Laurel hill preliminary ecological appraisal

Ethos Environmental Planning

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal: Land at Laurel Hill April 2014

Jim Phillips, BSc (Hons), MA, MCIEEM

Ethos Environmental Planning Unit 3, Western House 2 Rush Hill Bath BA2 4QZ T: 01225 571 240 E: jim.phillips@ethosep.co.uk

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

CONTENTS

April 2014

Page(s)

1.0

Introduction

2–4

2.0

Methodology

5

3.0

Background data search

6 – 10

4.0

Habitat survey

11 – 16

5.0

Assessment for protected species

16 - 18

6.0

Evaluation of ecological features and identification of potential impacts

19 - 20

7.0

Recommendations for further surveys, general mitigation and possible enhancements

21 - 22

8.0

Legislative and planning context

23 - 27

1|P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

1.0

April 2014

INTRODUCTION

Ethos Environmental Planning (Ethos) have undertaken this preliminary ecological appraisal of land at Laurel Hill, Bristol (central grid reference: ST 572 802) – see figure 1. The area surveyed is 5.5 hectares and includes semi-improved grassland, hedgerows and scrub and abuts the Henbury Trym brook.

1.1

Aims and objectives of the appraisal

The appraisal has followed the ‘CIEEM guidelines for preliminary ecological appraisal, 2013’.

The overarching aim of the survey was to assess the likely impacts of a proposed development on the site (see section 1.3). The survey has the following objectives:       

to identify the existing habitats on site; to assess the potential for notable species; to establish baseline conditions and determine the importance of ecological features present (or those that could be present) within the specified area; to establish any requirements for detailed/ further surveys; to identify key constraints to the project and make recommendations for design options to avoid significant effects on important ecological features/resources at an early stage; to identify the mitigation measures as far as possible, including those that will be required, and those that may be required (based on results of further surveys or final scheme design); and to identify enhancement opportunities.

2|P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

1.2

April 2014

Site location

The site is located to the south of the Dick Lovett car showrooms in Cribbs Causeway, Bristol.

The survey boundary extends west beyond the boundary of the proposed development (see figure 2), to allow for any impact assessment of adjacent land.

Figure 1

3|P a g e

Site location

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

1.3

Development proposals

Figure 2

1.4

Draft development proposals for the site

Structure of the report

The following is included within this report:       

Methodology; Background data search; Habitat map, survey and description; Assessment for protected species; Evaluation of ecological features and identification of potential impacts; Recommendations for further surveys, general mitigation and possible enhancements; Legislative and planning context.

4|P a g e

April 2014

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

2.0

METHODOLOGY

2.1

General

April 2014

The appraisal has followed the Guidelines for preliminary ecological appraisal (CIEEM 2013).

The habitat survey and mapping has followed guidance provided in the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC 2010).

2.2

Background data search

Background data was drawn from previous ecological surveys of the site and information gathered from the Bristol Environmental Records Centre (BRERC).

2.3

Protected Species

The preliminary appraisal has considered the potential for protected species drawing on information gathered from the background data search, an assessment of habitat suitability and where feasible specific surveys. Further details on the methodology used is outlined in section 5.

2.4

Personnel

All surveys were undertaken by Jim Phillips, BSc (Hons), MA, MCIEEM and Roger Martindale BA (Hons), MSc, CEnv, MCIEEM. Jim is a Director of Ethos and a qualified and experienced ecologist with over 7 year’s field work experience and a full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Roger Martindale is the Principal Ecologist and Director of Alder Ecology UK Ltd who is a qualified and experienced professional Ecologist with over 18 years’ experience, Chartered Environmentalist and full member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). The survey team have worked together on many similar projects over the last 4 years and have a complimentary range of skills and experience which have provided a robust ecological appraisal of the site.

5|P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

3.0

April 2014

BACKGROUND DATA REVIEW

The background data review is presented in two sections, the first considers background data from the Bristol Environmental Records Centre (BRERC), the second provides a summary of surveys undertaken on the site in 2010.

