Biodiversity Survey of Land to the south west of Hullbridge · A walkover survey was carried out on...

Biodiversity Survey

of

Land to the south west

of Hullbridge

on behalf of

Southern and Regional Developments Ltd

August 2012

REVISION B- October 2014

© James Blake Associates 2012

Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey

JBA 10/252 2 August 2012/ April 2014

Revision Purpose Originated Checked Authorised Date

MD OR OR 08/2012

A

Updated

following

2014

walkover

ER PA MD 04/2014

B

Client

Comments ER/MD - MD 10/2014

Job Number:

JBA 10/252

Title: Biodiversity Survey of land to the south

west of Hullbridge


JBA 10/252 3 August 2012/ April 2014

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5

2. METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7

Desk study ........................................................................................................................... 7

Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...................................................................................................... 7

3. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 9

4. PROTECTED SPECIES – RESULTS AND EVALUATION ......................................... 21

5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 27

6. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 27

7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 28

8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 29

9. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 31

Appendix A: Phase 1 habitat map ..................................................................................... 31

Appendix B: Plant species list ........................................................................................... 32

Appendix C: Relevant protected species legislation .......................................................... 34


JBA 10/252 4 August 2012/ April 2014

Executive Summary

A Biodiversity Survey for a parcel of land to the south west of Hullbridge, Essex,

was undertaken on the 15th June 2012.

A walkover survey was carried out on 14th April 2014 to update the biodiversity

survey, assess whether there were any changes to habitats or protected species

issues and make recommendations.

The site was a number of grassland fields, some of which were grazed by horses

and a number of farm/ stable building, and residential properties.

Further surveys are recommended for reptiles and great crested newts. Further

surveys for bats may be required, depending on the scope of the development.

Tree, hedgerow and grassland clearance or building demolition should be carried

out outside the main bird breeding season (March until September) or following a

survey for active bird nests.

It was considered that following further surveys appropriate precautionary

measures, compensation of habitats or mitigation could be designed to allow the

development to proceed with minimal risk of harm to protected, BAP or rare

species or to local nature conservation.

By following some, or all, of the additional recommendations, outlined in the

report, the site could be enhanced for local wildlife in the long term.


JBA 10/252 5 August 2012/ April 2014

1. Introduction

Background

1.1 James Blake Associates were commissioned by Southern and Regional

Developments Ltd to undertake a Biodiversity Survey of land to the south west of

Hullbridge in Essex. Grid ref: TQ 806 946 (taken from the centre of the site).

1.2 The assessment was required to accompany a planning application to develop the

site: Development proposals are not yet finalised, and the ecology survey will help to

inform the proposed layout.

1.3 For the purposes of this report, protected species are taken to be those which are

protected under European Legislation (Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010) and UK legislation (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; Protection

of Badgers Act 1992); and other priority species and habitats which are a

consideration under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2012.

1.4 A walkover survey was carried out in 2014 by JBA Consultancy Services Ltd

(previously James Blake Associates) to update the biodiversity survey.

Site Description

1.5 The site was located to the west of Hullbridge in Essex. The River Crouch estuary

was approximately 500m to the north. The surrounding landscape was dominated by

arable land with boundary hedgerows and scattered trees. Hannover Golf and

Country Club was approximately 300m to the south east of the site and there were

numerous ponds associated with the golf course (see Figure 1 below).

1.6 The site itself was horse grazed pasture. The fields surrounded a small farm and a

number of residential properties.


JBA 10/252 6 August 2012/ April 2014

Figure 1: Site location:

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey map data by permission of Ordnance Survey,

© Crown copyright.

Aims and objectives

1.7 The aim of the survey was to:

Identify the presence, or potential presence, of any protected or notable

species or habitats on, or adjacent to, the site;

assess the potential impact of the proposed works on any protected or

notable species and/or habitats present including nature conservation sites

on, or adjacent to, the site;

make recommendations for further surveys and/or mitigation following the

survey (if necessary) and provide suggestions to enhance the wildlife value

of the site post-development.


JBA 10/252 7 August 2012/ April 2014

2. Methods

Desk study

2.1 A 2km radius search for statutory designated sites, either on the proposed

development site or in the surrounding area, was conducted using “MAGIC”, the

Multi-Agency Geographic Information system for the Countryside.

2.2 The Essex Field Club was consulted for records of non statutory sites and protected

and rare species within a 2km search radius.

