Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Middlezoy Rovers FC

Transcription

The natural choice for good advice
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
Middlezoy Rovers FC, Westonzoyland
May 2016
A report by
Colin Hicks BSc (Hons) MCIEEM, Principal Ecologist
Western Ecology, The Linney, Trewandra, Tideford, Cornwall PL12 5JA
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 01752 852174
Report details
Site name:
Grid reference:
Survey date:
Report date:
Report author:
Middlezoy Rovers FC
ST 357 346
6th May 2016
11th May 2016
Colin Hicks BSc (Hons), MCIEEM
Declaration of compliance
BS 42020:2013
This study has been undertaken in accordance with British Standard 42020:2013
Biodiversity, Code of Practice for Planning and Development.
Code of Professional Conduct
The information which we have prepared is true, and has been prepared and
provided in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management’s Code of Professional Conduct. We confirm that the opinions
expressed are our true and professional bona fide opinions.
Validity of survey data and report
The findings of this report are valid for 24 months from the date of survey. If work has
not commenced within this period, an updated survey by a suitably qualified ecologist
will be required.
Middlezoy Rovers FC – Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, May 2016
Page 2 of 24
Non-technical summary
Western Ecology has been commissioned to provide an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
at Middlezoy Rovers Football Club at Westonzoyland near Bridgewater in Somerset. The
proposals for this site comprises the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a
new parking area, buildings and football pitches.
Site description
The Site comprises an area of land managed as a football pitch and its margins, with
associated access road and buildings. The Site is enclosed by a post and wire fence to three
sides with no formal boundary to the fourth. A row of conifers trees was present along the
access road.
No recommendations are made to ensure compliance with nature conservation legislation
and planning policy in relation to habitats.
To ensure compliance with nature conservation legislation and planning policy, the following
recommendations are made with regards to species:
Birds
There is some potential for nesting birds to be present within the confer trees along
the access road during the period March to August. Removal of these trees should
be completed during the period September to February inclusive, outside the
accepted bird nesting season. If this is not practicable, any woody vegetation to be
removed should be thoroughly inspected by a suitably qualified person prior to
disturbance or removal. If nesting birds are found all activities likely to damage the
immediate area should be delayed until chicks have fledged.
recommendations are made with regards statutory and non-statutory nature conservation
sites:
SSSI Risk Zone
It is the conclusion of this report that as a result of separation distances and the
nature of the interest features of Langmead and Weston Levels SSSI, and King’s
Sedgemoor SSSI, there is negligible risk that proposed development would have a
significant impact.
However, due to its location within a SSSI Risk Zone, the competent authority should
seek advice from Natural England as to the potential for this proposal to impact these
SSSIs.
Further survey work
Information within this report is sufficient to allow a robust assessment of the potential effects
on the ecological features associated, or potentially associated, with this site. No further
survey work is required.
Page 3 of 24
Table of contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. The development ..................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Survey aims ............................................................................................................. 5
1.3. Site location ............................................................................................................. 5
2. Survey Methodology ......................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Desktop survey ........................................................................................................ 6
2.2. Field survey ............................................................................................................. 6
2.3. Survey constraints ................................................................................................... 7
2.4. Study area ............................................................................................................... 7
3. Results .............................................................................................................................. 8
3.1. Site description ........................................................................................................ 8
3.2. Phase 1 habitats ...................................................................................................... 8
3.3. Biological records search ....................................................................................... 10
3.4. Potential for species of nature conservation importance ........................................ 11
3.5. Pest species .......................................................................................................... 12
Map 1. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, May 2016 ................................................... 13
4. Evaluation of ecological features and potential impacts .................................................. 14