3.1

Notable sites and species

3.1.1 Notable Sites Figure 3

Designated sites

Figure 3 shows the location of the development site in relation to designated sites. Haw Wood SNCI is located just under 1km to the west of the site, and Gorse Covert Local Nature Reserve just over 2km to the north east of the site. Due to the distance and presence of major roads between the development site and these designated sites, it is not felt there are any issues related to biodiversity relevant.

6|P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

3.1.2 Protected Species The following assesses species which have been recorded and considers if there are any implications for the field survey. Notable species are assessed, with a separate assessment for bats.

Figure 4

Location of notable species records

Figure 4 shows the location of notable species within 1 km of the development site, as can be seen, there are 5 records within close proximity of the site, these are for several bird species (including Buzzard, Swallow, Chifchaff, blackcap, whitethroat), Smooth Broom (plant), and wildfowl species on Catbrain Reservoir (Tufted Duck, Shoveler).

Other records which are shown on the map, but further away from the site have also been searched for notable species which may require consideration for the field survey. These include great crested newts located at Cribbs Causeway Pond (east of the site), badgers (south of the site), Slow Worm and Grass Snake to the north of the site (beyond M5).

7|P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Figure 5

April 2014

Location of bat records

The majority of the records are for Pipistrelle bats, with one record for Whiskered bat.

3.2

Summary of previous ecology surveys

A phase 1 habitat survey and protected species surveys were undertaken at the site by Landscape Science Consultancy Ltd in 2010. A summary of the key findings of these survey reports is outlined below.

3.2.1 Phase 1 habitat survey The survey identified the following key habitats on site: Habitats within the survey site primarily consist of semi-improved grassland fields bounded by species-poor hedgerows to the west and post-and-rail wooden fencing to the east. The Henbury Trym Brook flows along the southern site boundary and is a minor watercourse with dense scrub and mature broadleaf trees present.

The report concludes the following in relation to the key habitat features: The Henbury Trym Brook is of value as a habitat within the survey site and the wider landscape as a green corridor, allowing movement and dispersal of floral and faunal species.

The brook is also of potential value as a foraging, sheltering and breeding resource for a wide variety of faunal species such as wild birds, bats, reptiles (particularly slow worms and grass snakes), badgers and small mammals. The Henbury Trym Brook is also likely to be of some 8|P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

semi-natural interest, due to the presence of the largely native flora, mature ash and oak trees, occasional hazel coppice stool and occasional but locally abundant ancient woodland indicator species such as dog’s mercury and bluebell. The Henbury Trym Brook is considered to be of medium ecological value.

All hedgerows within the survey site support a low number of woody species. The hedgerows do not support the required number of woody species every 30m and the associated features to be considered ‘Important’ under Schedule 1 of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

All other habitats within the survey site support common and widespread floral species. As habitats in their own right, they have limited semi-natural value, are neither fragile nor irreplaceable in the short-term.

3.2.2 Protected species surveys Protected species surveys were carried out for the following species:       

Bats Breeding Birds Reptiles Great Crested Newt Water Vole Badgers Hedgehogs

The following provides a summary of the key findings: Bats The bat surveys undertaken focused on built structures (now demolished), none of which were found to be bat roosts. Activity surveys were also undertaken across the wider site which found low activity by Common Pipistrelle and Noctule bats along the river corridor and across the fields.

Breeding Birds A total of fifteen bird species were recorded during the breeding bird survey. Of these, eight were probably breeding on-site and six were possibly breeding, generally in low numbers. The majority of breeding territories were identified in the hedgerows and trees on-site and along the Henbury Trym Brook. Both habitats provided suitable foraging and nesting resource for local bird populations.