2.3 The site is covered by the Local BAP for Essex (http://www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk/)

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.4 The survey in 2012 was undertaken by Mary Davies BSc (Hons) MSc MIEEM

(Licensed by Natural England to survey for great crested newts and bats) on the 15th

of June. During the survey, the temperature was 15°C, there was a gentle to

moderate breeze (Beaufort scale 3-4), 85% cloud cover and good visibility.

2.5 The 2014 walkover survey was undertaken by Ellie Rickman BSc (Hons) MSc

GradCIEEM (dormouse class licence WML-CL10A, great crested newt licence WML-

CL08) on 14th April. During the survey the temperature was 16°c, there was a gentle

breeze (Beaufort 3), 40% cloud cover and good visibility.

2.6 The survey methodology followed JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee)

Guidelines (JNCC, 2007) and included mapping habitat types and identifying all plant

species observed on the site, including Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedule 9

invasive plant species, such as Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and giant

hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum,

2.7 The site was also assessed for signs and evidence of protected, BAP and rare

species in accordance with Natural England approved guidelines, as follows:

2.8 Amphibians: Ponds within 500m of the site boundary were not accessible at the

time of survey. Assessment is based on terrestrial habitat suitability and data search

results. There were no ponds within the site boundary.

2.9 Bats: Mature trees within the site boundary, and adjacent to the site boundary, were

surveyed externally, from the ground, for their potential to support roosting bats,

under the following criteria.

http://www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk/


JBA 10/252 8 August 2012/ April 2014

Table 1: Bat Survey Protocol for Trees: (potential bat roosting features were

identified in order to categorise trees, as below):

Bat Roost Potential Field signs

Roost Confirmed Confirmed bat roost in tree: Field evidence of the past or

current presence of bats, e.g. droppings, staining.

High roost potential

Splits or cracks in major limbs which develop upwards,

smooth surface around entry point, dense ivy-covering,

woodpecker/rot holes, significant lifting bark, artificial bird

or bat boxes. Ancient or over mature trees where the

canopy cannot be fully inspected from the ground.

Medium roost potential Splits in branches, dense ivy-covering, small cavities,

dense epicormic growth, flies around entry point.

Low roost potential

Splits in minor branches, sparse ivy, limited loose bark.

Young, healthy tree with good visibility to the top of the

canopy.

No roost potential

Trees with a negligible potential to support bat roosts

(not supporting any of the above features)

Bat Survey Protocol for buildings: Farm buildings and residential properties within

the site were externally assessed for signs or evidence of past or present usage by

roosting bats. Binoculars were used to check for entry points such as cracks or

holes, plus evidence of bat activity such as staining, droppings, feeding remains

(such as butterfly or moth wings) that could indicate past presence of bats. There

was no internal access.

2.10 Dormice: A visual survey for the presence of suitable habitat (woodland/suitable

hedges with good under-storey/shrub layer and a range of food plant species, such

as hazel, bramble and honeysuckle) was carried out, to assess if dormice were likely

to be present.

2.11 Reptiles: A visual survey for the presence of suitable habitat was carried out

according to the criteria given in the Froglife Advice Sheet 1999.

2.12 Invertebrates: The site was scoped for significant rotting deadwood, and high quality

aquatic or other habitats which could be used by significant assemblages of

invertebrates, or by any of the invertebrates highlighted in the data search.


JBA 10/252 9 August 2012/ April 2014

2.13 Flora and habitats: All habitats and plant species which were identifiable at the time

of the survey were recorded.

2.14 Badgers: A visual survey for setts, hair, latrines, prints, snuffle marks or other signs

of badgers was undertaken within the site boundary.

2.15 Birds: A visual survey of bird activity and suitable nesting habitat was carried out, to

determine if any areas would be suitable for WCA Schedule 1 birds, Birds of

Conservation Concern or other common and widespread nesting birds.

2.16 Adjacent Habitat: Habitats close to the site were identified, using aerial maps and

field observation, so that the ecological impact of the proposed works on the wider

landscape could be assessed.

2.17 There was a river 30m south of the site boundary, however, this lay south of Watery

Lane and was not assessed during this survey as it is unlikely to be impacted by the

proposed development.

3. Results

Desk Study

Statutory Nature Conservation Sites

3.1 There were three statutory designated sites within 2km of the site: Two Local Nature

Reserves (LNR): Kendall Park and Fenn Washland and the Crouch and Roach

Estuaries which are designated as RAMSAR sites, Special Protection Area (SPA),

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

No other RAMSAR, SPA or SAC sites were present within 5km of the site. These are

detailed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2.