4.1. Habitats of nature conservation importance ........................................................... 14
4.2. Species of nature conservation importance ........................................................... 14
4.3. Statutory nature conservation sites ........................................................................ 16
4.4. Non-statutory nature conservation sites ................................................................. 17
5. Recommendations for mitigation and further surveys ...................................................... 18
5.1. Habitats of nature conservation importance ........................................................... 18
5.2. Species of nature conservation importance ........................................................... 18
5.3. Statutory nature conservation sites ........................................................................ 19
5.4. Summary of net losses and gains to biodiversity.................................................... 19
6. Further survey work ........................................................................................................ 19
7. Biodiversity enhancement ............................................................................................... 20
References ......................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 1: ......................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix 2: ......................................................................................................................... 24
Page 4 of 24
1. Introduction
Western Ecology has been commissioned to provide an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
at Middlezoy Rovers Football Club at Westonzoyland near Bridgewater in Somerset.
1.1. The development
The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new
parking area, buildings and football pitches.
1.2. Survey aims
The survey and this report identify features of conservation importance that could constitute
a constraint to the proposals for this site. Where appropriate, recommendations for impact
avoidance, mitigation and post-development enhancement are made to ensure compliance
with wildlife legislation and relevant planning policy.
This survey has been prepared in accordance with the ‘Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal’ produced by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
(CIEEM, 2012).
1.3. Site location
The site is on the eastern edge of the village of Westonzoyland with the Westonzoyland
airfield to its north and east, the busy A372 highway to its south and the fringes of the village
to its west.
Page 5 of 24
2. Survey Methodology
2.1. Desktop survey
The desktop survey collated existing biological records for the site and adjacent areas, and
identified any nature conservation sites that may be affected by the proposals. This
comprises an important part of the assessment process, providing information on ecological
issues that may not be apparent during the site survey.
Consultees for the data search included:
• Somerset Environmental Records Centre provided biological records for
protected/notable species and non-statutory sites within 1km of the site.
• Natural England - GIS dataset of SSSI Impact Risk Zones, statutory nature
conservation sites and Ancient Woodland.
Species data was examined for protected and notable species records. An assessment was
then made, based on known habitat preferences, as to whether these species may be
present within the site and how they may be affected by the proposal.
The location of nature conservation sites was examined to determine their ecological and
landscape relationships with the proposed site. An assessment was then made of how the
sites may be affected by the proposal, taking into account these relationships, and the
species and/or habitat types for which the nature conservation site was chosen.
SSSI Impact Risk Zones are areas where the proposed planned change to the environment
could either create significant damage to a local SSSI, or alternatively those projects could
require more planning and consultation in order to avoid impacting on those sites. The
assessments are made according to the particular sensitivities of the features for which the
SSSI is notified and specifies the types of development that have the potential to have
adverse impacts.
In compliance with the terms and conditions relating to its commercial use, the full desk
study data is not provided within this report.
2.2. Field survey
A walkover survey of the site was completed by Colin Hicks, an experienced ecologist and a
Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM).
The survey was completed between 17:30 and 18:30 on 6th May 2016 with an air
temperature of 15oC, light northerly winds, sunny and dry.
Habitats were classified using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology developed by the
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, 2010) and modified by the Institute of
Environmental Assessment (IEA, 1995). The main plant species were recorded and broad
habitat types mapped. Habitats encountered are described within the Results section with a
map included within the report. Plant species were identified according to Stace (1997) and
a list of species within each habitat type is included in Appendix 2.
Page 6 of 24
During this survey, any obvious evidence of protected species was noted and site habitats
were assessed for their potential to support notable or protected species.
2.3. Survey constraints
All areas of the site were readily accessible, although at the time of the survey some species
would not have been evident or identifiable due to seasonality, and would have been
