APPENDIX 11 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION€¦ · 11 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION. ... 3.11...

APPENDIX 11

ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

APPENDIX 11.1 – PRELIMINARY ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Shelton Road, Corby Ecological Appraisal

June 2016

Entran

Shelton Road, Corby Ecological Appraisal

June 2016

Entran

Version Date Author Checked Approved Final 15/06/2016 T Stephenson J Bridgeman S Cox

Disclaimer

Copyright Keystone Environmental Limited. All rights reserved.

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Keystone Environmental Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Keystone Environmental Limited.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Keystone Environmental, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Keystone Environmental Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Keystone Environmental Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Keystone Environmental Limited has been made.

RT Ecological Appraisal V6.0 01/02/2016

Shelton Road, Corby June 2016 Ecological Appraisal

131733/8

Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 1

2.0 Introduction 2

Background 2

Aims and Objectives 2

Site Context 3

3.0 Methodology 4

Desk Study 4

Field Survey 4

Results and Evaluation 4

Discussion and Recommendations 5

Nomenclature 5

Limitations 5

4.0 Results and Evaluation 6

Sites and Habitats Identified by the Desk Study 6

Habitats Identified on Site 12

SPI and Local BAP Habitats, and Networks of these Habitats Identified on Site 14

Protected Species 14

SPI and Local BAP Species 14

Contribution to the Wider Green Infrastructure Resource 14

Invasive Species 15

5.0 Relevant Legislation and Policy 24

Legislation 24

National Planning Policy 26

Regional Planning Policy 27

Local Planning Policy 28

6.0 Discussion and Recommendations 29

Changes to the Baseline 29

Overview of Potential Ecological Constraints Associated with the Proposed Development 29

Further Survey and Mitigation 29

7.0 References 35

Plans Drawing Number: 131773/8/dwg1 Desk Study Map

Drawing Number: 131773/8/dwg2 Phase I Habitat Map


131733/8

Appendices Appendix 1 Desk Study Details

Contact details can be found at the end of this document.


1

1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Keystone Ecology was instructed by Entran to undertake an updated Ecological Appraisal of

land within the Willowbrook East Industrial Estate adjacent to Shelton Road, Corby, Northamptonshire (central Ordnance Survey grid reference SP 909 908). The survey was required to inform a new planning submission for the erection of an ACT and Energy Recovery Facility. A number of previous surveys of the application site and its surrounds have been carried out to inform an outline and subsequent detailed planning submission (13/00079/WASTEFUL).

1.2 The baseline ecology of the site is not considered to have changed since the original Ecological Appraisal (Keystone Ecology, 2013) and its subsequent update in 2015 (Keystone Ecology, 2015a).

1.3 In the absence of mitigation, the following ecological constraints and associated recommendations have been identified:

Non-Statutory Sites; (Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area (NIA) and potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS), Section 41 Habitat of Principal Importance (HPI) Deciduous Woodland and (if present) White Clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius

pallipes) - Installation of hoarding to avoid impacts associated with increased lighting and noise during the construction phase. Implementation of Pollution Prevention measures during construction and operation to avoid incidents to the Willow Brook and pLWS. Implementation of measures to reduce dust deposition during construction; and

Badger (Meles meles), bats, Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus), reptiles and breeding birds - Adoption of a sensitive lighting strategy throughout the construction and operational phases of the development. Installation of hoarding to protect retained habitats and avoid lighting and noise. Avoidance of the clearance of suitable habitats in the first instance. Where this is not possible, minimal clearance only following a Precautionary Working Method Statement (PWMS) and replacement of habitats using native species, ideally of local provenance will be required.

1.4 In addition, a number of ecological enhancements have been proposed for the development. In combination with the mitigation measures as set out above, residual impacts are considered to be Negligible.


2

2.0 Introduction Background

2.1 Keystone Ecology was instructed by Entran to undertake an updated Ecological Appraisal of land within the Willowbrook East Industrial Estate adjacent to Shelton Road, Corby, Northamptonshire (central Ordnance Survey grid reference SP 909 908). The survey was required to inform a new planning submission for the erection of an ACT and Energy Recovery Facility. A number of previous surveys of the application site and its surrounds have been carried out to inform an outline and subsequent detailed planning submission (13/00079/WASTEFUL).

2.2 This report provides an update to the Ecological Appraisals conducted in 2013 and 2015 by Keystone Ecology (Keystone Ecology, 2013 and 2015a) and assessment of any change in the baseline conditions with reference to the amended proposals for the development. This report has been drafted to ensure that any material changes in the ecological baseline are provided as part of the proposed new submission and that all newly adopted changes to best practice guidelines, including newly published reporting and survey guidelines, have been incorporated.

Aims and Objectives

2.3 The aim of the survey and supporting desk study was to satisfy the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF - see Section 5.0), identifying ecological features within or near the site that could potentially pose a constraint to the proposed development and opportunities for incorporating biodiversity enhancements into the development proposals. The following ecological features are relevant to this exercise:

Statutory and local designated wildlife sites;

Section 41 Habitats of Principal Importance (HPI) in England or local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats and networks of these habitats;

Ancient woodland inventory sites;

Important hedgerows (as defined by The Hedgerows Regulations 1997);

Veteran trees;

Legally protected species;

Section 41 Species of Principal Importance (SPI) or local BAP species;

The wider green infrastructure resource; and

Invasive species.

2.4 This report has been produced with reference to current guidelines for preliminary ecological appraisal (CIEEM, 2013), CIEEM Report Writing Guidelines (CIEEM, 2015) and in


3

accordance with BS42020:2013: Biodiversity - Code of Practice for Planning and Development. The potential of the site for foraging/commuting bats has been determined in accordance with Table 4.1 of Collins (2016).

Site Context

2.5 The development site is located along the eastern perimeter of the Willowbrook East Industrial Estate and comprises a large car forecourt, with thin strips of grassland, scrub and trees present along the site boundary.

2.6 Two further large car forecourts lie west of the site with numerous steel clad industrial units located to the south. Rockingham race track lies approximately 350 metres to the north of the site, with an area of mosaic of scrub, bare ground and deciduous woodland in between. The Willow Brook runs through the woodland to the north, parallel to the site. Construction for the Corby Northern Orbital Road in ongoing to the north and east.


4

3.0 Methodology Desk Study

3.1 Information from Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre (NBRC)/Northants Bat Group (NBG) was received, and Natural England site designations accessed, on 4th June 2015. Information obtained was used to provide a background on ecological features in the vicinity of the site. Refer to Appendix 1 for details of records requested, search radii and sources of information. The desk study has not been updated in view of the fact that no additional data are likely to be included since the previous request was made.

Field Survey

3.2 The Extended Phase I Habitat Survey was undertaken on 9th June 2016 by an experienced senior ecologist from Keystone Ecology (Tom Stephenson BSc (Hons), MSc, MCIEEM). Weather conditions at the time of survey were 19°C, 10% cloud cover and dry with a light breeze.

3.3 Phase I Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010) is a standard technique for obtaining baseline ecological information for large areas of land in which the main vegetation types present within the survey area are mapped using a standard set of habitat categories. The site was surveyed using a modified version of this technique whereby an additional habitat category, ‘coarse grassland,’ was used to describe species-poor, unmanaged, secondary grasslands and an additional habitat category ‘non-native hedgerow’ was used to describe hedgerows

comprised of at least 20% non-native species.

3.4 In addition to mapping, each of the main habitats within the survey area was described; including details of component plant species abundances (recorded using the DAFOR scale1).

3.5 Incidental observations of protected and/or SPI/local BAP species and the potential for such species to occur on site (and in the surrounding landscape where relevant) were also noted; however, no specific protected/ SPI/local BAP species surveys were undertaken.

Results and Evaluation

3.6 Potential ecological constraints to development have been identified from desk study and field survey data using current development proposals. Ecological importance and the relevant geographic frame of reference is assigned to each feature that poses a constraint/potential constraint to development in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidelines (CIEEM, 2016), where sufficient baseline data are available to do so. Where no importance has been assigned, this is due to insufficient information.

3.7 An assessment of likely ecological impacts and their effects has been undertaken in accordance with CIEEM guidelines (CIEEM, 2016) only where clear evidence is available to

1 D = Dominant, A = Abundant, F = Frequent, O = Occasional, R = Rare.


5

substantiate and justify the findings. In the absence of such evidence, the ecological feature is merely identified as a potential constraint to development.

Discussion and Recommendations

3.8 Where ecological constraints to development are identified, further survey requirements and/or avoidance, mitigation, compensation measures that are proportionate to the predicted degree of risk to biodiversity and to the nature and scale of the proposed development are described. In addition, in accordance with the NPPF, opportunities to enhance or create benefits for wildlife are explored alongside the hierarchy of aforementioned measures.

Nomenclature

3.9 Vascular plants and Charophytes follow the nomenclature of The Botanical Society for the British Isles database (2007) with all other flora and fauna following the UK Species Inventory (Natural History Museum, 2016).

Limitations

3.10 The results of the survey and assessment work undertaken by Keystone Ecology are representative at the time of surveying.

3.11 This document does not contain a comprehensive list of botanical species on site. Only plant species characteristic of each habitat and incidental observations of notable plant species were recorded. In addition, many plant species are only evident at certain times of the year and so some plant species may have gone undetected.

3.12 The data held by consultees may not be exhaustive. The absence of records does not necessarily indicate absence of a species/habitat from an area but rather that these have not been recorded or are perhaps under-recorded within the search area.

3.13 The accuracy of data held by consultees varies due to the quality and scale that they were digitised to, the supporting information used to define locations/boundaries and also sensitivity of the data itself. Keystone Ecology cannot take responsibility for the accuracy of external data sources and as such discrepancies and inaccuracies may occur.

3.14 NBRC do not hold information on important hedgerows, veteran trees or ancient woodland less than 2 hectares in size. No information was received from Corby Borough Council (CBC) regarding TPOs or Conservation Areas at the time of writing.

3.15 Unless otherwise stated, survey grid references have been recorded using a hand-held GPS receiver (Garmin GPS map 60CSX) with a manufacturer’s stated accuracy of 3 - 5 metres when not in tree canopy, steep terrain or other enclosed environments.