Reptiles Two distinct small sized populations of slow worms were identified within the survey site, one small population within the former mushroom farm at the western site boundary and one small population within hedgerows on the northern site corner. No slow worms were 9|P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

recorded in any other intermediate habitats between these two populations, such as along the Henbury Trym Brook, in grassland fields or other on-site hedgerows.

Subsequent to these surveys a reptile translocation programme was implemented in 2013 which moved reptiles (a total of 21 slow worms) from across the site to an artificial hibernacula created along the southern boundary of the site.

Great Crested Newt No evidence of great crested newts was found within this area or within the rest of the survey site during the combined survey period for reptiles/slow worms.

Water Vole No evidence of holes, commuting or foraging water vole was found within the surveyed section of the Henbury Trym Brook at the time of survey. No water vole burrows were found and no latrine sites, feeding stations or dropping were identified.

Badger No immediate evidence was found within the survey site indicating presence of badger such as setts, latrines, feeding signs or trails.

Hedgehog The only actual evidence of hedgehog within the survey site was the positive identification of a live animal in the northern site corner, shortly before sunset. The hedgehog was sheltering in the grassland field.

3.3

Summary of desk top study

Notable Sites There are two designated sites within 2km of the development site, however, there are no issues arising which would be impacted from development of the site. There are many records of notable species within 1 km of the site, of note are potential for badgers, reptiles and great crested newts. There are several records of bats, but none with close proximity of the site, however, potential for bats should be considered.

Notable Species Previous surveys have identified the site is used by bats, reptiles, breeding birds and hedgehog. No other evidence of protected species was found.

10 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

4.0

HABITAT SURVEY

4.1

Methodology

April 2014

An initial field survey was undertaken on the 7th April 2014 by the survey team. The survey incorporated detailed assessment of the land within the development boundary, including a description and mapping of all key features and habitat types1. The survey was carried out to identify the range of habitats within the site and the predominant and notable species of flora.

4.2

General site description

The site is located to the south of the Dick Lovett car showrooms in Cribbs Causeway, Bristol (see figure 1). The site is dominated by semi-improved grassland, hedgerows and the riparian habitat along the Henbury Trym.

4.3

Habitat description

Figure 6 shows the key habitats using the phase 1 habitat classifications. The key habitats on site are:    

Neutral Semi-improved grassland; Hedgerows; Amenity Grassland; River habitat.

The following section describes each of the key habitats on site in more detail.

1

Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC 2010)

11 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Figure 6

April 2014

Phase 1 habitat map

4.3.1 Neutral semi-improved grassland

The majority of the site (72%) is neutral semi-improved grassland dominated by grass species including soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus) and meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis) with occasional presence of sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), red fescue (Festuca rubra), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), barren brome (Anisantha sterilis), common bent (Agrostis capillaris), false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) and cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata).

The diversity of herb species is made up of common species including meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), creeping cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), broadleaf dock (Rumex obtusifolius), curled dock, (Rumex crispus), hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), cow 12 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

parsley (Anthriscus sylvestris), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), hop trefoil (Trifolium campestre), common nettle (Urtica dioica), ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), common mouse ear (Cerastium fontanum), red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale agg.), daisy (Bellis perennis), white dead nettle (Lamium album), red dead nettle (Lamium purpureum), and ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata).

4.3.2 Amenity Grassland

In the south east of the site is an area of amenity grassland (0.55 ha), which has been more intensively managed than the rest of the grassland on site. Botanical diversity is poor dominated by fewer grass species and common herbs also found in the rest of the site. It has little biodiversity value.

4.3.3 Bare Ground

An area of land (0.6 ha) in the north east of the site is made up of bare ground dominated by bare ground and mulched wood. This area was previously a small plantation of trees which have been previously removed. The land has little biodiversity value.

13 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

4.3.4 Hedgerows

Hedgerow (H1)

Hedgerow (H3)

There are three hedgerows on site which are described below: H1)

Hedgerow, intact species poor. Located along the western boundary of the survey area. Dominated by blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), and bramble (Rubus fruticosus), with occasional dog rose (Rosa canina) and elder (Sambucus nigra). This hedgerow does not qualify as important under the hedgerow regulations.