overlooked. However, given the nature of the habitats present, this was not considered to be
a significant constraint to a robust initial site assessment.
2.4. Study area
The study area of the biological records search is within 1km of the site for notable species
and local nature conservation sites. The study area for the survey was the footprint of the
proposed development, its immediate boundaries and any areas that may be employed to
provide compensation for biodiversity impacts. This is the area included within the line
described as “Survey area” within the legend of Map 1.
Page 7 of 24
3. Results
3.1. Site description
The Site comprises an area of land managed as a football pitch and its margins, with
associated access road and buildings. The Site is enclosed by a post and wire fence to three
sides with no formal boundary to the fourth. A row of conifers trees was present along the
access road.
3.2. Phase 1 habitats
Habitats have been classified using the Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology and are
described below and detailed in Map 1. Habitats which are important in terms of legislation
or policy are identified.
Amenity grassland
Most of the Site comprised grassland that has been managed as a football pitch and
adjacent amenity areas (Image 1). The grassland was close-mown and low in diversity with
Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne, Cock’s Foot Dactylis glomerata and meadow-grasses
Poa sp. Associated forbs included Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg., Daisy Bellis
perennis and Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum.
Disturbed areas at the edges of the amenity grassland supported a slightly more diverse
community of herbs with Pineappleweed Matricaria discoidea, Black Medic Medicago
lupulina and Ragwort Senecio jacobaea.
These habitats have little value for biodiversity due to their management and lack of species
diversity.
Image 1. Amenity grassland the Site
Bare ground
A stoned road provides vehicular access to the Site and bare ground is associated with built
structures. These habitats have negligible value for biodiversity.
Page 8 of 24
Building
There are three enclosed buildings within the Site comprising the changing rooms (Image 2),
a generator store and a collapsing shed in the north.
The changing rooms and generator store are concrete walled and concrete roofed with no
potential for bats or birds to access.
Image 2. Changing rooms
The collapsing shed would not provide a resting place for bats, nor a nesting site for birds,
due to its collapsed nature (Image 3).
Image 3. The collapsing shed
Open fronted stands are present along the western edge of the football pitch.
These buildings have no value for biodiversity.
Conifers
A row of cypress conifers was present along the eastern edge of the site access road.
These trees may support an occasional nesting bird.
Fence
The Site is enclosed to three sides by post and wire fencing.
Page 9 of 24
3.3. Biological records search
Amphibians - The biological record search returned no records for amphibians within 1km
of the Site.
Bats - The biological record search returned 6 records for bats. The species recorded are
detailed in Table 1
Table 1. Bat records within 1km of the Site
English name
Common Pipistrelle
Soprano Pipistrelle
Unidentified bat
Number of records
1
1
4
Birds – The biological record search returned a number of records for notable birds that
included Barn Owl, Merlin, Tundra Swan, Hen Harrier, Marsh Harrier, Firecrest and
Peregrine, all species that would not be active at this site. There are also records for House
Sparrow that is likely to be occasionally active here.
Common Dormouse - The biological record search returned no records for Common
Dormouse.
Hedgehogs - The biological record search returned no records for Hedgehogs.
Otter - The biological record search returned no records for Otter.
Water Vole - The biological record search returned one record for Water Vole from 2004 on
a watercourse 850 metres to the south of the Site.
Brown Hare - The biological record search returned one record for Brown Hare from 1996
on the adjacent Westonzoyland Airfield.
Reptiles - The biological record search returned one record for Grass Snake and one for
Adder.
Invertebrates - The biological record search returned records for notable invertebrates that
included beetles, bugs and butterflies. None of these records are from the Site.
Flora – The biological record search returned records for flowering plants normally
associated with damp ground and watercourses. None of these records are from the Site.
Statutory nature conservation sites
There are no statutory nature conservation sites within the Site or at its boundaries.
The Site is within an Impact Risk Zone for “All planning applications with a new/additional
footprint of greater than 500m2 outside existing settlements/urban areas”. This is due to its
spatial relationship with Langmead and Weston Levels Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
located 0.75km to the south of the Site, and King's Sedgemoor SSSI 2km to its east.
Page 10 of 24
Non-statutory nature conservation sites
The Site is not within or adjacent to a non-statutory nature conservation site.
Lang Moor Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is 870metres to the north west, Pigditch Rhyne network
LWS is 750 metres to the south west and Weston Level LWS is 850 metres to the south
west.
Ancient woodland
The Site is not within or adjacent to an area of woodland included within the Ancient
Woodland inventory.
3.4. Potential for species of nature conservation importance