6

4.0 Results and Evaluation Sites and Habitats Identified by the Desk Study

4.1 Sites and habitats identified by the desk study are presented in Table 1 and mapped on Drawing Number: 131733/8/dwg1.

Table 1: Sites and Habitats Identified by the Desk Study

Name Distance from Proposed Development Site (m)

Details and Ecological Importance Potential Constraint

European Statutory Sites

Rutland Water Ramsar Site 14,401 Rutland Water is a large eutrophic man-made pump storage reservoir created by the damming of the Gwash Valley in 1975. The reservoir is in a lowland setting, receiving the majority of its water from the Nene (90%) and Welland (10%). In general the reservoir is drawn down in the summer and filled during the autumn and winter months when river levels are high. The lagoons are one of the most important areas for wintering and breeding wildfowl. The reservoir regularly supports Internationally important numbers of Gadwall (Anas strepera) and Northern Shoveler (A. clypeata) and Nationally important numbers of 8 other species of wildfowl.

No - given the scale of the development and the distance to the Ramsar Site, no significant negative effects on the integrity of the site and its qualifying species are predicted.

Rutland Water SPA 14,400 This site qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of Gadwall and Northern

No - given the scale of the development and the distance to the SPA, no significant negative effects on the integrity of the site and its qualifying species


7



Shoveler. The site also regularly supports at least 20,000 waterfowl and qualifies as a wetland of International importance.

are predicted.

Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Ramsar Site

13,381 This chain of both active and disused sand and gravel pits form an extensive series of shallow and deep open waters, which occur in association with a wide range of marginal features, such as sparsely-vegetated islands, gravel bars, shorelines and habitats including reed swamp, marsh, wet ditches, rush pasture, rough grassland and scattered scrub. This range of habitats and the varied topography of the lagoons provide valuable resting and feeding conditions for concentrations of wintering waterbirds, especially ducks and waders. Species such as Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) and Northern Lapwing (Venellus vanellus) also spend time feeding and roosting on surrounding agricultural land outside the Ramsar Site.

No - given the scale of the development and the distance to the Ramsar Site, no significant negative effects on the integrity of the site and its qualifying species are predicted.

Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA

13,381 The site qualifies under Article 4.1 of the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) as it is used regularly by 1% or more of the Great Britain populations of the following species listed in Annex I in any season: Golden Plover and Bittern (Botaurus stellaris). The site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive as it is used regularly by 1% or more of the biogeographical populations of the following regularly occurring migratory

No - given the scale of the development and the distance to the SPA, no significant negative effects on the integrity of the site and its qualifying species are predicted.


8



species (other than those listed in Annex I) in any season: Gadwall.

Finally, the site also qualifies under Article 4.2 as it is used by more than 20,000 waterbirds in any season.

National Statutory Sites Designated for Bats and Birds

Glapthorn Cow Pasture SSSI 8,641 Glapthorn Cow Pasture is an area of dense Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) scrub and Ash (excelsior) - Field Maple (Acer campestre) woodland, which supports the largest colony of the Black Hairstreak butterfly (Strymonidia pruni) in Northamptonshire, and is one of the most important sites for this species in Britain. The scrub also forms a nesting site for Nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos).

No - given the scale of the development and the distance to the SSSI, no significant negative effects on the integrity of the site and its qualifying species are predicted.

Eye Brook Reservoir SSSI 6,233 A major wetland area, which combines an extensive sheet of open water with a complex of wetland and lakeside habitats including mudflats, marsh, pasture, broadleaved woodland, and broadleaved, mixed and coniferous plantations. In autumn and winter the site attracts large numbers of ducks, most notably Wigeon (A. penelope), Mallard (A. platyrhynchos), Teal (A. crecca) and Pochard (Aythya ferina), while in spring and autumn flocks of a wide variety of wading birds on passage use the area for feeding. Additionally, the woodlands and plantations



9



provide a winter-feeding habitat for a variety of birds, while the mix of terrestrial habitats supports a diverse breeding bird community.

Bulwick Meadows SSSI 5,897 Two adjacent meadows occupying the valley side and flood plain of the Willow Brook. Water draining from the Lower Lincolnshire Limestone emerges as seepage areas where it meets the more impervious Lower Estuarine Series deposits. This, together with the high water table of the valley floor alluvium, has given rise to a complex mosaic of marshy grassland communities. The meadows are the only known locality in Northamptonshire for Flat Sedge (Blysmus compressus) and Common Bistort (Persicaria bistorta) and have added importance for the presence of breeding Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) - of which, there may not be more than 30 pairs in the county.


Kings Wood LNR 5,275 Kingswood LNR once formed part of the medieval Rockingham Forest, which stretched from Kettering to Peterborough. As part of Rockingham Forest, Kingswood was managed for centuries as a crown coppice, providing shelter for the King’s deer, as well as a regular supply of timber. The site is known to support a diverse breeding bird assemblage, including Tawny Owl (Strix aluco), Treecreeper (Certhia familiaris), and woodpecker spp.

No - given the scale of the development and the distance to the LNR, no significant negative effects on the integrity of the site and its reasons for notification are predicted.


10



National Statutory Sites

None within search parameters.

Local Wildlife Sites Designated for Bats


Local Wildlife Sites

Potential Local Wildlife Sites Overlapping site.

pLWS are sites that are either known or thought to be of higher biodiversity value than the average countryside but have not been confirmed to be of LWS standard.

All pLWS are likely to be important for the County’s biodiversity, either in their own right, or through buffering and linking current LWS and contributing to green infrastructure. Many of these sites could potentially be of LWS standard once surveyed.

A walk over of this habitat suggests that the site supports a matrix of habitats, including deciduous woodland, scrub and grassland, with the Willow Brook running along its northern margin. The site is apparently unmanaged with large volumes of rubbish/rubble from former usage of the area. The species present are considered common and widespread, although the importance of the site is important in terms of the provision of green space

Yes - possible indirect impacts associated with additional noise, lighting, dust and air quality during the construction phase in an area already subject to high levels of noise and lighting.

Likely to result in negative, localised, short-term during construction and reversible effects, significant at the zone of influence of the site.

Additional lighting and air quality decrease during the operational phase may result negative, permanent, localised, reversible effects, significant at zone of influence of the site in an area already subject to high levels of noise and lighting.

Mitigation measures to avoid or at least minimise impacts will be required.


11



within the wider landscape and the development pressures currently exerted upon it.

The site is considered to be of Local importance in view of its small size and degraded state.

EBP Habitats and Ancient Woodland (No. / Closest)

Deciduous Woodland 8/adjacent to site.

National Yes - indirect impacts associated with dust deposition during the construction phase resulting in negative, localised, temporary, short term and reversible effects, significant at the Zone of Influence of the site.

Mitigation measures will be required to avoid or at least minimise impacts.

No ancient woodland within search parameters.

Important Hedgerows and Veteran Trees (No. / Closest)

No information on important hedgerow, veteran trees available.

Key to site designations: LNR - Local Nature Reserve; NNR - National Nature Reserve; pLWS – potential Local Wildlife Site; SPA - Special Protection Area; SSSI - Site of Special Scientific Interest.


12

Habitats Identified on Site

4.2 The following habitats were identified on site during the course of the field survey (the distribution of these habitats is shown in Drawing Number: 131773/8/dwg2):

Hardstanding;

Ephemeral/short perennial;

Poor semi-improved grassland;

Scattered scrub;

Scrub;

Tall ruderal; and

Line of trees.

Hardstanding

4.3 A network of tarmac roads is present across the survey area, as the site is an extension of a large car forecourt to the west. In between the roads, large areas of gravel are present in the areas where cars are parked. No vegetation is associated with these areas.

4.4 There has been no change in the extent or condition of the hardstanding since the 2015 Ecological Appraisal (Keystone Ecology, 2015a).

Ephemeral/Short Perennial

4.5 The loose gravel/stone areas in between the tarmac roads support a very sparse ephemeral/short perennial community. This habitat is dominated by Chickweed (Stellaria media) and moss spp., with occasional Daisy (Bellis perennis), Hawkweed spp. (Hieracium spp.), Scentless Mayweed (Tripleurospermum inodorum), Colt’s-foot (Tussilaho farfara), Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus), Cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata) and rarely Herb-Robert (Geranium robertianum), Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) and Fescue sp. (Festuca sp).

4.6 This habitat also extends onto the spoil heap demarcating the eastern boundary of the site and along the periphery of the poor semi-improved grassland along the northern boundary, which is colonised by additional species including occasional Rosebay Willowherb (Chamerion angustifolium), Bristly Oxtongue (Picris echiodes), Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), Common Nettle (Urtica dioica), Cleavers (Galium aparine), Curled Dock (Rumex crispus) and Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense). In addition, White Dead-nettle (Lamium album), Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Greater Stitchwort (Stellaria holostea) and Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) occur rarely.

4.7 Since the 2015 survey, the natural colonisation of the spoil heap has progressed, particularly along the northern boundary, with tall ruderal species increasing in dominance and the vegetation height increasing as a consequence. The species composition has, however, remained unchanged.


13

Poor Semi-improved Grassland

4.8 A strip of this habitat comprising an area approximately 150 x 5 metres is present in the north of the survey area, running parallel to the metal boundary fence. The habitat is located on a bank and grades into ephemeral/short perennial habitat along its length where the substrate becomes rubble adjacent to the tarmac hardstanding road.

4.9 The dense sward is dominated by grass species including abundant Perennial Rye Grass (Lolium perenne), Yorkshire Fog, Cock’-foot and Common Bent (Agrostis capillaris), interspersed with frequent Common Vetch (Vicia sativa), Bristly Oxtongue, Colt’s-foot and Ribwort Plantain (Plantago langeolata), and locally frequent Ox-eye Daisy, Common Nettle, Mare’s Tail (Equisetum arvense) and Meadow Vetchling (Lathyrus pratensis). Creeping Cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans) (locally abundant towards the eastern end of the strip), Hogweed (Heracleum sphondylium), Field Forget-me-knot (Myosotis arvensis), Greater Stitchwort (Stellaria holostea), White Dead-nettle, Creeping Buttercup and Curled Dock (Rumex crispus), occur occasionally throughout the sward, with Foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), Grass Vetchling (Lathyrus nissolia), Hedgerow Crane’s-bill (Geranium pyrenaicum), Columbine (Aquilegia sp.) and Comfrey (Symphytum officinale x asperum x tuberosum) occurring rarely.