H2)

Hedgerow, with trees, species rich. Located on the southern bank of the Henbury Trym and falling outside of the site boundary (see details in section 4.3.5).

H3)

Hedgerow defunct, species poor. This hedgerow runs north to south forming a boundary between the semi-improved grassland and the amenity grassland/bare ground to the east of the site. This hedgerow had been recently coppiced and again dominated by blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), and bramble (Rubus fruticosus), with occasional dog rose (Rosa canina) and elder (Sambucus nigra). This hedgerow does not qualify as important under the hedgerow regulations.

4.3.5 Henbury Trym

14 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

Southern bank The Henbury Trym, a small brook, runs along the southern boundary of the site. There is a mature hedgerow with trees along the southern bank, outside of the site boundary. This hedgerow is species rich with trees and includes goat willow (Salix caprea), crack willow Salix fragilis) blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), oak (Quercus robur), elder (Sambucus nigra), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), hazel (Corylus avellana), dog rose (Rosa canina). This hedgerow would qualify as important under the hedgerow regulations.

Northern Bank The riparian habitat on the boundary of the site (northern bank) is made up of similar species to the rest of the semi-improved grassland on site, however is more diverse and additional species observed were lesser celandine (Ranunculus ficaria), cuckooflower (Cardamine pratensis), cleavers (Galium aparine), great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), cuckoo-pint (Arum maculatum), red campion (Silene dioica), wild angelica (Angelica sylvestris) and garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), dogs mercury (Mercurialis perennis) and bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta).

Marginal zones The banks of the brook are relatively steep and as such there is little in the way of a definitive marginal zone (again assessment of this was restricted by the water flow). There are a small number of areas where the marginal zone is apparent, here evidence was observed of yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), pendulous sedge (Carex pendula), soft rush (Juncus effusus), fools watercress (Apium nodiflorum) and wild angelica (Angelica sylvestris).

Channel Features At the time of the survey, there had been heavy rainfall, as such the brook had a heavy water flow which limited the assessment of the channel features. The channel ranges from 1 to 2 metres in width, and appears to have varying depths based on the changes in water flow along the surveyed lengths. There was no apparent aquatic vegetation.

4.3.6 Scattered Scrub There is a small patch of scattered scrub in the north of the site (above the area of bare ground). This is dominated by bramble and nettle.

15 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

5.0

ASSESSMENT FOR PROTECTED SPECIES

5.1

General approach

April 2014

The assessment for protected species has focused on the type and suitability of habitats on site for protected species. This is considered alongside the development proposals for the site, and used to assess the need for further survey to fully determine the ecological impact assessment.

5.2

Potential for protected species

5.2.1 Bats The majority of the habitat on site (semi-improved grassland) is likely to provide fairly low value for bats, however, the corridor of the Henbury Trym is likely to have much higher value for commuting and foraging bats, and this activity may also be found along the two hedgerows that bisect the site north to south. Previous surveys of the site (section 3.2.2), recorded low activity of Common Pipistrelle and Noctule bats along the river corridor.

It is considered that the most valuable features on the site for bats is the river corridor, and this features should be retained and enhanced within the development proposals for the site.

As previous data is now 4 years old, it is recommended that 3 activity surveys are undertaken to assess current levels of bat activity on the site and to fully inform any mitigation measures that may be required.

5.2.2 Reptiles Previous surveys identified a small population of slow worms on the site. During 2013, a translocation exercise was undertaken to remove slow worms from across the site to a purpose built hibernacula located in the south of the site, as shown below:

Location of hibernacula (in blue)

Photo of hibernacula

The translocation moved a total of 21 slow worms from across the grassland areas to the hibernacula. It is therefore considered that reasonable effort has been made to translocate reptiles from the proposed development area. In order to make this process even more 16 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

robust, an additional 60 refugia have been placed across the site (particularly in the east of the site which was excluded from the previous translocation). These refugia will be checked during April – June 2014 and any reptiles observed will be recorded and relocated to the hibernacula. A report outlining the findings of this will follow.