JBA 10/252 10 August 2012/ April 2014

Table 2: Statutory conservation sites within 2km of the site

Site Name Designation Distance from Site

Description

Kendall Park LNR 400m north No Information

Fenn Washland LNR 1.3km north No Information

Crouch and Roach Estuaries

(Essex Estuaries)

RAMSAR, SPA, SAC, SSSI

(forms part of the Essex Estuaries

European Marine Site)

470m north

This is a large estuarine site in south-east England, and is a typical, undeveloped,

coastal plain estuarine system with associated open coast mudflats and sandbanks. The site

is of importance for wintering waterbirds, especially Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta b. bernicla. The Crouch and Roach Estuary is an integral component of the phased Mid-Essex

Coast SPA.


JBA 10/252 11 August 2012/ April 2014

Figure 2: Statutory conservation sites within 2km of the site


JBA 10/252 12 August 2012/ April 2014

Non-Statutory Nature Conservation Sites

3.2 There were two non-statutory conservation sites (Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)) within

2km of the site: Blounts Wood and Hullbridge Road Meadow These are listed in

Table 3 and shown in Figure 3.

Table 3: Non-statutory conservation sites within 2km of the site

Site Name Designation Distance from Site

Description

Blounts Wood LWS 1.6km south

east

The site comprises ancient and some secondary woodland. Much of the ancient part is characterised by old ash and hazel coppice

with oak standards.

Hullbridge Road Meadow

LWS 400m south This horse grazed meadow has green winged orchid recorded in amongst the ground flora

Habitat Types within 2km

3.3 Habitat types within the area included a number of woodlands, floodplain grazing

meadows and mudflats. Traditional orchards were also present in the surrounding

area. The nearest woodland lies approximately 1.5km to the east of the site;

traditional orchards were present to 700m east and 1.1km south west. The nearest

grazing marsh was 350m west and mudflat associated with the River Crouch were

450m to the north.


JBA 10/252 13 August 2012/ April 2014

Figure 3: Non-statutory sites within 2km


JBA 10/252 14 August 2012/ April 2014

Figure 4: Habitat types within 2km


JBA 10/252 15 August 2012/ April 2014

Protected, BAP and Rare Species

3.4 The Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) are split into three criteria. The red list is

the highest conservation priority (species needing urgent action). The amber list is

the next most critical group, followed by green. Red listed species are those that are

globally threatened according to IUCN criteria, species with populations or ranges

that have declined rapidly in recent years, and those that have declined historically

and have not shown a substantial recent recovery.

3.5 Species records held by the Essex Field Club included numerous protected, BAP

and notable flora and fauna within 2km of the site.

3.6 Full lists of UK BAP and protected amphibians, reptiles, terrestrial mammals and

flora are shown below. A reduced list of UK BAP and protected invertebrates is

shown (39 records of moths were provided which have not been included in the data

search). No bird records were provided.

Plants British Red Data List

Category

Approximate

distance from site

Year of

Record

Broad leaved spurge

Euphorbia platyphyllos Least concern 2km south west 2004

Black poplar

Populus nigra Least concern 2km south west 2004

Loose silky bent

Apera spica-venti Near threatened 2km south east 2004

Field gromwell

Lithospermum arvense Endangered 2km south west 2004

Mammals Protection Approximate

distance from site

Year of

Record

Serotine European protected 260m north 1985

Hedgehog UK BAP 600m west 2010

1.5km east 2011

Badger Badger Protection Act 1998 160m south 2007

Common pipistrelle European protected 300m west 1996

Brown long eared bat European protected & UK

BAP 1.6km south east 1994

Harvest mouse UK BAP 1km west 1999

Brown hare UK & LBAP 1.5km north east 1996


JBA 10/252 16 August 2012/ April 2014

Invertebrates Protection Approximate

distance from site

Year of

Record

Brown-banded Carder

Bee UK BAP 2km north east 2007

Shrill Carder Bee UK & LBAP 2km south 2011

Amphibians Protection Approximate distance

from site

Year of

Record

Great crested newt European protected, UK &

LBAP 410m south east 2006

WCA = Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended; UK BAP = UK Biodiversity Action Plan;

LBAP = Local Biodiversity Action Plan; BoCC = Birds of Conservation Concern

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.7 Appendix A shows a Phase 1 habitat map of the site, with Target Notes. A list of

plant species identified on the site is included in Appendix B.