4.10 The extent and condition of the habitat is unchanged since the 2015 survey, although the presence of Soft Shield Fern (Polystichum setiferum), reported as present in 2013, was once again not present.

Scattered Scrub/Scrub

4.11 A small area (2 x 3 metres) of this habitat is present towards the southern corner of the eastern boundary of the site. Vegetation comprises occasional immature Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and Willow spp. (Salix sp.) saplings. Ground flora is dominated by Cleavers, with frequent Yorkshire Fog, Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.), Dog Rose (Rosa canina) and Common Nettle.

4.12 Scattered scrub also occurs throughout the poor semi-improved grassland sward, dominated by Bramble, Dog Rose and Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), with occasional Ash, Silver Birch (Betula pendula), Hawthorn, Willow spp. and Hazel (Corylus avellana) saplings. A number of semi-mature standard trees are also present within this habitat, dominated by Willow spp.

Tall Ruderal

4.13 Within the eastern corner of the northern boundary of the site is a patch of developing tall ruderal vegetation, dominated by Cleavers, Rosebay Willowherb, Bristly Oxtongue, Common Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), Curled Dock and Common Nettle. Occasional immature Willow spp., Ash, Hazel and Hawthorn saplings also occur.

Line of Trees

4.14 Running parallel with the eastern boundary of the site is a tree line (approximately 70 x 10 metres. Frequently occurring species comprise Ash, Beech (Fagus sylvatica) and European Larch (Larix decidua). Willow sp. is occasionally present with Silver Birch (Betula pendula)


14

occurring rarely. The understorey vegetation comprises abundant Hawthorn. Ground flora comprises abundant Common Nettle, Bramble, Yorkshire Fog and Hawthorn saplings. Rosebay Willowherb is occasionally present. There are small areas of bare ground, with a large brash pile present at the southern end of the strip.

SPI and Local BAP Habitats, and Networks of these Habitats Identified on Site

4.15 None of the habitats present on site qualify as SPI or local BAP habitats.

Protected Species

4.16 The possibility that protected species will pose a constraint to the proposed development is evaluated for each of the main protected species/groups in Table 2, based on assessment of habitat suitability and other relevant factors, such as:

National distribution of each species/group;

Previous records of species occurrence obtained through the desk study (mapped on Drawing Number: 131773/8/dwg1 as appropriate);

Connectivity to suitable habitats in the surrounding landscape;

Field signs (e.g. tracks, droppings, direct sightings) suggesting presence of species within or near to the site; and

Probability of the proposed development having an adverse impact on the species/group if present.

SPI and Local BAP Species

4.17 The possibility that SPI or local BAP species will pose a constraint to the proposed development is evaluated in Table 3 using the same evaluation criteria as Table 2. Given the large number of SPI and local BAP species, these have only been included in the table if present in the desk study records and/or observed on site during the field survey.

4.18 There are no records of SPI or local BAP species within 0.5 kilometres of the site.

Contribution to the Wider Green Infrastructure Resource

4.19 Although the site itself is located within an existing industrial estate, running parallel to the northern boundary is the Willow Brook. The brook runs through a matrix of grassland, scrub and woodland habitats which provide opportunities for a diverse range of species including Badger (Meles meles), Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) and breeding birds. This area of semi-natural habitat extends to the west and is constrained to the north and east by the Corby Northern Orbital Road currently being constructed and the Rockingham Speedway. The site forms part of the Nene Valley Nature Improvement Area (NIA), which covers an area of 41,000 hectares through the centre of Northamptonshire and overlaps the site. Including the River Nene and 5 of its tributaries, it is centred on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA, designated for wintering wildfowl. The Nene Valley supports a vast diversity of species in a


15

variety of habitats including reservoirs, wildflower meadows, wet woodland, grazing marshes and urban areas. The NIA seeks to deliver a net gain in biodiversity by 2020 through growth and development, improving the ecological status of the river, enhancing the ecological service provision and enhancing public awareness and benefits of the area in a sustainable way. The land immediately adjacent to the site is reported as a potential LWS. Development at this site is considered to incur significant adverse effects on the wider green infrastructure resource in the absence of mitigation in view of the potential for indirect impacts associated with increased lighting and noise and decreased air quality.

Invasive Species

4.20 There are no records of invasive non-native species within 0.5 kilometres of the site and none were identified during the field survey.


16

Table 2: Protected Species Constraints Evaluation

Species/ Group Desk Study Record (No. of Records / Closest Minimum Distance from Proposed Development Site (m))

SPI LBAP Potential Habitat Other Relevant Factors and Ecological Importance

Potential Constraint?

Bats Roosting:

Brown Long-eared Bat (Plecotus auritus) (1/3201)

Pipistrelle Bat species (Pipistrellus spp.) (1/1912)

Non-roosting:

Barbastelle Bat (Barbastella barbastellus) (1/2391)

Brown Long-eared Bat (1/6819)

Common Pipistrelle (P.pipistrellus) Bat (1/3219)

Daubenton's Bat (Myotis daubentonii) (5/479)

Natterer's Bat (M.

* Habitat is restricted to foraging only along the poor semi-improved grassland and line of trees.

There are no suitable trees or structures for roosting on site.

No change to the previous baseline for the site.

The open, exposed nature of the majority of the site is not optimal habitat for bats.

Connectivity is limited to the semi-mature woodland and Willow Brook to the north of the site (pLWS). The lack of suitable foraging and roosting habitat to the south of the site lowers the possibility of bats commuting over the site.

The proposed development will not directly impact upon the poor semi-improved grassland or line of trees.

The site is of Negligible importance for roosting bats.

The areas adjacent to the site are considered to be of high quality for foraging/commuting bats but the site itself is of low importance only. No further survey is considered necessary in line with Collins (2016). It is also considered that any bats

Direct Impacts - No. loss of minor areas of vegetation is not considered to result in significant negative effects on roosting or foraging/commuting bats.

Indirect Impacts - Yes

Increased noise and lighting causing disturbance of foraging/ commuting and roosting bats in the adjacent pLWS.

Construction impacts likely to result in negative, short-term effects, significant at the


17




nattereri) (1/3306)

Noctule Bat (Nyctalus noctula )(1/3303)

Pipistrelle Bat species (2/1484)

presently using the vegetation adjacent to the site will be habituated to the high lighting levels and noise already present in the immediate area.

Zone of Influence of the site.

Operational impacts of increased lighting are not considered significant.

Badger None within search parameters.

The site a small area of foraging habitat only for this species along the poor semi-improved grassland and line of trees. There is no direct access to the Willow Brook or pLWS from the site for Badger due to the metal boundary fence and no evidence of attempts to dig beneath.


Adjacent pLWS and adjacent grassland/woodland matrix provides extensive opportunities for foraging Badger as well as sett building opportunities.

Site connectivity is poor with the majority of the site and surrounding land to the south and east consisting of hardstanding.

A large number of setts are located within the adjacent woodland between the site and the Corby Northern Orbital Road construction zone. Extensive foraging evidence within the adjacent area (Keystone Ecology, 2016). The extent of activity within the pLWS has decreased since the previous 2015

Direct impacts - Although it is considered that the potential for Badgers to be present on site during works is extremely low, there is a risk of animals becoming trapped in any open excavations.

Impacts, although highly unlikely, are considered to result in negative, short term (during construction only), irreversible impacts


18




survey (Keystone Ecology, 2015b).

The closest is greater than 30 metres from the development site (Keystone Ecology, 2015).

Local Importance.

to foraging/commuting Badger, significant at the zone of influence of the site.

Impacts to active Badger setts considered Negligible.

Indirect impacts - Yes due to increased lighting and noise during the construction and operational phases on the wider area. Potential in combination impacts associated with the Corby Northern Orbital Road construction.

Negative, short-term, permanent (operational phase), reversible impact in


19




an already highly lit and active area.

Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius)


A single line of semi-mature trees and understorey shrubs is present at the eastern site boundary, representing sub-optimal habitat.


The sub-optimal habitat present within the site is disconnected from habitats in the wider area and no desk study records returned.

No.

Otter (Lutra lutra) None within search parameters.

No suitable habitat present on site.


Willow Brook lies approximately 30 metres from the proposed development site.

Willow Brook and adjacent banks will not be directly impacted upon by the proposed development.

A thorough search of the banks during the Badger Survey carried out by Keystone Ecology in 2015 revealed no sign of Otter (Keystone Ecology, 2015b).

No.

Water Vole (Arvicolla amphibious)


No suitable habitat present on site.

No change to the previous baseline


No


20




for the site. Willow Brook and adjacent banks will not be directly impacted upon by the proposed development.

A thorough search of the banks during a Badger Survey carried out by Keystone Ecology in 2015 revealed no sign of Water Vole (Keystone Ecology, 2015b).

Specially Protected Birds


n/a n/a No suitable nesting and foraging habitat for specially protected bird species is present.


No

All Other Birds n/a. n/a n/a The scrub and tree line provide suitable habitat for a limited range of common and widespread passerine species.


The proposed development will be largely contained within the hardstanding/sparse ephemeral/short perennial habitats.

No

Reptiles None within search parameters.

Suitable reptile habitat is restricted to the south facing strip of poor semi-improved grassland.

The semi-mature woodland to the north of the site offers suitable connectivity on site.

Yes - Low potential for killing/injury of common reptile


21




The brash pile within the line of trees offers suitable hibernacula if retained throughout the year.


Plans indicate that the majority of grassland and line of trees will not be impacted upon by the development. The proposed development will be largely contained within the large expanse of hardstanding/sparse ephemeral/short perennial habitats.

species during construction works.

Negative .

Great Crested Newt


No ponds present on site. Suitable terrestrial habitat limited to poor semi-improved grassland and line of trees. Nine ponds present within 500m of the site. The closest pond lies approximately 85 metres north of the site boundary.