In light of the above background information and proposed approach, all reptiles will be removed from the site prior to any construction works commencing. It is recommended that any planning permission for the site includes a condition relating to the requirement for the reptile translocation and submission of the results of this in a report.

5.2.3 Breeding birds The majority of the habitat on site has no value for breeding birds. During the survey, observations were made of the three hedgerows on site which are considered to have potential for breeding birds: 

Hedgerow H1. No birds were observed nesting in this hedgerow, although there was occasional feeding by common species including Great Tit (Parus major), Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris), Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis), Blackbird (Turdus merula), Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs). It is considered that this hedgerow has low to moderate value for breeding birds.



Hedgerow H2. This hedgerow sits outside of the site boundary, but its structure is considered to have high value for breeding birds. A breeding bird survey of this hedgerow was not included as it will remain unaffected by the development proposals.



Hedgerow H3. No birds were observed nesting or within this hedgerow. In its current condition, it is considered that this hedgerow has low value for breeding birds.

Overall, it is concluded that the site proposed for development has low value for breeding birds.

5.2.4 Great Crested Newt Whilst there are no suitable water bodies on site for great crested newt, the terrestrial habitat could provide potential. However, previous surveys have found no evidence of this species and it is considered that potential remains low. It is therefore recommended that no further surveys for this species are required.

5.2.5 Water Vole Previous surveys for water vole (Arvicola amphibious) along this stretch of the Henbury Trym found no evidence of this species. A further survey was undertaken as part of this recent survey, however, the high water levels made survey difficult, as such no evidence of this species was found. It is considered that the likelihood for this species being present is low, however, a further survey of the banks of the brook are recommended when water levels are lower to confirm this.

17 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

5.2.6 Badger No evidence of badger activity was observed on site, this concurs with previous survey findings. There is one main mammal track along the southern boundary of the site, and prints indicate that this is largely created by deer. No further surveys are recommended in relation to badgers.

5.2.7 Hedgehog Previous surveys included a single record of this species on site. There still remains potential for this species, however, it is considered that the most valuable habitat would be the boundary with the Trym and the hedgerow along the western boundary (H1). Hedgerow (H3), currently lacks cover for this species.

5.2.8 Hazel Dormouse The hedgerows on site do not provide sufficient habitat or connections to other habitat to provide value for this species. It is considered that potential for this species is low and no further surveys are recommended.

18 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

6.0 EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL FEATURES AND IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section draws on the habitat assessment and protected species assessment above and provides a summary of the key ecological features and identifies any potential impacts.

6.1

Key ecological features: habitats and species

The site is dominated by neutral semi-improved grassland with low botanical diversity, there is also amenity grassland and bare ground which also have low biodiversity value. There are two hedgerows within the site boundary which do not qualify as important under the hedgerow regulations. The main features of ecological value encompass the Henbury Trym and its riparian habitat, mainly in terms of its wider habitat connectivity.

6.2

Potential impacts

Figure 2 (part 1 of the report) shows the proposed development plans for the site. Considering the existing evidence in relation to habitats and protected species presented in this report, the following potential impacts exist: 6.2.1 Habitats 1) The most valuable habitat on site is that of the Henbury Trym and the associated riparian habitat. This is important in terms of its connectivity as an ecological corridor, and provides value for a number of protected species including breeding birds and bats, and has potential for other species such as hedgehog, great crested newts and reptiles. Loss of this habitat or encroachment into it by development would be likely to have a significant negative impact on biodiversity.

2) There are two hedgerows on sites which do not qualify as important under the hedgerow regulations: -

-

One of the hedgerows (H1) has moderate value for birds, although does not support breeding birds. It is likely to have some value for other small mammals and invertebrates. However, this hedgerow does not link to any other habitat features, so its connective value is limited.