Habitats have been assessed using the results of the field survey and biological records
search for their potential to support the following protected species. Where there is no
potential for a species or species group to be present within the Site, or where habitats with
the potential to support this species or species group will not be impacted by the proposals,
they may be scoped out at this stage.
Amphibians
Regularly managed habitats at the Site have negligible potential for amphibians and there
are no watercourses onsite or nearby.
It is extremely unlikely that amphibians are present and they do not need to be considered
further.
Badger
No Badger pathways, setts or other signs of Badgers were found at the Site. Badgers do not
need to be considered further.
Bats
Buildings at the Site have no potential for roosting bats whilst other habitats do not provide
strong linear features for commuting bats.
An occasional bat may forage across amenity grassland within the Site
Birds
It is likely that an occasional bird will nest within the conifer trees, although buildings at the
Site have little potential.
Common Dormice
Habitats within the Site have no potential for Common Dormice and they do not need to be
considered further.
Hedgehogs
There is potential that Hedgehogs may occasionally forage across the Site.
Page 11 of 24
Reptiles
Habitats within the Site have no potential for reptiles and they do not need to be considered
further.
Otter
There are no aquatic habitats within the site or its boundaries suitable for foraging Otter.
Otter do not need to be considered further.
Water Vole
There are no aquatic habitats within the site or its boundaries suitable for Water Vole. Water
Vole do not need to be considered further.
Brown Hare
Habitats within the Site do not provide sufficient cover for Brown Hare and they do not need
to be considered further.
Invertebrates
Intensively managed grasslands have limited potential for invertebrates due to frequent
disturbance and lack of plant diversity. Invertebrates do not need to be considered further.
Flora
Intensively managed grassland at this site has negligible potential for less common flowering
plants and they do not need to be considered further.
3.5. Pest species
No plant species listed as invasive non-native under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) were present within the survey area.
Page 12 of 24
4. Evaluation of ecological features and potential impacts
Ecological features that have the potential to be present have been assessed in light of
current nature conservation policy, planning policy and wildlife legislation by an experienced
ecologist (see Appendix 1). Where necessary, the ecological value of an ecological feature
is given along with the potential effect of the proposed development.
If it is considered that the proposed development is likely to have no effect on features that
have been identified as present, or potentially present, they may be scoped out at this stage.
4.1. Habitats of nature conservation importance
Protected habitats
Habitats are protected under international and national legislation including The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and Wildlife and Countryside Act
1981 (as amended). These have been formulated into policy measures, with many examples
protected under formal site designations such as SSSIs and SACs.
No habitats of European Community Importance as defined within The Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 were present within this site. Protected habitats of
this type are not a consideration for this project.
Notable habitats
Sixty five habitats are listed as being of principal importance, in the Secretary of State’s
opinion, for the purposes of conserving biodiversity. Under section 41 (England) of the
NERC Act (2006) there is a need for these habitats to be taken into consideration by a public
body when performing any of its functions with a view to conserving biodiversity. These
habitats are the subject of National and Local Biodiversity Action Plans.
There are no notable habitats associated with the Site or its boundaries.
4.2. Species of nature conservation importance
Overview
Many native wild plants and animals are protected by law with the two main legal
instruments being the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The latter consolidates
amendments to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 which transposed
the EU Habitats Directive into UK Law.
Eight hundred and ninety-seven species of fungi, plant or animal are listed as being of
principal importance, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, for the purposes of conserving
biodiversity. Under section 41 (England) of the NERC Act (2006) there is a need for these
species to be taken into consideration by a public body when performing any of its functions
with a view to conserving biodiversity. These species are the subject of National and Local
Biodiversity Action Plans.
Page 14 of 24
Bats
Bats species, and their breeding or resting places (roosts), are protected under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010. They are identified as European Protected Species. Under these laws it is
an offence to:
•
•
•
•
capture, kill, disturb or injure bats (on purpose or by not taking enough care);
damage or destroy a breeding or resting place (even accidentally);
obstruct access to their resting or sheltering places (on purpose or by not taking
enough care); or
possess, sell, control or transport live or dead bats, or parts of them.
Seven species of bat are listed as species “of principal importance for the purpose of
conserving biodiversity”.
The Site has no potential for roosting bats or strong linear features for commuting bats.