The assessment is altered slightly from the previously reported baseline in view of the development works associated with the construction of the Corby Northern Orbital Road. Amphibian fencing has been erected in association with the Corby Northern Orbital Road immediately to the north and east of the pLWS to the north of the site removing connection to waterbodies.

No records of this species within the vicinity of the site from the Records Centre

In 2004, GCN surveys were conducted in advance of the proposed development of the Corby Northern Orbital Road, approximately 150 metres north of the site. Eighteen ponds were surveyed with a single medium-sized GCN population present (Wardell Armstrong, 2007).

Plans indicate that the poor semi-improved grassland and line of trees will not be impacted upon by the development. The proposed development will be completely contained within the large expanse of hardstanding/sparse ephemeral/short

Yes - Low risk of encountering GCN where suitable habitats are to be affected.

Potential for killing/injury during construction works.

Significant adverse, temporary, reversible impacts.


22




perennial habitats.

The Natural England EPS Rapid Risk Assessment indicates that an offence would be highly unlikely from the proposed works.

Invertebrates None within search parameters.

n/a n/a It is unlikely that the site contains habitats suitable for protected invertebrate species.

No change to the previously reported baseline.

Even if present, the proposed development is highly unlikely to have any adverse impact on invertebrate species.

No.

White-clawed Crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes)


None present.



Willow Brook and adjacent banks will not be directly impacted upon by the proposed development.

Local Importance.

Direct impacts - No

Indirect impacts - but only if present associated with potential run off into the Willow Brook.

Significant adverse reversible impact.

Plants None within search parameters.

n/a n/a It is unlikely that the site contains habitats suitable for protected plant species.

No protected plant species have been recorded in the vicinity of the site. It is highly unlikely that the grassland areas on site contain such

No.


23





species.

*Status dependant on species.


24

5.0 Relevant Legislation and Policy Legislation

5.1 This section sets out the wildlife legislation and policy relevant (or potentially relevant pending further survey) to the proposed development based on the findings of the desk study and field survey. Please note that this legal information is a summary and intended for general guidance only. The original legal documents should be consulted for definitive information. Web addresses providing access to the full text of these documents are given in the References Section.

5.2 There are no statutory designated sites considered likely to incur significant negative impacts as a consequence of the proposed development. The legislation protection afforded to species that could be affected by the proposed development is detailed in Table 4.

Table 4: Legislation Protection Afforded to Species that could Potentially be Affected by the

Proposed Development

Species Legal Status

European Protected

Bats These animal species and their breeding sites or resting places are protected under Regulation 41 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which makes it illegal to:

Deliberately capture, injure or kill any such animal or to deliberately take or destroy their eggs;

Deliberately disturb2 such an animal;

Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of such an animal.

European Protected Species (EPS) licences can be granted by Natural England in respect of development to permit activities that would otherwise be unlawful under the Conservation Regulations, providing that the following 3 tests (set out in the EC Habitats Directive) are passed:

The development is for reasons of overriding public interest;

There is no satisfactory alternative; and

The favourable conservation status of the species concerned will be maintained and/or enhanced.

Under Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation Regulations, Planning Authorities have a legal duty to ‘have regard to the requirements of the EC Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions’. This means that they must consider the above 3 tests when determining whether Planning Permission should be granted for developments likely to cause an offence under the Conservation Regulations. As a

2 Under the Conservation Regulations, disturbance of protected animals includes in particular any disturbance which is likely

to: (i) impair their ability to survive, breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young or to hibernate or migrate; (ii) significantly affect the local distribution or abundance of the species in question.


25

Species Legal Status

consequence, Planning Applications for such developments must demonstrate that the 3 tests will be passed.

Nationally Protected

Bats, Great Crested Newt These animals receive full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), which makes it illegal (subject to exceptions) to:

Intentionally kill, injure or take any such animal;

Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct any place used for shelter or protection by any such animal;

Intentionally or recklessly disturb such animals while they occupy a place used for shelter or protection.

Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara), Grass Snake (Natrix natrix), Slow-worm (Anguis fragilis), White-clawed Crayfish

These animals receive limited protection under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), which makes it illegal to intentionally kill or injure any such animal.

Nesting Birds (general) All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), which makes it illegal (subject to exceptions) to:

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird;

Take, damage or destroy the nest (whilst being built or in use) or eggs of any wild bird.

Badgers (Meles meles) The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it illegal to wilfully kill or injure a Badger, or attempt to do so and also make it illegal to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a Badger sett. This includes damaging or destroying a sett, obstructing access to a sett and disturbing a Badger while it is occupying a sett. Licences can be granted to permit sett closure and/or disturbance between July and November inclusive.

Wild Mammals The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 makes it illegal to mutilate, kick, beat, nail, or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, drown, crush, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering.

5.3 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) places a legal duty on public bodies, including planning authorities, to ‘have regard’ to the

conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their normal functions, which includes consideration of planning applications.

5.4 In compliance with Section 41 of the NERC Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species and habitats considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. This is known as the list of EBP, of which there are 56 habitats and 943 species (Natural England, 2014). The EBP list is used to guide planning authorities in implementing their duty under the NERC Act.


26

National Planning Policy

5.5 The NPPF set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This presumption does not apply where development requiring Appropriate Assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.

5.6 The NPPF states that:

‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs;

development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;

opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;

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; and

the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: potential Special Protection Areas (SPA) and possible Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential SPAs, possible SACs, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites’.

5.7 Under the NPPF, the Planning Authority has a responsibility to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan.’

5.8 Also under the NPPF the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in


27

biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.

Regional Planning Policy

5.9 The Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) sets out the spatial planning strategy for minerals and waste and related development across the county. Following the vision, objectives, spatial strategy and policies in the Northamptonshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD), policies to address the principle of minerals and waste related development are set out in the Control and Management of Development DPD. In this regard, Objective 10 (Conserving and enhancing Northampton’s built and

natural environment) of the Core Strategy includes provision for safeguarding the natural environment as follows:

‘Recognise Northamptonshire’s environmental systems and landscape linkages in order to conserve and enhance the built and natural environment through ensuring sensitive working, and where necessary, high standards of mitigation of potentially adverse impacts of minerals and waste development.’

5.10 Policy CS14 (Addressing the impact of proposed minerals and waste development) further sets out the requirement to take account of impacts on the natural environment as follows:

‘Proposals for minerals and waste development must demonstrate that the following matters have been addressed:

Minimising environmental impact and protecting Northamptonshire’s key environmental designations;

Protecting natural resources or ensuring that any unavoidable loss or reduction is mitigated;

Ensuring built development is of a design and layout that has regard to its visual appearance in the context of the defining characteristics of the local area;

Ensuring access is sustainable, safe and environmentally acceptable; and

Ensuring that local amenity is protected.’

5.11 Within the MWDF Control and Management of Development DPD, Policy CMD7 (Natural Assets and Resources) is of direct relevance to biodiversity as follows:

‘Minerals and waste development should seek to (where possible) achieve a net gain in assets and resources, through:

Delivery of wider environmental benefits in the vicinity where development would adversely affect any regional or locally designated sites or other features of local interest;

Protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and strategic biodiversity networks, in particular the River Nene and other sub-regional corridors; and


28

Consider opportunities to contribute towards Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan targets for habitats and species.

Proposals for minerals and waste development will be required to undertake an assessment (where appropriate) in order to:

Identify and determine the nature, extent, and level of importance of the natural assets and resources, as well as any potential impacts; and

Identify mitigation measures and / or requirement for compensation (where necessary) to avoid, reduce, and manage potentially adverse impacts.’

5.12 The document further states that:

‘Consideration should be given to how the site can contribute to the county’s identified green infrastructure networks, BAP targets, and the Environmental Characterisation Assessments (ECA). Proposals must also demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the county’s geological and natural assets, in particular the importance of underlying geological conditions on the local ecology in relation to the ability of the site to support specific vegetative communities and associated habitat.’

Local Planning Policy

5.13 The ‘North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy’ (NNCSS) was adopted in June 2008 covering the period to 2021. The NNCSS is the framework for the individual district/borough councils to develop Site Specific Plans.

5.14 The NNCSS (2008) sets out the following relevant policies:

Policy 5 - Green Infrastructure: “A net gain in green infrastructure will be sought through the protection and enhancement of assets and the creation of new multi-functional areas of green space that promote ... biodiversity, water management, the protection and enhancement of local landscape, mitigation of climate change along with green economic uses and sustainable land management”.


29

6.0 Discussion and Recommendations Changes to the Baseline

6.1 The ecological appraisal demonstrates no significant change to the baseline ecological conditions as submitted in support of 13/00079/WASTEFUL. No significant changes to the recommendations are, therefore, presented. Additional survey efforts carried out at the time of this Ecological Appraisal have scoped out Water Vole and Otter as potential constraints.

6.2 The previous baseline assessment, however, noted the presence of Sphagnum spp. and Soft Shield Fern, neither of which were present during the 2015 survey. It is considered that both species may be present occasionally within the site, but that they are both at the limit of their nitrogen tolerance. In this regard, information submitted as part of the planning process in 2014 stated that:

‘Where the predicted nitrogen deposition levels are likely to exceed critical levels, the current baseline figures greatly exceed critical baseline levels, indicating that the 2 plant species are already likely to be at their limit of nitrogen tolerance.’

6.3 These species are not considered to be constraints to the development of the site.

Overview of Potential Ecological Constraints Associated with the Proposed Development

6.4 In the absence of mitigation, the following have been identified as potential constraints to the proposed development:

Non-Statutory Sites; (Nene Valley NIA and pLWS);

EBP Habitat - deciduous woodland;

White Clawed Crayfish;

Badger;

Bats;

Breeding birds;

GCN; and

Reptiles.

Further Survey and Mitigation

6.5 To comply with guidance set out in Section 10.2 and Annex D.4.5 of BS42020:2013, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and a formal Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) should be produced prior to the commencement of all site clearance works.


30

6.6 For each constraint identified, all mitigation options provided follow the established Mitigation Hierarchy as set out in Section 5.2 of BS42020:2013. This seeks as a preference to avoid impacts then to mitigate unavoidable impacts, and, as a last resort, to compensate for unavoidable residual impacts that remain after avoidance and mitigation measures.