The other hedgerow on site (H3) has been subject to significant pollarding/cut back and currently has low value for biodiversity. This hedgerow is also isolated in terms of its connectivity to other habitat beyond the Henbury Trym.

The loss of these hedgerows is not considered to have a significant impact on biodiversity at a local level.

3) The grasslands on site have low botanical diversity. The loss of this habitat is not considered to have a significant negative impact on biodiversity at a local level.

19 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

4) Other areas of habitat encompassing scattered scrub and bare ground has low biodiversity value, and the loss of these habitats would not have a significant impact on biodiversity at a local level.

20 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

7.0

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER SURVEYS, GENERAL MITIGATION AND POSSIBLE ENHANCEMENTS

7.1

Further survey

The following surveys are recommended: 7.1.1 Bats It is recommended that three activity surveys are undertaken across the site to determine the current use of the site by bats, and to fully inform any mitigation measures that may be required.

7.1.2 Reptiles Sixty refugia have been placed on the site to enhance the existing translocation that has taken place in 2013. Any reptiles found will be translocated to the hibernacula previously created in the south of the site (see section 5.2.2).

7.1.3 Other species It is recommended that a further check for water voles is made when water levels along the Trym are lower, otherwise, no further surveys are required in relation to the other species assessed in section 5.2.

7.2

General mitigation and enhancements

Considering the existing survey data and assessment of potential ecological impacts, this section sets out a number of key mitigation measures. It is considered that the measures outlined below will be sufficient to mitigate for all identified potential impacts, and any subsequent impacts that may be identified through the further bat and reptile surveys proposed.

1) Henbury Trym. The brook and its riparian habitat are the most valuable ecological features on the site. Its main value is its connectivity as an ecological corridor. It is recommended that any development of the site retains an ‘ecological buffer’ along the Trym of at least 10 metres. The following measures should be considered to enhance this ecological buffer: -

-

21 | P a g e

Retention and management of grassland as ‘long grass’. The grass should be cut on an annual basis (in September) to prevent encroachment of scrub and retain as grassland; Prevent any external lighting of this buffer to retain a dark corridor. A lighting plan to demonstrate how light spill into this area would be minimised is recommended; If public access is allowed, ensure that any paths retain natural features – for example a mown grass strip no wider than 1.5 metres.

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

2) Whilst there is no significant impact of losing existing hedgerows on site, if feasible they should be retained. If the final development proposals seek removal of these hedgerows, it is recommended that the landscape scheme looks to incorporate new and additional hedgerows. Hedgerows could be incorporated into the soft landscape of any proposed street scene, open space and gardens.

3) Any proposed open space (as indicative on the current master plan) could include native shrub and tree planting, the use of natural landscaping and play), rather than creating a more formal open space with play area.

4) The street scene could incorporate planting of native trees and or/wildflower grass verges where feasible.

22 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

8.0

LEGISLATIVE AND PLANNING CONTEXT

8.1

Legislation - Species

April 2014

This section outlines the key legislation related to the habitats and species considered within this survey report.

8.1.1 Bats All British bats are protected under Section 9 Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and amendments. In addition, they are protected under the Berne Convention, they are given migratory species protection within the Bonn Convention Agreement, and are protected under Schedule 2 of the EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive).

Regulation 41 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 makes it an offence to deliberately capture or kill bats, to deliberately disturb a bat, damage or destroy a breeding site or resting site of any bat. It is an offence to disturb any bat roosting site. Presence of bats does not necessarily mean that development cannot go ahead, but that with suitable, approved mitigation, exemptions can be granted from the protection afforded to bats under regulation 41 by means of a licence. Natural England (NE) is the appropriate authority for determining licence applications for works associated with developments affecting bats, including demolition of their roost sites. In cases where licences are required, certain conditions have to be met to satisfy Natural England. Before the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (SNCO), in this case NE, can issue a licence to permit otherwise prohibited acts three tests have to be satisfied. These are: 1. Regulation 53(2)(e) states that licenses may be granted by SNCO to ‘preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.

