 and is experienced in tree surveys for development, safety and subsidence purposes, and is an Expert Witness. Consulting Staff: Ecology Christopher Shaw BSc (Hons). Chris is our in-house Ecologist, and joined JCA in 2010 after achieving a First Class degree in Biology at the University of Leeds. Prior to joining JCA, Chris has volunteered with a number of organisations including the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, BTCV and a local Ecological Consultancy. He is currently undertaking a ‘Certificate in Ecological Consultancy Course’ with Acorn Ecology. Chris is actively involved in building JCA’s portfolio of ecological services. Administrative Staff Sue Guest Administrative Team Leader. Catherine Cocking Accounts Manager. Sally Whitwam Administrative Assistant. Yasmin Hussain Administrative Assistant. Simeon Haigh BSc (Hons). IT Officer. Liz Bone Trainee Administrative Assistant Alec Fielden Cert. Arb. (RFS). CAD Technician.

G1

H2

G3

H4

T5T6

T7

T8

G9

G10

G11

T13

H12

T14

G15

G16

G17

T18

G19

T20

H21

T22

H23

T24

T25

T26

H27

T28

T29

T30

H31

T32 T33

G34

H35

H36

T37

H36

T38

H36

T39

T40

T41

T42

T43

T44

H45

G46

T47

H48

G49

T50

T51

G52

T53

T54

G55

G56

G57

G58

G59

G60

G60

T61

H62

T63

G64

G65

G66

G66

G67

G67

H68

T69 G70

T71

G72

G72

G72

T73

T74

T75

T76

T77

T78 T79T80

T81 T82T83

H84

H84

H84

T85

T86

T87

Area of dence brambles



along fenceline

G88

G88

G88

G89

G89

G89

G89

G90

G90

G90

G91

T92 T93

G94G95

G96

G96

T97

T98

G99

T100

T101

T102

T103

T104

T105

T106

G107

T108

T109

T110

T111

T112

G113

G113

G113

G114

H115 H115

G116 G117

G118

G119

G120

G120

Boundary row of netles &

bramble along fenceline

G121

Boundary row of netles &

bramble along fenceline

T123

T124

H122

T125

G126

G127

G127

T128

G130

G131

G132

G132

G132

G132

T134 H133

G135

G135

G136

G136

G137

T138

T139

T140

T141

T142

G143

G143

G144

G150

G150

G145

G145

H146

T147 T148

T149

H151

H151

H151

H151

T152

T154H153

H153

T155

T156

H157

H158T159T160

H161

T162

T163

T164

T165

T166

T167

T168

T169

T170

H171

T173

G174

G174

T175

G176

H177

G178

G178

G179

T180

G181

T182

T183

G184

T185

T186

T187

G188

G189

G190

G190

H191

T192

T194

G193

H195

G196

G197

T198

T199

T200

G201

T202

G203

T205

G206

T207

G208

G208

T209

T210

T211

G212

T213

T214

T215

H216

T217

T218

T219

G220

G221

T222

T223

H224

H224

H319

H319

H319

T225

T227

H226

G228

G229

T230

H231

G232

G232

T233

T234

H129

H129

W172

W172

G204

T235

T236

T237

T238

T239

T240

T241

T242

T243

T244

G245

G245

G245T246

T247

T248

T249G250

G251

G251

T252

T253

G254

H255

G256

H257

T258

T259

T260

H261

T262

T263

T264

T265

G266

T267

T268

H269

H270

H270

T271

T272

T273T274

T275

T276

T277

T278

T279

H280

H281

H281

T282

T283

T284

H285

H285

H286

H287

T288

T289

T290

T291

T292

T293

T294

T295

G296

T297

T298

T299

T300

H269

T301

G302

G303

T304

T305

T306

T307

T308

T309

T310

T311

T312

T313

T314

H315

T316

H317

T318

G320

G321

G322

T323T324

T325

T326

T327

T328

T329

T330

T331

T332T333

T334

T335

G336

G336

G337

G338

G338

T339

T340

G341

G341

T342

T343

T344

T345

T346

T347

G348

G349

T350

G351

G351

G351

G352

G352

G352

G353

G353

G353

G354

G355

H356

H356

W357

T358

G359

G359

T360

G361

H362

H363

H365

H366

H367

H368

T369

T370

H371

G372

G372

H373

T374

H375

H376

T377

T378

G379

G379

G379

T380

G381

T382

T383

T384

T385

G386

G387

T388

T389

W390

T391

T393

G392

T394

G392

T395

T396

T397

T398

T399

T400

T401T402