Non-Statutory Sites (Nene Valley NIA, pLWS), EBP Habitat (Deciduous Woodland) and White-Clawed Crayfish

6.7 The proposed development will be contained within the hardstanding/sparse ephemeral/short perennial that makes up the vast majority of the site, therefore, the integrity of the non-statutory sites or the Willow Brook will not be directly affected. However, it is recommended that temporary hoarding be positioned at the boundaries of the site (at the edge of the hardstanding) to ensure the protection of sensitive ecological receptors during construction operations. The hoarding will take account of the need to protect the tree line to be retained by at least a 5 metre buffer zone (wider as determined by an arboriculturist in accordance with BS5837:2012) throughout the construction phase.

6.8 During both the construction and operational phases, methods of working should comply with The Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines 13 and 54 to render potential impacts from sediment/pollution discharge upon the non-statutory sites and Willow Brook as Negligible.

6.9 To ensure that the margins of the site and suitable habitat on adjacent land retain their potential attractiveness for commuting and foraging bats, a sensitive lighting regime is recommended, whereby these habitats are not continually lit throughout the hours of darkness.

6.10 To minimise air pollution and avoid deposition of dust, the following measures should be introduced during construction:

Turn off engines/machinery when not moving/in use;

Wash wheels of all vehicles leaving site;

Avoid access routes that pass by ancient woodland sites; and

Avoid storage of spoil in locations where dust can drift on to adjacent woodland.

Badger

6.11 Whilst it is considered highly unlikely that this species will be directly affected by the proposed works as all active setts are located in excess of 30 metres from the boundary of the development site, the possibility of Badger foraging within the retained habitats remains. Measures as set out above in relation to the installation of hoarding to prevent access to the construction zone will avoid the accidental injury of these animals. In addition, a sensitive

3Environment Agency (2001) Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx [Accessed 12th May 2013].

4Environment Agency (2007) Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx [Accessed 12th May 2013].


31

lighting scheme will serve to avoid impacts on the integrity of the adjacent habitats as a foraging resource for Badger.

Bats

6.12 To ensure that the margins of the site and suitable habitat on adjacent land retain their potential attractiveness for commuting and foraging bats, a sensitive lighting regime is recommended, whereby these habitats are not continually lit throughout the hours of darkness. Whilst the site is currently subject to lighting, lighting impacts the adjacent woodland/grassland matrix associated with the pLWS for biodiversity (including bats) will be avoided through the adoption of low lumen, directional lighting wherever possible. This should be adopted during both the construction and operational phases of the development.

Breeding Birds

6.13 As a precaution, it is recommended that temporary protective fencing be positioned at the boundary of the poor semi-improved grassland and line of trees that lie adjacent to the hardstanding as a measure to prevent accidental disturbance of active nests during construction works. Although it is understood that no suitable habitat for this group is to be cleared, should this be the case then the following approach must be adopted and all habitat re-instated upon completion of the construction phase.

6.14 Suitable bird nesting habitat should be cleared from September to February, outside of the bird nesting season. As timing constraints associated with other protected species (i.e. reptiles) will also need to be taken into consideration, it may be necessary to clear suitable bird nesting habitat between March and August. In this instance, a suitably qualified ecologist should survey habitat immediately prior to its removal. If an active nest is present, at least a 5 metre radius buffer area (or wider as appropriate and dependent upon the species identified) should be set out, or the vegetation retained until any young have fledged. To prevent contractors accidentally straying into the buffer area, these should be clearly marked out i.e. with high visibility fencing.

6.15 To compensate for the temporary loss of suitable bird nesting habitat, any vegetation removed will be replanted upon the completion of works. This will include replacement of the tree line with native species such as Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Hazel, Wild Privet and Dogwood which provide cover (and foraging sources) for a range of common bird species (Gilbert and Anderson, 1998) and the replanting of the semi-improved grassland with native species currently characteristic of the site.

Great Crested Newt (GCN)

6.16 Whilst it is considered that the risk of encountering this species is low (particularly in view of the measures in place to restrict movement of this species during the construction of the Corby Northern Orbital road, a precautionary approach is recommended. The hardstanding is not considered to provide suitable habitat for this species, therefore, coupled with the low risk of encountering GCN, the erection of protective fencing positioned at the boundary of the retained habitats is not considered to result in a barrier to the movement of these animals. Installation of this fencing will serve to avoid the accidental killing/injury of GCN during the construction phase.


32

6.17 Although it is understood that no suitable habitat for this group is to be cleared, should this be the case then the following approach must be adopted and all habitat re-instated upon completion of the construction phase.

6.18 Any clearance of suitable habitat should be carried out following a Precautionary Working Method Statement (PWMS) (Keystone Ecology, 2014).

Reptiles

6.19 As a precaution, it is recommended that temporary protective fencing be positioned at the boundary of the poor semi-improved grassland and line of trees that lie adjacent to the hardstanding as a measure to prevent accidental killing/injury of reptiles during construction works. Although it is understood that no suitable habitat for this group is to be cleared, should this be the case then the following approach must be adopted and all habitat re-instated upon completion of the construction phase.

6.20 It is normally recommended that a Reptile Survey be undertaken to determine the presence or likely absence of reptile species. In this instance, however, due to the small extent of suitable habitat likely to support these species i.e. field/rail edges only, the abundance of suitable habitat in the wider area, and the small number of reptiles that could be expected; it is recommended that any suitable reptile habitat clearance is carried out in an ecologically sensitive manner. This should be undertaken by an ecological contractor or under the direct supervision of a qualified ecologist. Specifically, habitats should be strimmed carefully using hand tools in 2 passes (first to a height of no less than 300 millimetres) from the centre of the site out to its edges, to flush any reptile species into adjacent habitats of the site. Any log piles or other refugia should also be carefully dismantled by hand. This approach can only be undertaken between April and November (when temperatures are not below 10oC) when reptiles are active. It is not appropriate for use between December and March, when reptiles are in hibernation.

6.21 To compensate for the temporary disturbance of potential reptile habitat, any vegetation removed will be replanted and grassland areas re-seeded upon the completion of works. Informal hibernacula (i.e. brash piles) will also be created if the existing brash pile is to be removed.

Summary of Residual Impacts

6.22 Provided the measures as set pout above are implemented, no residual impacts are considered likely as a consequence of the amended development proposals.

Opportunities for Biodiversity Enhancement

6.23 In accordance with national and local planning policy (NPPF and CMD7), opportunities for biodiversity enhancement (above and beyond those required to mitigate for the identified impacts) are set out below.

6.24 Whilst the proposed development will not encroach onto the poor semi-improved/line of trees habitats, the following recommendations are designed to enhance the biodiversity of the site, and its immediate surrounds:


33

Leave the poor semi-improved grassland as a set-aside area to encourage growth, creating a tussocky sward that would become attractive to a range of invertebrates, whilst providing a natural refuge for reptiles and GCN, nesting habitat for birds and foraging for Badger and bats;

Ideally, even where a short “neat” sward is required within landscaped areas, provision can be made for some taller and less intensively managed grassland to develop, especially at the interface between lawns and tree and shrub planting;

Where practical, sourcing of plants will be in accordance with the principles of Flora Locale, which is a conservation initiative centred on sourcing plants and seed of verifiable British provenance. Plug planting of selected herbs into pre-established grassland is also an option that will be explored;

The grassland should be considered for pockets of taller seed-bearing plants, especially common teasel, which provides visual interest in terms of texture, as well as being of biodiversity interest, providing hollow stems for invertebrate hibernation sites and a valuable winter food source to seed-eating bird species such as Goldfinches;

Planting a native species hedgerow between the proposed development and the retained habitats, to act as a natural screen and provide additional opportunities for foraging, commuting and nesting species. The proposed hedgerow will run adjacent to the proposed landscaping areas and will, therefore, be bordered by areas of rough grassland, creating a gradual transition from areas of amenity grassland. This aims to ensure the functionality of the site as part of the wider green infrastructure network. The grassland and line of trees/scrub will also be supplemented by native species (ideally of local provenance) to further increase the biodiversity value from both a structural and functional perspective and to improve the overall quality of the habitats. A full list of recommended species will be provided in the LEMP. In addition, the poor semi-improved grassland will be left as a set-aside to promote further growth and encourage diversity. This habitat will be subject to an ecologically sensitive management regime, i.e. mowing at appropriate times of year (late summer) and all arisings removed from the area, to prevent the accumulation of nutrients. Within the set aside grassland, several semi-natural refugia (log and brash piles) will be positioned to act as potentially suitable hibernacula for GCN, invertebrates and reptiles that may be present in the area;

It is recommended that the drainage pond proposed in the east of the site is enhanced. It is recommended that the banks are landscaped to incorporate native marginal vegetation with additional planting of native emergent vegetation. This would provide a suitable foraging site for bats, reptiles and amphibians, whilst potentially creating a breeding site for the latter group. The full details of the management for the drainage pond in the east of the site will be fully detailed within a LEMP. At this stage, it is recommended that the proposed pond is designed to maximise the potential opportunities for biodiversity and should include scalloped edges and shallow marshy shelves where possible to encourage a range of aquatic vegetation. A variable water depth is recommended to ensure that areas of unfrozen water remain throughout the winter and provide suitable areas for invertebrates and breeding amphibians in the spring and summer. Planting a range of native submerged and emergent native aquatic plant species would contribute to a diverse vegetation structure. The final


34

layout indicates that the pond is to be situated within an area proposed for landscaping. The surrounding landscaped areas will, therefore, consist of rough/wet grassland, with wildflower meadow seed mixes added for aesthetic and invertebrate benefit rather than simply as areas of amenity grassland. This will ensure that the functionality of the site as part of the wider green infrastructure network is enhanced;

Artificial hibernacula for reptiles and GCN could be positioned within the site boundary habitats; and

Vegetation should be allowed to grow unmanaged around the perimeters of the 4 tanks proposed to be positioned in the north of the site. This would provide suitable habitat for a range of invertebrates, whilst providing a foraging resource for a range of protected species and natural refugia for reptiles and GCN.


35

7.0 References Botanical Society for the British Isles (2007). BSBI 2007 List. Available at: http://www.bsbi.org.uk/taxonomy.html [Accessed on 9th June 2015].