Limitations and Assumptions

3.8 The baseline conditions reported and assessed in this document represent those

identified at the time of the survey on the 15th June 2012 and 14th April 2014.

Although a reasonable assessment of habitats present can be made during a single

walkover survey, seasonal variations are not observed. The full plant species list

(Appendix B) was based on the current site visit. The surveys were conducted within

the optimal time for botanical surveys. All areas of the site were accessible on the

day of the survey; however no internal inspection of the buildings was carried out.

The desk study used available records and historical data from the local area.

However, this does not provide a reliable indication of species present since records

depend entirely on survey effort in the area, which is highly variable. The data are

useful as a general guide to supplement the site visit, but absence of records does

not reflect absence of species.

Reptiles Protection Approximate distance

from site

Year of

Record

Adder

Partially protected under the WCA Schedule 5 & UK

BAP

1.8km south 2005

Common lizard 1.8km south 2005

Slow worm 300m east 2005

Grass snake 2km south 2005


JBA 10/252 17 August 2012/ April 2014

Target Notes

Target note 1

Semi-improved grassland with an average

sward height of 50-75cm. Grasses dominated

the sward: Perennial ryegrass (Loilum

perenne), cocks foot (Dactylis glomerata) and

false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius).

Frequent forbs included scentless mayweed

(Tripleurospermum inodorum), white clover

(Trifolium repens), spotted medick (Medicago

arabica) and common vetch (Vicia sativa).

Target note 2

Improved grassland, grazed by horses, with an

average sward height of 5cm. Grasses

dominated the sward: perennial ryegrass, cocks

foot and annual meadow grass (Poa annua).

Occasional forb species included, daisy (Bellis

perennis), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus

acris) and greater plantain (Plantago major).

Target note 3

The majority of hedgerows within and

surrounding the site were approximately 0.5 to

1.5m tall and well managed. Species present

included blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), elm

(Ulmus sp.), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna)

and field maple (Acer campestre).

A mature oak at Target Note 3 was considered to

have low-moderate bat roost potential from cracks

in limbs and deadwood.


JBA 10/252 18 August 2012/ April 2014

Target note 4

Unmanaged hedgerow to the north western

boundary approximately 4m tall and 2m wide.

Species included hawthorn, elder (Sambucus

nigra) and elm.

Target note 5

Mature oak (Quercus robur) tree with high bat

roost potential. Dense ivy cladding covered

potential cracks and crevices. Aerial deadwood

provided potential roosting opportunities.

Target note 6

Mature willow (Salix sp.) with a rot hole

providing potential bat roosting opportunities.


JBA 10/252 19 August 2012/ April 2014

Target note 7

Modern barn of single sheet material

construction with metal supports. Numerous

bird nests (swallows and pigeons) were

recorded inside. The barn was used as a

hay/straw store.

Target note 8

Livestock barns of block and corrugated

asbestos sheet construction with pitched

asbestos type roofs. Horse stables were of

timber and corrugated metal construction. Bird

nests were recorded within the animal barns.

One of the buildings at Target note 8, currently

being used as stables, had a

disused hayloft and brickwork with potential

crevices that could be used by roosting bats.

Target note 9

Bungalow with a pitched, hipped, tiled roof.

Externally, the walls were pebble dash

rendered making them very well sealed.

Windows and door frames were uPVC and

were well sealed into the surrounding walls.


JBA 10/252 20 August 2012/ April 2014

Target note 10

Modern bungalow with a pitched, hipped, tiled

roof which was well sealed. Brick walls were

well sealed. uPVC and wooden windows and

doors were well sealed into the surrounding

brickwork. Lead flashing associated with the

roof structure was well sealed

Target note 11

Part single storey, part two-storey building

externally rendered and very well sealed. The

pitched tiled roof had numerous gaps

associated with the tiles providing potential

access for bats. uPVC and wooden window and

door frames were well sealed into the

surrounding walls. A flat roofed outbuilding had

a well sealed felt roof and well sealed uPVC

windows and door frames.

Target note 12

Wooden horse stables with pitched corrugated

metal/ ondulene type roofs. Roofs were not

internally lined.

Target Note 13

Numerous lorry containers and porta-cabins

were located around the farm buildings. Some

had low bat roost potential due to crevices.

Target Note 14

A small area of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia

japonica) was recorded in April 2014 behind one

of the stable blocks.


JBA 10/252 21 August 2012/ April 2014

4. Protected Species – Results and Evaluation

Flora and habitats

4.1 The majority of the site was improved and semi-improved grassland fields, some of

which were grazed by horses. Forb species were frequent within the sward, however

species recorded were generally common and wide spread.