2. Regulation 42(10)(a) states that a license may not be granted unless SNCO is satisfied ‘that there is no satisfactory alternative’.

3. Regulation 42(10)(b) states that a license cannot be issued unless SNCO is satisfied that the action proposed ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range’.

In order to meet the tests, SNCO usually expects the planning position to be fully resolved as this is necessary to satisfy tests 1 and 2. Full planning permission, if applicable, will need to have been granted and any conditions relating to bats fully discharged. For test 3, the licensing body seek advice from Natural England. As well as consulting with Natural England, the licensing body may also seek information from the local authority before they will determine any licence application. The licence application process may take two months before a licence is issued.

23 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

8.1.2 Reptiles All reptile species in Great Britain receive some legal protection from legislation in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. More recently, further protection was afforded in Great Britain to species listed in the Habitat Regulations 1994. Both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Habitat Regulations 1994 provide mechanisms to protect species, their habitats and sites occupied by the species. Native reptile species fit into two bands of protection: European protected species receive all elements of protection in Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitat Regulations 1994. Native species that receive this protection are:  

Sand lizards (Lacerta agilis) Smooth snakes (Coronella austriaca)

This legislation prohibits the following on any of the above species:     

Deliberately or intentionally killing and capturing (taking) or intentional injuring.

Deliberately disturbing Deliberately taking or destroying eggs Damaging or destroying a breeding site or resting place or intentionally damaging a place used for shelter or protection.

Intentionally obstructing access to a place used for shelter; and keeping, transporting, selling or exchanging; offering for sale or advertising.

Species that receive protection against intentional killing, injuring and sale only:    

Slow-worm (Anguis fragilis) Common lizard (Lacerta vivipara) Adder (Vipera berus) Grass snake (Natrix natrix)

Both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitat Regulations 1994 apply to all life stages of the protected species: eggs and spawn, larvae, juveniles and adults are all protected.

8.1.3 Badgers The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is based primarily on the need to protect badgers from baiting and deliberate harm or injury. It also contains restrictions that apply more widely and it is important for developers to know how this may affect their work. All the following are criminal offences:   

to willfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger; to attempt to do so; or to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett.

24 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

Sett interference includes damaging or destroying a sett, obstructing access to a sett, and disturbing a badger whilst it is occupying a sett. It is not illegal, and therefore a licence is not required, to carry out disturbing activities in the vicinity of a sett if no badger is disturbed and the sett is not damaged or obstructed.

Development should not be permitted unless it is possible to take steps to ensure the survival of the badgers in their existing range and at the same population status, with provision of adequate alternative habitats if setts and foraging areas are destroyed. Natural England will normally only issue a licence after detailed planning permission has been granted, where applicable, so that there is no conflict with the planning process.

Before the planning application is determined, the local planning authority should request a detailed ecological survey/report and developers should be prepared to provide the following information:    

The numbers and status of badger setts and foraging areas that are affected by the proposal; the impact that the proposal is likely to have on badgers and what can be done by way of mitigation; judgment on whether the impact is necessary or acceptable; and a recommendation on whether a licence will be required.

Planning Permission and badger licensing are separate legal functions. Thus receiving planning permission from the Local Authority is no guarantee that development operations will not breach the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Similarly planning permission does not guarantee that a badger licence will be granted.

8.1.5 Birds All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and cannot be killed or taken, their nests and eggs taken, damaged or destroyed, it also prohibits or controls certain methods of killing or taking except under licence. Other activities that are prohibited include possession and sale. Activities such as killing or taking birds (including relocating) which would otherwise be illegal can be carried out under licence where there is suitable justification and the issue cannot be resolved by alternative means.