It is likely that occasional bats forage across the football pitch and adjacent amenity
grassland. However, this is a low value habitat that is unlikely to support sufficient flying
insects for regular foraging by bats. The loss of a small area of this habitat to new parking
areas is unlikely to have a significant effect on foraging bats. No mitigation for bats is
required.
Birds
All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from
being killed, injured or captured, whilst their nests and eggs are protected from being
damaged, destroyed or taken. Birds which are listed under Schedule 1 of the Act are given
additional protection against disturbance.
Forty-five species of bird are listed as species “of principal importance for the purpose of
conserving biodiversity”.
Conifer trees in the south of the Site may support an occasional nesting bird. If site
clearance is to be completed in the bird nesting season (March to August) mitigation may be
required.
Any construction activities that expose invertebrates, such as earth worms and grubs, will
provide an additional food resource for local birds and will have a short term positive effect,
particularly when adults are feeding nested chicks.
Hedgehog
Hedgehogs are partially protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act and may not be
trapped without a licence from Natural England. Hedgehogs are listed as a species “of
principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.
Page 15 of 24
There is potential that Hedgehogs occasionally forage across the Site. However, habitats
associated with the finished development are likely to provide good foraging opportunities for
Hedgehog. No mitigation is required.
4.3. Statutory nature conservation sites
Due to its spatial relationship with Langmead and Weston Levels SSSI and King's
Sedgemoor SSSI, the proposed development is within an Impact Risk Zone for all planning
applications with a new/additional footprint of greater than 500m2 outside existing
settlements/urban areas.
Langmead and Weston Levels SSSI
Langmead and Weston Levels SSSI form part of the nationally important grazing marsh and
ditch systems of the Somerset Levels and Moors. The site is nationally important for its
species-rich neutral grassland and the invertebrate community found in the ditches and
rhynes. The land lies in the flood plain of the River Parrett and many of the fields are poorly
drained and seasonally water-logged. Soils are variable with peat soils in the east and silty
alluvial clays mainly of the Newchurch, Chattis and Windrush series in the west.
Due to a separation distance of more than 750 metres combined with the non-motile nature
of the SSSI interest features, there is negligible risk that construction and operation of the
proposed development will impact Langmead and Weston Levels SSSI.
King's Sedgemoor SSSI
King's Sedgemoor SSSI is part of the extensive grazing marsh grasslands and ditch systems
of the Somerset Levels and Moors. A wide variety of neutral grasslands has developed, due
mainly to variation in management practice. A high water table with shallow standing water
on some fields and abundant soil invertebrates makes the area attractive to wintering birds
and it is of outstanding importance for breeding waders. No mitigation is required.
King's Sedgemoor Drain is known to be an important river corridor for Otter.
Habitats within the development footprint would have the potential to support small numbers
of Lapwing and Golden Plover, both of which are interest features of this SSSI, if they were
isolated from the road and the adjacent village. However, constant disturbance by vehicles
along the adjacent highway combined with dog walkers and visitors to the existing football
ground would make the Site unsuitable for these birds. It is also unlikely that this managed
amenity grassland would provide much in the way of food items.
Due to a separation distance of more than 2000 metres, and the unsuitability of habitats
within the site for motile species from the SSSI, there is negligible risk that construction and
operation of the proposed development will impact King's Sedgemoor Drain SSSI.
However, due to its location within the SSSI Risk Zone the competent authority should seek
advice from Natural England as to the potential for this proposal to impact this statutory
nature conservation site and its interest features. No mitigation is required.
Page 16 of 24
4.4. Non-statutory nature conservation sites
Lang Moor LWS, Pigditch Rhyne network LWS and Weston Level LWS are all within 750 to
870 metres of the Site. These LWS were all selected for grassland habitats.
Due to a separation distance of more than 750 metres, combined with the non-motile nature
of the criteria for which these LWS were selected, there is negligible risk that construction
and operation of the proposed development will impact a non-statutory nature conservation
site. No mitigation is required.
Page 17 of 24
5. Recommendations for mitigation and further surveys
Mitigation
Where there is potential that the proposed development will have a significant1 effect on a
valued ecological feature of nature conservation interest, recommendations for mitigation are
made based on the mitigation hierarchy suggested in Paragraph 118 of the National
Planning Policy Framework and detailed in Paragraph: 018 Reference ID: 8-018-20140306
of National Planning Practice Guidance;
•
•
•
Avoidance –significant harm to wildlife species and habitats should be avoided
through design.
Mitigation – where significant harm cannot be wholly or partially avoided, it should be
minimised by design, or by the use of effective mitigation measures that can be