4.2 Little had changed in terms of the management or species composition of the fields

in April 2014. The majority of the grassland was semi-improved grass with relatively

few forbs and varying levels of horse and cattle grazing. Fields to the north west had

been divided into paddocks with electric fencing, with the southern end used for

grazing and the northern section allowed to grow as a hay crop. The large fields to

the south east were also being allowed to grow for hay.

4.3 Managed hedgerows were present along field boundaries. These were dominated by

blackthorn and elm and had numerous gaps along their lengths and are therefore,

unlikely to be classified as ‘important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

4.4 No rare, or protected plant species were recorded during the survey. The data

search highlighted four rare plants within 2km of the site, which are mostly

associated with disturbed/arable habitats and unlikely to grow within grassland.

4.5 A small area of chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile), listed as vulnerable on the JNCC

Red Data List for vascular plants, was noted in the most easterly field during the

2014 walkover.

4.6 A stand of Japanese knotweed was recorded behind the stables at Target Note 14.

This is a non-native invasive plant listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act (1987) as amended. As such it is an offence to allow this species to

spread in the wild. It should be controlled in an appropriate way and disposed of at a

licensed disposal site.

4.7 No further survey is necessary.

Bats

4.8 A mature oak tree at the southern boundary of the site, and a willow tree in the

centre of the site that were considered to have moderate to high bat roost potential.

4.9 Buildings within the site, particularly the residential properties provided low potential

roosting opportunities associated mainly with the roofs. Barns and stables are


JBA 10/252 22 August 2012/ April 2014

unlikely to be used by foraging bats for roosting, but could be used by foraging bats

for shelter while feeding. No signs of bats such as droppings or feeding remains

were found within any of the barns on the site.

4.10 The data search provided records of common pipistrelle, serotine and brown long

eared bats within the surrounding area. All of these species have the potential to use

roosting opportunities at the site.

4.11 Buildings and trees within the site were checked as part of the update walkover

survey in April 2014. Buildings and the trees highlighted were unchanged and most

had low bat roost potential. The stable with a hay loft at Target Note 8 was

considered to have low to moderate bat roost potential, and the numerous porta-

cabins and lorry containers provided low roost potential for individual crevice roosting

species.

4.12 An oak at Target Note 3 was considered to have low to moderate bat roost potential

due to cracks in limbs and aerial dead wood.

4.13 As buildings are scheduled to be demolished to make way for the proposed

development, bat surveys of the buildings are recommended, following BCT best

practice guidelines (2012), to assess the presence or likely absence of roosts. If

trees with bat roost potential are to be impacted by the development, these should

also be assessed.

Reptiles

4.14 The majority of the site provided good quality habitat for reptiles. Improved and semi-

improved grassland fields provide potential foraging areas and hedgerows at the

boundaries of the site provided potential dispersal routes. Areas of hard standing

associated with the farmyard provided potential basking opportunities.

4.15 All four of the widespread protected reptiles were recorded within the surrounding

area in 2005. It was considered that grass snakes and slow worms were the most

likely species to be present, given the habitats present on the site.

4.16 The update walkover survey identified areas of potential reptile habitat within the site

as detailed in the previous survey. Reptile surveys are recommended and are being

undertaken in summer 2014.


JBA 10/252 23 August 2012/ April 2014

Birds

4.17 The trees and hedgerows surrounding the site provided potential nesting and

foraging opportunities for birds. The long grassland fields provided potential shelter

and nesting opportunities for ground nesting birds such as skylark and grey

partridge. Swallows and pigeons were recorded nesting in some of the agricultural

barns.

4.18 Bird species observed during the field survey in 2012 included starlings, swallow,

wood pigeon, house sparrow and collard dove. Starlings and house sparrows are

BoCC red listed and species of principle importance in England.

4.19 Habitats within the site (grassland fields surrounded by species poor hedgerows)

were common within the surrounding landscape, therefore, it was considered unlikely

that any BAP or protected birds would be impacted by the proposed development.

4.20 If any trees/ hedgerows are proposed for retention, they should be suitably protected

from harm during the construction works following British Standard: BS5837, 2012.

4.21 Site clearance and works proposed to any buildings, trees or hedges should be

conducted outside the main bird breeding season (which is March until September).