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal. Available at: http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Publications/EcIA_Guidelines_Terrestrial_Freshwater_and_Coastal_Jan_2016.pdf [Accessed on 14th June 2016].

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2015). Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing. Available at: http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Publications/Ecological_Report_Writing_23.12.2015.pdf. [Accessed on 14th June 2016].

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2013). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Available at: http://www.cieem.net/guidance-on-preliminary-ecological-appraisal-gpea- [Accessed on 14th June 2016].

Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition). Bat Conservation Trust: London.

Gilbert, O and Anderson, P. (1998). Habitat Creation and Repair. Oxford University Press.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010). Handbook for Phase I Habitat Survey - A Technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC: Peterborough.

Keystone Ecology (2013). Shelton Road, Corby Ecological Appraisal. Keystone Ecology, Sheffield.

Keystone Ecology (2015a). Shelton Road, Corby Ecological Appraisal. Keystone Ecology, Sheffield.

Keystone Ecology (2015b). Shelton Road, Corby Badger Survey. Keystone Ecology, Sheffield.

Keystone Ecology (2015c). Shelton Road, Corby Precautionary Working Method Statement, Keystone Ecology, Sheffield.

Natural History Museum (2016). UK Species Inventory. Available at: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/scientific-resources/biodiversity/uk-biodiversity/uk-species/index.html [Accessed on 14th June 2016].


36

Web addresses for access to full legislation and policy text:

Birds Directive: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1927/contents/made

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents

Habitats Directive: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

Hedgerow Regulations 1997: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/97

National Planning Policy Framework: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents

Protection of Badgers Act 1992: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents


Plans

Licences/acknowledgments for information this drawing may contain: © Natural England / Scottish Natural Heritage / Natural Resouces Wales; Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2015; or based on plan provided by client

Entran

03/06/2015

Drawing Number: 131773/8/dwg1

Desk Study Map

Key

Shelton Road, Corby

Bat records within 2km

Barbastelle BatBrown Long-eared BatBrown Long-eared Bat (roost)Common Pipistrelle BatDaubenton's BatNatterer's BatNoctule BatPipistrelle Bat speciesPipistrelle Bat species (roost)

EBP habitat within 500m

Deciduous woodland

Revision Date Drawn Approved

No dimensions to be scaled from this drawing

All dimensions are to be checked on site

Measurements displayed are for indicative purposes only

Head/Southern Office T+44 (0) 1666 503687

Northern Office T+44 (0) 1484 540533

Welsh Office T+44(0) 2920 504024

www.keyenv.co.uk © Keystone Environmental Ltd 2015

Central grid ref: SP909908

rev0 RF SJ

Site boundary

50m buffer

500m buffer

2km buffer

Potential Wildlife Site

Other features within 500m

2 Waterbody

0 200 400 600

Meters

6

6 66 6 6


Entran

03/06/2015


Phase I Habitat Map

Key

Shelton Road, Corby

6

Scrub

Hardstanding

Ephemeral / short perennial

Line of trees

Poor semi-improved grassland

Tall ruderal

Scattered scrub

Site boundary



All dimensions are to be checked on site

Measurements displayed are for indicative purposes only



Welsh Office T+44(0) 2920 504024



rev0 RF SJ

SI

SI

SI

0 10 20 30

Meters


Appendices


Appendix 1 Desk Study Details

Record Type Search Radius (km) 5

Source(s) 6

Sites and Habitats

European statutory sites

15 Locations:

Natural England GIS Digital Boundary Database: www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/tech_ds.htm

Citations:

Natural England Site Designations:

www.gov.uk/protected-or-designated-areas

National statutory sites designated for bats and birds

10

National statutory sites 2

Local wildlife sites designated for bats

2 Local biological records centre

Local wildlife sites, important hedgerows and veteran trees

0.5 Local biological records centre

Habitats of Principal Importance

0.5 Natural England GIS Digital Boundary Database: www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/tech_ds.htm

Ancient woodland 0.5 Natural England GIS Digital Boundary Database7: www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/tech_ds.htm

Waterbodies 0.5 Ordnance Survey Street View

Google Maps

Species8

Bats, Otters and Water Voles

2 Local biological records centre

Other Protected species9

0.5 Local biological records centre

5 In each case the search included the site and the specified area beyond the site boundary. Search radius was based on the professional judgement of the ecologist leading this appraisal with reference to current guidelines for preliminary ecological appraisal (CIEEM, 2013).

6 Natural England GIS Digital Boundary Database accessed on 2nd January 2016 unless otherwise stated. 7 Only ancient woodland sites that were over 2 ha on the 1920's base maps are included on the inventory. 8 Records over 10 years old are excluded. 9 Birds only included if listed under the Wildlife & Countryside Act Sch 1. All species protected from sale only are excluded.


Record Type Search Radius (km) 5

Source(s) 6

SPI and local BAP species

0.5 Local biological records centre10

10 With reference to UK Biodiversity Action Reporting System if local BAP status is not indicated by information provided.


Keystone Contact Details

Project Manager

Dr Sarah Cox CEcol, CEnv, MCIEEM Head of Ecology

Northern Office Riverside Suite, The Old Corn Mill, Bullhouse Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Sheffield, S36 9NN T +44 (0) 1484 540533 M +44 (0) 7720 740282 E [email protected] www.keyenv.co.uk/ecology

Head/Southern Office The Old Barn, Park Farm Buildings, Beverston, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8TT T +44 (0) 1666 503687

Northern Office Riverside Suite, The Old Corn Mill, Bullhouse Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Sheffield, S36 9NN T +44 (0) 1484 540533

Welsh Office Falcon Drive, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff,CF10 4RU T +44 (0) 2920 504024

APPENDIX 11.2 – BADGER SURVEY

Shelton Road, Corby Confidential Badger Survey

June 2016

Entran

Shelton Road, Corby Confidential Badger Survey

June 2016

Entran

Version Date Author Checked Approved Final 01/06/2015 S Jackson C Cartwright R Coombes

Revision 1 15/06/2016 T Stephenson J Bridgeman S Cox

Disclaimer

Copyright Keystone Environmental Limited. All rights reserved.

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Keystone Environmental Limited. If you have received this report in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Keystone Environmental Limited.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Keystone Environmental, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Keystone Environmental Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in the report are on the basis of Keystone Environmental Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Keystone Environmental Limited has been made.

RT Badger Survey V3.0 30/04/2014

Shelton Road, Corby June 2016 Confidential Badger Survey

142124/9

Contents 1.0 Introduction 1

Background 1

Aims and Objectives 1

Site Characteristics 1

Legislation, Planning Context and Status 2

2.0 Methodology 5

Desk Study 5

Field Survey and Assessment 5

Nomenclature 5

Limitations 5

3.0 Results and Assessment 7

4.0 Impacts 11

5.0 Recommendations and Requirements 12

Further Survey 12

Licensing and Planning 12

Mitigation 12

6.0 References 13

Plans Drawing Number: 131773/9/dwg1 Badger Survey Results

Appendices Appendix 1

Sett Status Assessment Criteria

Contact details can be found at the end of this document. This report should not be made publicly available in any form that would allow the location of the Badger setts to be identified. Requests for such information should not be met, except where the request originates from a person or organisation with a bona fide interest in Badgers.


1

1.0 Introduction Background

1.1 Keystone Ecology was instructed by Entran to undertake a Badger Survey of land at Shelton Road, Willowbrook East Industrial Estate, Corby, Northamptonshire (central ordnance survey grid reference SP 9095 9088). The survey was required in support of a planning application for the construction of an Advanced Conversion Technology and Energy Recovery Facility and associated infrastructure.

1.2 An Ecological Appraisal of the site undertaken in 2015 (Keystone Ecology, 2015) identified the potential for sett building habitat directly adjacent to the proposed development site, associated with the Willow Brook (identified as a proposed Local Wildlife Site pLWS). In addition, the presence of Badgers within the immediate vicinity of the site was raised by the Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust during the consultation phase for the original planning application. Although Badger was not considered to be a constraint to the proposed development at that time, these animals can expand rapidly into new areas. A formal Badger Survey was, therefore, recommended. Due to the elapsed time since the original Badger Survey, an additional survey was undertaken on 9th June 2016 to identify any changes in the status of Badger at the site and determine the nature of impacts to Badger (if any) in relation to up to date survey data.

Aims and Objectives

1.3 The aim of the Badger Survey was to:

Determine whether there are any Badger setts, or other evidence of Badger on or within 30 metres (access permitting) of the site;

Identify likely impacts of the development on Badgers;

Recommend measures to avoid or reduce impacts on Badgers; and

Advise on any requirement to attain a licence from Natural England to proceed with the works.

Site Characteristics

1.4 The development site is located along the eastern perimeter of the Willowbrook East Industrial Estate and comprises a large car forecourt with thin strips of grassland, scrub and trees present along the site boundary.

1.5 Two further large car forecourts lie west of the site with numerous steel clad industrial units located to the south. Rockingham race track lies approximately 350 metres to the north of the site, with an area of mosaic of scrub, bare ground and deciduous woodland in between. The Willow Brook runs through the woodland to the north, parallel to the site.


2

Legislation, Planning Context and Status1

Protection Legislation

1.6 Badgers are listed in Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). As such they receive protection under Section 11 of this Act, which prohibits the use of self-locking snares, bows, explosives or use of live mammals or birds as decoys, for capture and killing of any wild animal. It also prohibits the use of traps, snares, nets, poisons, electrical devices, dazzling devices, and automatic weapons, night shooting devices, gas or smoke for killing, injuring or taking animals listed on Schedule 6.