secured by, for example, conditions or planning obligations.
Compensation – where, despite whatever mitigation would be effective, there would
still be significant residual harm, as a last resort, this should be properly
compensated for by measures to provide for an equivalent value of biodiversity.
Where the detail of a proposal is unknown, such as in outline planning applications, general
mitigation will be suggested. This should be re-addressed once final plans are known.
Further survey work
Where further survey work is not recommended this is because it is the professional
judgement of the ecologist that adequate information is already available and further surveys
would not make any material difference to the assessment provided.
Where the information within this report is insufficient to allow a full description of the nature
conservation features of the site along with a robust assessment of the potential effects on
these features, further survey work will be recommended.
5.1. Habitats of nature conservation importance
No recommendations are made to ensure compliance with nature conservation legislation
and planning policy in relation to habitats.
5.2. Species of nature conservation importance
recommendations are made with regards to species:
Birds
There is some potential for nesting birds to be present within the confer trees along the
access road during the period March to August. Removal of these trees should be
completed during the period September to February inclusive, outside the accepted bird
nesting season. If this is not practicable, any woody vegetation to be removed should be
1
For the purposes of this report, a practical approach has been taken to define the term ‘significant’. If an effect is sufficiently
important to be given weight in the planning process or to warrant the imposition of a planning condition, it is likely to be
‘significant’ in the context of the level under consideration (BSI, 2013).
Page 18 of 24
thoroughly inspected by a suitably qualified person prior to disturbance or removal. If nesting
birds are found all activities likely to damage the immediate area should be delayed until
chicks have fledged.
5.3. Statutory nature conservation sites
Due to its location within a SSSI Risk Zone, the competent authority should seek advice from
Natural England as to the potential for this proposal to impact Langmead and Weston Levels
SSSI, and King’s Sedgemoor SSSI.
It is the conclusion of this report that as a result of separation distances and the nature of the
interest features of these two SSSIs, there is negligible risk that proposed development
would have a significant impact.
5.4. Summary of net losses and gains to biodiversity
Table 2 provides a summary of net losses and gains to biodiversity resulting from
development with the proposed mitigation, but without biodiversity enhancement.
Table 2. Summary of net losses and gains to biodiversity
Nature
conservation
feature
Bats
Nesting birds
Statutory
nature
conservation
sites
Ancient
woodland
Potential
impact
Proposed mitigation
Outcome/Comments
Loss of
foraging habitat
None
Negligible impact
Direct harm or
injury during
site clearance
Removal of conifer trees should be completed
during the period September to February
inclusive, outside the accepted bird nesting
season. If this is not practicable, any woody
vegetation to be removed should be thoroughly
inspected by a suitably qualified person prior to
disturbance or removal. If nesting birds are
found all activities likely to damage the
immediate area should be delayed until chicks
have fledged.
Direct harm avoided
Increased food
items during
construction
Loss of habitat
or direct harm
to interest
features
Accidental
damage
Temporary positive
gain
No mitigation required
No change
Protection of these habitats during construction
by a suitable fence
Impact avoided
6. Further survey work
Information within this report is sufficient to allow a robust assessment of the potential effects
on the ecological features associated, or potentially associated, with this site. No further
survey work is required.
Page 19 of 24
7. Biodiversity enhancement
Enhancements are additional to any mitigation measures detailed above that are necessary
to deal with potential impacts on site. They are an opportunity to provide new benefits for
biodiversity as a consequence of the development being implemented.
Creating new habitats, enhancing existing habitats or providing new features, can all
contribute towards biodiversity enhancement, and helping to rebuild habitat networks in the
wider area improves ecological resilience and adaptation to climate change.
In small sites such as this with no boundary features and an open, exposed aspect, a
biodiversity gain can often be hard to attain. No additional enhancement is recommended.
Page 20 of 24
References
BSI, (2013). British Standard 42020: 2013. Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and
development. British Standards Institution, London.
CIEEM, (2012). Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. Technical Guidance Series.
Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 43 Southgate Street,
Winchester, Hampshire.
IEA (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment, Institute of Environmental
Assessment. E&FN Spon, an Imprint of Chapman and Hall. London.
JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey- a Technique for Environmental Audit.
Reprinted by JNCC, Peterborough
JNCC and Defra (on behalf of the Four Countries’ Biodiversity Group) (2012). UK Post-2010
Biodiversity Framework. July 2012.
Stace, C., (1997). New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Page 21 of 24