If vegetation removal/ building demolition is necessary between these dates, an

ecologist should survey the site for active bird nests immediately prior to works. If

nests are identified, there may be a delay in the clearance of some vegetation until

all young birds have fledged.

4.22 Swallow, starling, dunnock and house sparrow were recorded on the site during the

2014 walkover survey. These are BoCC red/amber listed species and species of

principle importance under the NERC Act (2006). It is recommended that nesting

habitat such as hedgerows and trees be retained where possible and nesting sites

provided within any new development.


JBA 10/252 24 August 2012/ April 2014

Amphibians

4.23 There were no ponds or waterbodies within the site. Three ponds were known to be

present within 500m of the site boundary. One pond lay approximately 130m west,

and two others were on the opposite side of Watery Lane/ Lower Road between

430m and 450m to the south east. It was considered that Watery lane/ Lower Road

and the adjacent residential properties were a significant barrier to dispersal and that

if newts were present within the ponds to the south east they would not be impacted

by the proposed development. However, the pond to the west was connected to the

site via a hedgerow along the southern boundary. Access to this pond was not

possible on the day of survey.

4.24 The site itself was of moderate quality habitat for amphibians, such as toads and

great crested newts, during their terrestrial phase. Grassland fields provided potential

foraging areas and hedgerows provided dispersal routes.

4.25 There are records of great crested newts approximately 400m to the south east

(presumably from the golf course) from 2006. It is recommended that the pond to the

west of the site is assessed for its suitability to support breeding great crested newts,

to inform the need for further surveys to assess the presence or likely absence of

great crested newts within 500m of the site boundary.

4.26 The pond 130m west of the site was still present at the time of the update walkover

survey. A habitat suitability assessment of this pond was carried out from a distance

as it was not possible to access the site. This showed the pond to be below average

suitability for breeding great crested newts.

Field Score SI Value

Location A 1

Pond Area 160 0.2

Pond Drying Sometimes dries 0.5

Water Quality Moderate 0.67

Shade (%) 0% 1

Waterfowl Waterfowl present, with moderate signs of impact

0.3

Fish Likely 0.3

Number of Ponds 13 1

Terrestrial Habitat Poor-Moderate 0.4

Macrophytes 40% 0.7

HSI Score 0.52

Suitability to support breeding great crested newts

Below Average


JBA 10/252 25 August 2012/ April 2014

4.27 If access to this pond can be arranged, further survey is recommended to ascertain

the presence or likely absence of great crested newts.

Invertebrates

4.28 The grassland fields, hedgerows or trees were likely to support a number of common

and widespread invertebrates.

4.29 The data search highlighted records of the shrill carder bee (UK & LBAP species)

within 2km of the site. This species requires flower rich grasslands to collect pollen,

which were abundant within the site. However, due to the abundance of similar

habitats within the surrounding area, it was not considered that the local

conservation status of invertebrates would be significantly affected by the proposed

development.

4.30 No rare or protected invertebrate species were noted during the update walkover

survey.

4.31 No further survey is necessary.

Hedgehogs and badgers

4.32 No signs of badger or hedgehog activity were recorded on the site. The grassland

fields within the site provided good quality habitat for foraging badgers and

hedgehogs. No evidence of a sett was recorded within the site boundary, and it was

considered unlikely that a sett would be present within 30m of the site boundary due

to the open nature of the habitats to the west and residential properties to the east.

There are records of badgers and hedgehogs within the surrounding area.

4.33 A potential badger latrine was observed just off site at the south western boundary of

the site close to Target Note 3 during the update walkover survey. No further signs of

activity or setts were recorded. It is considered likely that badgers are foraging and

commuting around the boundaries of the site.

4.34 It was considered unlikely that badgers of hedgehogs would be directly impacted by

the development; however, it is recommended that if any trenches or excavations are

left open over night they are covered or have a means of escape for any mammals

that may fall in.

Dormice

4.35 The site was not considered to be suitable for dormice: Managed hedgerows were

species poor and had frequent gaps. Hedgerows within the site were not linked to


JBA 10/252 26 August 2012/ April 2014

any woodland within the wider area, therefore, it was considered unlikely that

dormice would be present within the site or would be impacted by the proposals.

4.36 The update walkover survey did not identify any habitats likely to be used by

dormice.

4.37 There are no records of dormice within 2km of the site. No further survey is

considered necessary.

Other Protected, BAP or Rare Species

4.38 There were no water courses within the site, a stream ran from the west of the site to

the south within approximately 30m of the site boundary. This was present to the

south of Watery Lane/ Lower Road and is unlikely to be impacted by development of

the land. It was considered unlikely that species such as otter and/or water vole

would be impacted by the proposed development.