1.7 The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) makes it an offence to:

wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a Badger

attempt to do the above

intentionally or recklessly interfere with a sett

1.8 A sett is classified as any structure that displays signs indicating current use by a Badger (Natural England, 2007). The Act does not define ‘current use’. However, Natural England (2009a) has issued an advice note on the interpretation of ‘current use’ as follows:

Displaying signs indicating current use is NOT synonymous with current occupation i.e., Badger need not be occupying the sett every day for the sett to display signs of current use;

A Badger sett is protected by the legislation if it “displays signs indicating current use

by a Badger”. A sett is, therefore, protected as long as such signs remain present. In practice, this could potentially be for a period of several weeks after the last actual occupation of the sett by a Badger or Badgers;

Demonstration of the fact that a sett is not occupied by Badgers does NOT necessarily exempt it from the protection afforded by the Act if it still displays signs otherwise indicative of current use;

A sett is likely to fall outside the definition of a sett in the Act if the evidence available indicates that it is NOT in use by Badgers; e.g. absence of Badger field signs, debris in sett entrances etc. In practice, such a sett may have been unused for several weeks.

1.9 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 activities in the vicinity of a sett if no Badger is disturbed and the sett is not damaged or obstructed.

1Please note that this legal information is a summary and intended for general guidance only. The original legal documents should be consulted for definitive information. Web addresses providing access to the full text of these documents are given in the References Section.


3

1.10 The Act does not define ‘disturbance’. Natural England has issued an advice note on the interpretation of ‘Disturbance’ in relation to Badgers occupying a sett (Natural England,

2009b). Within this guidance, Natural England define disturbance to a Badger sett as:

‘..more than limited noise or activity near a sett at levels which Badgers commonly tolerate, without apparently being disturbed’.

1.11 It is Natural England’s view that Badgers are relatively tolerant of moderate levels of noise

and/or activity around their setts and that:

‘...low or moderate levels of apparent disturbance at or near to Badger setts do not necessarily disturb the Badgers occupying those setts’.

1.12 Examples of activities at or near setts that Natural England do not consider likely to cause disturbance to Badgers, and therefore would not normally expect to require a licence, include:

Development, or other activities occurring close to Badger setts (use of hand tools and/or machinery), where there is no reason to believe that the ‘disturbance’ will be

greater than that which Badgers commonly tolerate, and therefore any Badger(s) occupying the sett are unlikely to be disturbed;

Vegetation removal (including felling small trees or shrubs) over or adjacent to setts (using hand tools and/or machinery);

Clearing out of ditches/watercourses using machinery and/or hand tools where Badger setts are present.

1.13 Natural England requires a judgment to be made on a case by case basis as to whether a particular action may or may not cause disturbance to Badgers.

1.14 Where interference with a sett showing signs of current use cannot be avoided during the development, a licence is required from Natural England, which permits activities that would otherwise be illegal. Natural England will generally only issues licenses to permit activities during the period 1st July to 30th November as this avoids the Badgers’ breeding period. Natural England will only issue a licence after detailed planning permission has been granted, where applicable, so that there is no conflict with the planning process.

Protection Afforded by the Planning System

1.15 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out government policy regarding consideration of biodiversity in planning decisions. Under the NPPF the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat.

1.16 The NPPF states that:

‘When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:


4

if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site, clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs;

development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;

opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;

the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites: potential Special Protection Areas (SPA) and possible Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential SPAs, possible SACs, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.’

1.17 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) places a legal duty on public bodies, including planning authorities, to ‘have regard’ to the

conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their normal functions, which includes consideration of planning applications.

1.18 In compliance with Section 41 of the NERC Act, the Secretary of State has published a list of species and habitats considered to be of principal importance for conserving biodiversity in England under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. This is referred to as the list of Species/Habitats of Principal Importance in England, of which there are 56 habitats (HPI) and 943 species (SPI). The list is used to guide planning authorities in implementing their duty under the NERC Act.

1.19 Badger is not an SPI species.

1.20 Badger is a Local BAP Priority Species for Northamptonshire (Northamptonshire Biodiversity Partnership, 2008).


5

2.0 Methodology Desk Study

2.1 As part of the Ecological Appraisal, information from Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre (NBRC) was received, and Natural England site designations accessed, on 4th June 2015. Information obtained was used to provide a background on ecological features in the vicinity of the site.

Field Survey and Assessment

2.2 A thorough search of the site and all suitable habitats immediately adjacent incorporating at least a 30 metres radius of the boundary of the development site, was undertaken for signs of Badger activity in accordance with current guidance (Harris et al., 1989). This involved a search for the presence of setts, foraging activity and associated field signs such as latrines, dung pits, prints and tracks. The location of any setts was mapped, including the number of entrances and signs of use such as bedding material, fresh spoil and hairs were recorded. Additionally, significant evidence of Badger activity was mapped (i.e. territory latrines and runs connecting setts).

2.3 Any sett entrances were plotted using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. Additionally, sett entrance positions were measured with a tape measure from the nearest landscape feature (i.e. tree or base of hedgerow), to help improve the accuracy of their location.

2.4 Where relevant, Fox and Rabbit excavations have also been recorded.

2.5 The update survey was undertaken on 9th June 2016 by Tom Stephenson (MCIEEM), Senior Ecologist at Keystone Ecology, trained in the identification of Badger field signs and who satisfies all necessary field survey competencies as stipulated by the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM). Weather conditions during the survey were: 18°C, dry with 10% cloud cover. Sett entrances are shown on Drawing Number: 131773/9/dwg1.

2.6 Setts and sett entrances have been classified according to the definitions given in Appendix 1. The extent of the setts underground has not been mapped as this could extend in any direction up to at least 20 metres.

Nomenclature

2.7 The English names of flora and fauna species are given in the main text of this report. Scientific names are used only in the absence of English names. Vascular plants follow the nomenclature of The Botanical Society for the British Isles database (BSBI, 2007) with all other flora and fauna following the UK Species Inventory (Natural History Museum, 2016).

Limitations

2.8 Keystone Ecology staff and their sub-consultants endeavour to identify the presence of protected species wherever possible on site, where this falls within the agreed scope of works.


6

2.9 The results of the survey and assessment work undertaken by Keystone Ecology are representative at the time of surveying.

2.10 Up to date standard methodologies are used, which are accepted by Natural England and other statutory conservation bodies. No responsibility will be accepted where these methodologies fail to identify all species on site. Keystone Ecology cannot take responsibility where Government, national bodies or industry subsequently modify standards.

2.11 Sett entrances have been recorded using a hand-held GPS receiver (Garmin GPS map 60CSX) with a manufacturer’s stated accuracy of 3-5 metres when not in tree canopy, steep terrain or other enclosed environments.


7

3.0 Results and Assessment 3.1 A total of 12 setts were found on site (refer to Drawing Number: 131773/5dwg1. A

description of each sett, the number and classification of entrances, and corresponding status, where it was possible to determine this from the evidence found, is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Sett Descriptions

Sett Number(s) Sett Description and Number/Classification of Entrances

Sett Status

1 Two (2) hole sett within Tata Steel land at top of bank within woodland floor.

Well defined mammal runs from it to other setts in the valley sides. Both holes blocked completely with dead leaves and no signs of usage. Tunnels open. Cobwebbed across entrance. No vegetation surrounding entrances.

Previously recorded runs have become less distinct, suggesting limited use.

Outlier (Inactive)

2 Two (2) hole sett located within woodland floor on south facing slope beneath the roosts of a mature apple tree.

Entrances collapsed. No signs of digging or spoil.

No vegetation immediately surrounding entrances.


Outlier (Inactive)

3 Single hole sett with a stone slab forming the entrance. Located at the top of wooded bank in line with Sett 1.

Sett abandoned by badger and occupied and extended by Rabbits. Rabbit droppings in entrances.

No vegetation immediately surrounding entrance.


Single Hole (Inactive)

4 Single hole sett located on north facing slope within woodland floor.

Occupied by Rabbit. Rabbit droppings in entrances.

Approximately 50% covered by vegetation.

Adjacent levels of Rabbit and Fox activity high.

Single Hole (Inactive)


8


Sett Status

5 Nine (9) hole sett located on north facing slope on woodland floor. No evidence of usage by Badger. Only 2 holes remain open, others collapsed or blocked by debris. Open holes appear to be used by Fox, due to size and shape of entrances and presence of feeding remains close to entrances.

Approximately 40-50% covered by vegetation.


Annex (Inactive)

7 Thirteen (13) hole sett located within vegetated banks in woodland floor. Two north facing and 11 south facing entrances.

Well worn runs lead between entrances throughout the embankment and lead to the east and west. Two blocked entrances, with dead leaves at entrance and collapsed tunnels. Eleven open entrances and signs of use with spoil, prints and bedding.

Snuffle holes and latrines present to the east.

Well defined run leading into meadow.

Vegetation cover immediately adjacent to holes covering approximately 50% of entrances at least partially.

Sett appears to have been extended to the east, with truncated hole with fresh spoil located immediately to the east of the previously recorded sett.

Main Sett (Active)

8 Single entrance, open within west facing slope in woodland within metalled fenced area adjacent to the site. Single access point from wider area through gap in fencing but no clear runs to sett. Metal stake planted in opening. Remains accessible.

Signs of use by Fox with hairs and strong scent. No spoil or bedding.

Vegetation covering 60% of entrance.

Single Hole (Presumed disused)

10 Five (5) entrances within north facing slope in fenced woodland area. Entrances adjacent to mature Silver Birch. In close proximity to newt fencing erected as part of the construction of the Corby Northern Orbital Road.

No evidence of recent usage and runs have become indistinct.

Well used with prints and limited volume of spoil.

Outlier (Inactive)


9


Sett Status

No bedding.

11 Single entrance. Small spoil mound has largely eroded away, no bedding.

Entrance clear of vegetation, partially blocked with dead leaves.

Outlier (Inactive)

12 Six (6) hole sett located beneath mature Hawthorn adjacent to stone steps running to Willow Brook. South facing and free of vegetation. All but 1 entrance hole blocked by leaves and debris. Sett has become significantly less active since the previous visit.

No bedding but recent spoil and tracks.

Subsidiary (Active)

13 Five (5) hole sett with 4 open entrances and 1 partially open with tunnel collapsed. Located on east facing bank in close proximity to metal fencing. No vegetation adjacent to entrances. No spoil or bedding.

Former Outlier/Subsidiary sett now extensively used by Fox and Rabbit. Significant number of new holes (Rabbit) to the south of the Badger entrances and smell of Fox in former Badger sett.

Outlier/Subsidiary sett (Presumed disused)

14 Single entrance within low bank on the western side of the metal fence.

Low vegetation cover, not obscuring entrance.