Appendix 1:
Legislation and Policy used to assess habitats and species
European Habitats and Species Directive (CEC, 1992)
The main aim of the Habitats Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by
requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild
species listed on the Annexes to the Directive at a favourable conservation status,
introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance.
European Red Data lists (IUCN, 2000)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN and the European Commission have
been working together on an initiative to assess around 6,000 European species according
to IUCN regional Red Listing Guidelines. Through this process they have produced a
European Red List identifying those species which are threatened with extinction at the
European level so that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status.
European Council Birds Directive (CEC, 1979)
The Directive provides a framework for the conservation and management of, and human
interactions with, wild birds in Europe. An important part of this Directive is the identification
and classification of Special Protected Areas (SPAs) to protected vulnerable bird species
listed in Annex 1 of the Directive and regularly occurring migrating species.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended)
This Act is the primary legislation that protects animals, plants and certain habitats in the UK.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various
amendments made to the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect
of England and Wales. The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into
national law.
The Regulations place a duty on the Secretary of State to propose a list of sites which are
important for either habitats or species. These sites form a network termed Natura 2000 and
include Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas.
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidated and improved previous legislation. Under
the Act it is an offence to kill, injure or take a Badger, or to damage or interfere with a sett
used by a Badger unless a licence is obtained from a statutory authority.
The Hedgerow Regulations 1997
The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 protect certain hedgerows from being removed (uprooted
or destroyed) if they meet certain criteria.
Page 22 of 24
The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000
This Act increases measures for the management and protection for Sites of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI) and strengthens wildlife enforcement legislation.
Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and geological conservation – statutory obligations and
their impact within the planning system
This circular provides administrative guidance on the application of the law relating to
planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. It complements the national
planning policy in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice
Guidance.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
The Act made amendments to the both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the
Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000. For example, it extended the CROW
biodiversity duty to public bodies and statutory undertakers.
UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, 2012
The ‘UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework’, published in July 2012, succeeds the UK BAP
and ‘Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach’, and is the result of a change in strategic
thinking.
National Planning Policy Framework, 2012
The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for
England and how these are expected to be applied. It contain a number of policies relating
to ecology including “minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in
biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall
decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more
resilient to current and future pressures”.
The natural choice: securing the value of nature (2011) (Natural Environment White
Paper)
This White Paper outlines the Governments vision for the future of landscape and
ecosystem services.
Biodiversity 2020
This is a national strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services based on the White
Paper.
Page 23 of 24
Appendix 2:
Plant species listed by habitat type
Amenity grassland
Latin name
Agrostis sp.
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Bellis perennis
Cerastium fontanum
Dactylis glomerata
Festuca rubra agg.
Holcus lanatus
Lolium perenne
Matricaria discoidea
Medicago lupulina
Poa sp.
Rumex obtusifolius
Senecio jacobaea
Sonchus asper
Taraxacum officinale agg.
English name
a bent
Sweet Vernal-grass
Daisy
Common Mouse-ear
Cock's-foot
Red Fescue
Yorkshire-fog
Perennial Rye-grass
Pineappleweed
Black Medick
a meadow-grass
Broad-leaved Dock
Ragwort
Prickly Sow-thistle
Dandelion
2
Abundance2
O
R
R
R
O
O
R
F
R
R
O
R
R
R
R
Abundance is estimated using the DAFOR scale that categorises % cover; D = Dominant >75%, A =
Abundant 75 – 51%, F = Frequent 50 – 26%, O = Occasional 25 – 11% and R = Rare 10 – 1%.
Page 24 of 24

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Middlezoy Rovers FC

Transcription

Similar documents

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

PowerPoint presentation

Capacity Building in Biodiversity and Impact Assessment on a Local

Climate Change Dare to move

cultural heritage ecology

Glen Haffy Conservation Area Trail Map

Marina de Joyuda - staging.files.cms.plus.com

Aquarist

pdf, 9 Mb

View Floor Plan - The Willard at 252 West 76th Street