Specially protected or Schedule 1 birds receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Part I birds are protected at all times, Part II during the close season only. In addition to the protection from killing or taking that all birds, their nests and eggs have under the Act, Schedule 1 birds and their young must not be disturbed at the nest.

8.1.6 Hazel Dormouse They are protected under both the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Dormice and their breeding sites and resting places are fully protected. Without a licence it is an offence for anyone to deliberately disturb, capture, injure or kill them. It is also an offence to damage or destroy their breeding 25 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

or resting places, to disturb or obstruct access to any place used by them for shelter. It is also an offence to possess, or sell a wild dormouse.

8.1.7 Great Crested Newts Great crested newts are fully protected under UK and European legislation:     

Bern Convention 1979: Appendix III Wildlife & Countryside Act (as Amended) 1981: Schedule 5 EC Habitats Directive 1992: Annex II and IV Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994: Schedule 2 Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW 2000)

Because great crested newts are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, Section 9(1) of the Act makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take great crested newts. Section 9(2) makes it an offence to possess or control a live or dead great crested newt or any part or thing derived from them. Section 9(4) makes it an offence to intentionally damage, destroy, obstruct access to, any structure or place which great crested newts use for shelter or protection. It is also an offence to intentionally disturb them while occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. Section 9(5) makes it an offence to sell, offer or expose for sale, or possess or transport for the purpose of sale, any live or dead great crested newt or any part or thing derived from them. It is also an offence to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that great crested newts, or parts or derived things of them are bought, sold or are intended to be. Section 9 applies to all stages in their life cycle.

Their inclusion on Schedule 2 of the Conservation Regulations 1994 affords great crested newts extra protection by also making it an offence under Regulation 39(1) to deliberately capture, kill or disturb great crested newts or to deliberately take or destroy their eggs, or damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place. Regulation 39(2) makes it an offence to keep, or transport, or exchange great crested newts or any part or thing derived from them.

Paragraphs 39(1) and 39(2) apply to all stages of their life cycle.

8.2

Policy considerations

This section considers key policies that are relevant to ecology and development of the site.

8.3.1 National Planning Policy NPPF policy 109: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:  protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;  recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;  minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in 26 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

 

April 2014

biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures; preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

8.3.2 Local policy South Gloucestershire have published guidance in relation to biodiversity and planning ‘Design Guide : Biodiversity and the Planning Process2’. The following highlights key policies from this document and assesses the development proposals against them.

1) Policy L10: ‘Development which would directly or indirectly have an adverse effect on a nationally or internationally protected species of flora or fauna, or species or habitats listed in national, regional or local Biodiversity Action Plans, will not be permitted unless any damaging effects are capable of being avoided, overcome or offset by mitigation measures’.

It is considered that the findings and recommendations in this report do not conflict with this policy, particularly in light of the key mitigation measures to retain and enhance an ecological corridor along the Henbury Trym, and the mitigation measures recommended for protected species.

2) Policy D1: ‘Development will only be permitted where good standards of site planning and design are achieved. In particular, proposals will be required to demonstrate that: ...existing features of landscape, nature conservation, heritage or amenity value, including rights of way, are safeguarded and enhanced through incorporation into development...’

Again, the retention and enhancement of the ecological corridor along the Henbury Trym are key to meeting this policy. It is also recommended that the enhancement measures identified in section 7.2 are met that this will deliver additional benefit in relation to this policy.

2

http://www.southglos.gov.uk/Documents/biodiversity%20design%20guide%2001.09.05.pdf

27 | P a g e

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

April 2014

REFERENCES Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys – Good practise guidelines.

Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining best practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory note for amphibians and reptile groups (ARGs) Froglife advice sheet 10, Reptile Survey. An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation.

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2012), Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (IEEM website).

Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC 2010).

Froglife advice sheet 11, Surveying for Great Crested Newts.

Natural England. Standing Advice Species Sheet: Hazel dormouse

28 | P a g e