4.39 Although the site provided potential habitat for brown hare (a UK and local BAP

species), arable and grassland fields dominated the wider countryside and it was

considered unlikely that this species would be significantly impacted. The proposed

development was considered unlikely to impact on any other protected, BAP or rare

species.

4.40 No further changes to habitats or protected species were recorded during the update

walkover survey in April 2014.


JBA 10/252 27 August 2012/ April 2014

5. Key Recommendations

5.1 Further surveys for reptiles should be undertaken to assess the likely presence or

absence of these species within the site. The pond to the west of the site should also

be assessed for its suitability to support great crested newts, and to inform the need

for further survey for great crested newts.

5.2 Further surveys may be required for roosting bats depending on the scope of the

development. Bat emergence and return to roost surveys are recommended for the

buildings that are scheduled for demolition to ascertain the presence or likely

absence of bat roosts.

5.3 Precautionary clearance of the site, buildings, grassland, trees and hedgerows will

be necessary, as detailed in Section 4, to avoid infringing legislation which protects

all nesting birds.

5.4 Precautionary measures, as detailed in Section 4, should be undertaken to minimise

the risk of harm to mammals including badgers and hedgehogs.

6. Additional Recommendations

6.1 The following suggestions will enhance the value of the site for wildlife. However, it

should be noted that these suggestions are not legally required for compensation of

habitats or mitigation, but may be revised depending on the outcome of the further

surveys for reptiles, bats and newts. At least a third of these additional

recommendations will need to be implemented to maximize credits under Eco2 of the

Code for Sustainable Homes.

6.2 The addition of twelve bat boxes on retained mature trees within the site would

provide additional roosting opportunities. Schwegler bat boxes are recognised as

being suitable for roosting bats and long lasting. Boxes suitable for species recorded

locally (e.g. Pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat) such as 2F Schwegler boxes would

be suitable. Boxes should ideally be located facing south east to south west and high

up (above 4m), following consultation with a bat licensed ecologist.

6.3 The addition of four house sparrow terraces and six swallow cups on the existing or

proposed buildings will provide additional nesting opportunities for these BoCC red

and amber listed species recorded on site. Another six standard bird boxes with a

variety of shaped and different sized entrance holes will attract a greater diversity of

birds to nest, at least three of these boxes should be suitable for starlings. Boxes


JBA 10/252 28 August 2012/ April 2014

should be located appropriately, out of direct sunlight and close to vegetation.

Swallow cups should be located under eaves.

6.4 It is suggested that the landscaping could incorporate native or wildlife attracting

trees and shrubs as these would likely be of benefit to a variety of wildlife including,

birds, bats and invertebrates. The landscape design could enhance existing wildlife

corridors though creation of buffers along hedgerows.

6.5 The incorporation of reptile hibernacula into the landscape design will enhance the

area for reptiles in the future. Hibernacula can be created by partially burying piles of

wood/rubble and covering with earth.

6.6 The creation of wildflower rich swards could enhance the area for invertebrates

including butterflies and bumble bees. The inclusion of species such as vetches, red

clover, dead-nettles and red bartsia would enhance the site for shrill carder bees (a

UK and LBAP species) which have been recorded in the local area.

6.7 Any gaps in hedgerows to the boundaries of the site could be filled with native

species such as field maple (Acer campstre), guelder rose (Viburnum opulus), elm

(Ulmus sp.), hazel (Corylus avellana) and spindle (Euonymus europaeus). This

would enhance ecological connectivity within the landscape.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Habitats within the site could provide suitable habitat for reptiles, bats and birds. The

site is also suitable for amphibians during their terrestrial phase; however ponds

within 500m of the site could not be assessed for their suitability to support breeding

great crested newts at the time of the survey.

7.2 Further survey is recommended to determine if reptiles are using the site. Further

surveys for bats and great crested newts are also recommended. If any mitigation or

compensation recommended following these further surveys is carried out, and if the

precautionary measures for birds and mammals detailed in this report are followed, it

was considered that the development could proceed with minimal impact on the local

conservation status of any protected, BAP or rare species within the area.

7.3 It is also considered that with a sensitive landscape scheme, and by including some,

or all, of the additional recommendations, that the site could be enhanced for local

wildlife post development.