T403

T404

T405

G406

G406

G406

G407

G407

G407

T408

T409

T410

T411

T412

G413

H414

T415

T416

W417

W417

W417

T418

T419

T420

T421

T422

T423

T424

T425

T426

T427

T428

T429

T430

T431

T432

T433

T434

T435

T436

T437

T438

T439

T440

T441

T442

T443T444T445

W446

W446

T447

T448T449

T450

T451

T452

T453

G454

W455

W455

W455

T456

T457

G458

T459

T460

T461

T462

T463

T464

T465

T467

T468

W469

W469

W469

H470

H470

G471 G471

G472

G472

G472

G473

G473

G473

G473

G473

G473

G473

H474

T475

T476

T477

T478

T479

T480

T481

T482

G483

H485

W486

W486

W486

T487

T488

T489

T490

T491

T492

T493

T494

T495T496

T497

T498

T499

T500

T501

T502

T503

H504

T505

G506

T507

T508

T509

G510

T511

T512

T513

T514

H515

T516

T517

T518

T519

T520

H521

G522

H523

T524

T525

T526

H523

H527

H528

H528

H528

T529

T530

T531

T532

H533

T534

W535

W535

W535

T536

T537

T538

G539

H540

H541

H542

T543

T466

T484

T544

T545

T546

T547

T548

T549

T550

T551

T552

T553

T555H554

T556

H557

H558

H558

T559

H560

G561

G561

T562

T563

G564

G564

G564

T565

T566

T567

H568

H568

W569

W569

W569

T570

T571G572

G572

T573

T574

T575

T576

T577

H578

H578

G579

G579

G579

G580

G580

T581

G582

G582

G583

G583

G584

G584

G584

T585

T586

T587

T588

T589

T590

T591

T592

T593

T594

T595

T596

T597

T598

T600

G599

T601

T602

T603

T604

T605

G321

W357

W357

W357

H364

W390

W390

N

E

S

W

BRITISH STANDARD 5837: 2005 4.3.1

RETENTION CATEGORIES

CATEGORY R:

'TREE FOR REMOVAL'

CATEGORY C:

'TREE WHICH COULD BE

RETAINED'

CATEGORY B:

'RETENTION DESIRABLE'

CATEGORY A:

'RETENTION MOST DESIRABLE'

Appendix 6:Tree Constraints Plan

CENTRE OF TREE/SHRUB

CENTRE OF TREE/SHRUB

TO BE REMOVED

ROOT PROTECTION AREA

Detailed definitions of these catagories are at Appendix 2 of ourreport. N.B. These categories do not necessairly represent orcorrespond to recommendations for action made in this report.

TITLE:

Land To The North East of Norwich City CentreJCA Ref: 10249/TP

THE ROOT PROTECTION AREA (RPA) INDICATES THE LIKELYROOTING ZONE OF A TREE. THE RPA SHOULD IDEALLYREMAIN UNDISTURBED IF A TREE IS TO BE RETAINED.

THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SHOULD THEREFORE BEDESIGNED TO AVOID THE RPA OF ANY TREE WHICH IS TOBE RETAINED.

IF IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO ENCROACHINTO THE RPA OF A TREE WHICH IS TO BE RETAINED THENSPECIALIST CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND MATERIALSMUST BE CONSIDERED.

Root Protection Area: RPA

SURVEYED BY: TP DRAWN BY: AF APPROVED BY: TP, AF

PAPER SIZE A1SCALE 1:5000

Arboricultural & Forestry Consultants

Limited


JCA Limited 2011

I hope that this report provides all the necessary information, but should any further advice be

needed please do not hesitate to contact the author.

Signed

....................................................................

Toby Parsons Cert. Arb. (RFS), Tech. Cert. (Arbor.A).

On behalf of

Jonathan P Cocking. F.R.E.S., P.Dip. Arboriculture (RFS), F Arbor A, C.Biol., M.I.Biol.,

Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association.

21st September 2011

For and on behalf of JCA Ltd

Registered Office:

Unit 80 Bowers Mill Branch Road Barkisland

Halifax HX4 OAD

Tel. 01422 376335 Fax. 01422 376232

Email: [email protected] www.jcaac.com

Report printed on recycled paper


JCA Limited 2011

ns&oc opa enivironmental statement volume 2, part 2

Documents

reptiles surveys report

international sites

botany surveys report

nonstatutory sites

detailed ecology surveys

suite of ecology surveys

old catton development

survey area