No fresh spoil or bedding, but debris in entrance.

Single hole (Inactive)

15 Single hole sett located in a small mound immediate adjacent to a Hawthorn tree, and with a south facing aspect. The small spoil heap is relatively fresh and the entrance is free of leaves or debris. Tracks lead towards main sett.

Outlier (Active)

16 Partly active outlier sett consisting of 4 holes, 2 of which have partly collapsed. No evidence of recent use but sett is still connected by tracks to adjacent setts, although these are relatively indistinct.

Annex (Partly Active)

17 An in progress extension to the main sett (Sett 7). A significant amount of very fresh spoil was recorded, which lies immediately to the east of the main sett. The spoil appears to have been excavated from a curtailed tunnel.

N/A


10


Sett Status

18 A disused outlier sett consisting of 7 former entrances all of which are collapsed and blocked. The former entrances are located on a mound below a dense Hawthorn canopy. There is no evidence of tracks or other signs of badger activity.

Outlier (Inactive)

19 A disused outlier sett consisting of 3 former entrances all of which are collapsed and blocked. There is no evidence of tracks or other signs of Badger activity.

Outlier (Inactive)

3.2 A total of 16 setts were identified within the habitats to the north of the development site, all of which were located in excess of 30 metres from the development site and separated by a metalled fence approximately 2 metres high.

3.3 In relation to previously recorded Badger activity, the 2016 Badger Survey indicated that the focus of Badger activity is becoming more concentrated in the west of the survey area, in the vicinity of the main sett. Latrines were recorded in this area, along with well worn mammal runs leading to and from sett entrances throughout this area.

3.4 Conversely, Badger activity in the enclosed area immediately to the north of the proposed development site has become significantly reduced with many setts becoming abandoned and/or evidence of recent activity reducing throughout this area.

3.5 Extensive evidence of Fox and Rabbit activity are located throughout the survey area.

3.6 In addition, a small group of Roe Deer was recorded immediately adjacent to the development site, (8 Fallow Deer were recorded in a similar location during an earlier survey), with droppings and tracks throughout the enclosed section.


11

4.0 Impacts 4.1 None of the identified Badger setts are located within 30 metres of the development site and

no impacts as a consequence of the proposed modifications to 13/00079/WASTEFUL. The site contains limited foraging habitat only for this species along the poor semi-improved grassland and line of trees running along the northern perimeter of the development site. There is no direct access to the Willow Brook or the enclosed woodland pLWS from the site for Badger due to the metal boundary fence. No adverse direct impacts on the favourable conservation status of the local Badger population are, therefore, predicted.

4.2 In the absence of mitigation, additional noise and lighting in place during the construction phase could result in adverse impacts on the functionality of the adjacent habitats for Badger. Given the high levels of lighting and activity levels already in place at the site, impacts are considered minor adverse and temporary during the construction phase only.


12

5.0 Recommendations and Requirements Further Survey

5.1 Further survey would be necessary if works were delayed for 1 year or more. During any intervening period and the commencement of works on site, it is recommended that setts are re-surveyed so that their current status remains known and to inform an assessment of impacts.

Licensing and Planning

5.2 No licence is required from Natural England as no active Badger setts will be impacted by the development, including the proposed amendment to 13/00079/WASTEFUL.

Mitigation

5.3 All mitigation options provided follow the established Mitigation Hierarchy as set out in Section 5.2 of the British Standard on Biodiversity (BS42020:2013). This seeks as a preference to avoid impacts then to mitigate unavoidable impacts, and, as a last resort, to compensate for unavoidable residual impacts that remain after avoidance and mitigation measures. To comply with guidance set out in Section 10.2 and Annex D.4.5 of BS42020:2013, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should be produced prior to the commencement of all site clearance works.

5.4 The proposed development will be contained within the hardstanding/sparse ephemeral/short perennial that makes up the vast majority of the site, therefore, the integrity of the Badger population within the adjacent pLWS will not be directly affected. However, it is recommended that temporary hoarding be positioned at the boundaries of the site (at the edge of the hardstanding) to ensure the protection of sensitive ecological receptors during construction operations and to reduce light and noise spill into the adjacent semi-natural habitats. In addition, no works must be undertaken during the hours of darkness.

5.5 To ensure that the margins of the site and suitable habitat on adjacent land retain their potential attractiveness for Badger, a sensitive lighting regime is recommended, whereby these habitats are not continually lit throughout the hours of darkness. Any security lighting should also be directional (i.e. away from the Willow Brook) and on sensors/timers where possible.


13

6.0 References Botanical Society for the British Isles (2007). BSBI 2007 List. Available at: http://www.bsbi.org.uk/taxonomy.html [Accessed on 4th June 2015].

Harris, S., Cresswell, P. and Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying Badgers. The Mammal Society

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.cieem.net/ecia-guidelines-terrestrial-freshwater-and-coastal- [Accessed on 4th June 2015].

Keystone Ecology (2015). Ecological Appraisal. Keystone Ecology, Tetbury.

National Biodiversity Network (2015). NBN Gateway Species Dictionary. Available at: http://nbn.org.uk/Tools-Resources/NBN-Dictionaries/Species-Dictionary.aspx [Accessed on 4th June 2015].

Natural England (2007). Badgers and Development: A Guide to Best Practice and Licensing [Interim Guidance Document]. Natural England. [Online]. Available at: http://naturalengland.twoten.com/naturalenglandshop/docs/IN75.pdf [Accessed on 4th June 2015].

Natural England (2009a) Guidance on ‘Current Use’ in the Interpretation of a Badger Sett. Natural England [Online]. Available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG17_tcm6-11815.pdf [Accessed on 26th May 2015].

Natural England (2009b) Interpretation of ‘Disturbance’ in Relation to Badgers Occupying a Sett. Natural England [Online]. Available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/WMLG16_tcm6-11814.pdf [Accessed on 26th May 2015].

Natural England (2015). Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England. Available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx [Accessed on 26th May 2015].

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

Northamptonshire Biodiversity Partnership (2008). Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan Second Edition. Available from: http://www.northamptonshirebiodiversity.org/default.asp_PageID=17&n=View+the+BAP.html [Accessed on 4th June 2015].

Web Addresses for Access to Full Legislation and Policy Text:

National Planning Policy Framework: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf


14

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents The Protection of Badgers Act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69


Plans

.................................................

.................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.................................................

.................................................

.................................................

.................................................

................................................. ..................................................................................................

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111112222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333355555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555556666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888889999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

10101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

12121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212121212

13131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313131313

14141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414141414

15151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515151515

1616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161617171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717171717

1818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181819191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919191919


Entran

03/06/2015


Badger Survey Results

Key

Shelton Road, Corby

Badger sett by classification and status(Sett ID displayed)

Main (Active)

Subsidiary (Active)Single hole (Active)

................................................. Annex (Inactive)

................................................. Outlier/Subsidiary (Inactive)

................................................. Outlier (Inactive)

................................................. Single hole (Inactive)

Rabbit (Active)Fox (Active)

Survey area

Site boundary



All dimensions/locations are to be checked on site

Measurements/locations displayed are for indicative purposes only



Welsh Office T+44(0) 2920 504024



rev0 RF SJ

0 200 400 600

Meters


Appendices


Appendix 1 Badger Sett Assessment Criteria Information sourced from Harris et al., (1989) and Neal & Cheeseman (1996).

Sett Status

Main setts - These are the most frequently used and appear to be large, well-established, often extensive and with large spoil heaps outside the entrances. Main setts are typically associated with an obvious network of paths leading to, from and around the entrances. There is generally only one main sett per social group of Badgers where the average number of entrances is 15.

Annexe setts - Regularly used, though not necessarily all of the time, with several entrances, annexe setts are smaller than the main sett and occur in close association with it (usually within 150 metres). They are normally linked to the main sett by clear well-used paths and consist of 6 entrance holes on average.

Subsidiary setts - These are further away from the main sett (50 metres or more) and typically comprise of 5 entrance holes on average. They are not continuously active, with no obvious path connecting them to the main sett. For this reason their ‘ownership’ can often only be determined by

bait-marking.

Outlying setts - Sporadically used with few holes, outlying setts can be found anywhere within the territory and usually have small spoil heaps, indicating that they are not very extensive underground. There are no obvious paths connecting them to other setts and Foxes or Rabbits may colonise them when not in use by Badger.

Single hole setts are normally included in this category as well. These are also generally in sporadic use by Badgers and often exhibit few field signs to demonstrate evidence of Badger activity. Some may be occupied by a breeding female and Foxes may take over the hole when not in use by Badgers.

Entrance Status

The size, status and level of activity of each sett can be assessed by counting the number of entrance holes. The degree of use of each entrance hole can be classified as follows:

Well-used holes - clear of any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular use. There may be evidence of regular excavation or fresh footprints.

Well-used holes with bedding - same as above but with bedding material present.

Partially-used holes - not in regular use and with debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance, or have moss and/or other plants growing in or around the entrance. To make use of the hole again, a minimum amount of clearance would be required.

Disused holes - have not been in use for some time, are partially or completely blocked, and would require considerable clearance before they could be used. Long-


disused holes may simply be a depression in the ground together with the remains of a spoil heap, which may be covered in moss or plants.


Keystone Contact Details

Project Manager

Dr Sarah Cox CEcol, CEnv, MCIEEM Head of Ecology

Northern Office Riverside Suite, The Old Corn Mill, Bullhouse Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Sheffield, S36 9NN T +44 (0) 1484 540533 M +44 (0) 7720 740282 E [email protected] www.keyenv.co.uk/ecology

Head/Southern Office The Old Barn, Park Farm Buildings, Beverston, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8TT T +44 (0) 1666 503687

Northern Office Riverside Suite, The Old Corn Mill, Bullhouse Mill, Lee Lane, Millhouse Green, Sheffield, S36 9NN T +44 (0) 1484 540533

Welsh Office Falcon Drive, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, CF10 4RU T +44 (0) 2920 504024

APPENDIX 11 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION€¦ · 11 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION. ... 3.11...

Documents

Transcript of APPENDIX 11 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION€¦ · 11 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION. ... 3.11...