JBA 10/252 29 August 2012/ April 2014

8. References

Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 2012. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (Eds), Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean,

D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J., Taylor, I. 2005. The Vascular Plant

Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation

Committee, Peterborough.

English Nature (2004). Guidelines for Developers. English Nature, Peterborough

English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature

Essex Field Club Data Search Information provided on the 11th June 2012.

Froglife. 1999. Reptile Survey. An Introduction to Planning, Conduction and Interpreting

Surveys for Snake and Lizard Conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife.

Gent, A.H. and Gibson, S.D., eds. 1998 Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Peterborough,

Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Gregory, R. D. Wilkinson, N. I. Noble, D. G. Robinson, J. A. Brown A. F. Hughes, J.

Proctor, D .A. Gibbons, D. W. & Galbraith, C.A. (2007). The population status of birds

in the United Kingdom and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-

2007. British Birds 95: 410-450.

HMSO (1981) Wildlife and Countryside Act. HMSO, London.

HMSO (2010) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

HMSO,London.

HMSO (2000) Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act. HMSO, London.

HMSO (1992) Protection of Badgers Act, HMSO London.

HMSO (2006) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act HMSO London.

JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: a technique for environmental

audit (revised reprint). JNCC: Peterborough.

Stace, C (2005) Field Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) NPPF.

Web references


JBA 10/252 30 August 2012/ April 2014

MAGIC: Designated area data downloaded from URL http://www.magic.gov.uk.html

UK BAP www.ukbap.org.uk

Essex Local BAP http://www.essexfieldclub.org.uk/portal/p/Essex+BAP+species

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

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

http://www.essexfieldclub.org.uk/portal/p/Essex+BAP+species


JBA 10/252 31 August 2012/ April 2014

9. Appendices

Appendix A: Phase 1 habitat map


JBA 10/252 32 August 2012/ April 2014

Appendix B: Plant species list

Forbs

Common Name Scientific Name

Daisy Bellis perennis

Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum

Chamomile Matricaria chamomilla

Common chickweed Stellaria media

Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica

Cleavers Galium aparine

Bloody cranes bill Geranium sanguineum

Cut leaved cranesbill Geranium dissectum

Common mallow Malva sylvestris

Spotted medick Medicago arabica

Bristly oxtongue Picris echiodes

Greater plantain Plantago major

Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens

Bramble Rubus fruticosus

Curled dock Rumex crispus

Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius

Ragwort Senecio jacobaea

Prickly sow thistle Sonchus asper

Smooth sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus

Greater stitchwort Stellaria holostea

Dandelion Taraxacum agg.

Goats beard Tragopogon pratensis

Lords-and ladies Arum maculatum

Hop trefoil Trifolium campestre

White clover Trifolium repens

Scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum

Nettle Urtica dioica

Common vetch Vicia sativa


JBA 10/252 33 August 2012/ April 2014

Trees and shrubs


Field maple Acer campestre

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Blackthorn Prunus spinosa

Oak Quercus robur

Dog rose Rosa canina

Bramble Rubus fruticosus

Elder Sambucus nigra

Elm Ulmus sp.

Grasses, sedges, rushes and ferns


False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius

Crested dogs tail Cynosurus cristatus

Cocks foot Dactylis glomerata

Couch grass Elytrigia repens

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus

Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne

Timothy Phleum pratense

Annual meadow-grass Poa annua

Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis


JBA 10/252 34 August 2012/ April 2014

Appendix C: Relevant protected species legislation

Species Relevant Legislation Level of Protection

Bats

o Full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended

o Classified as European protected species under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

o Also protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

Under the WCA (1981), it is an offence to:

intentionally kill, injure, or take any species of bat

intentionally or recklessly disturb bats

intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts

Birds

o Protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended

Under the WCA (1981), it is an offence to: (with

exceptions for certain species):

Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird

Intentionally take, damage or destroy nests in use or being built (including ground nesting birds)

Intentionally take, damage or destroy eggs

Species listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA or their

dependant young are afforded additional protection

from disturbance whilst nesting

Great

Crested

Newts

o Full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended

o Classified as European protected species under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010


intentionally kill, injure, or take great crested newts

intentionally or recklessly disturb great crested newts

intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or obstruct access to any place used by the animal for shelter or protection

Reptiles

o Partially protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended.


intentionally kill or injure these animals

sell, offer for sale, advertise for sale, possess or transport for the purposes of selling any live or dead animals or part of these animals

Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Biodiversity Survey of Land to the south west of Hullbridge · A walkover survey was carried out on...

Documents