15.0 ecology and nature conservation documents/es main text/12212... · 12212/a5/es2010 292 january...

Picket Piece, Andover Ecology and Nature Conservation

12212/A5/ES2010 288 January 2010

15.0 ECOLOGY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

Introduction

15.1 This chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant effects of the Overall Development in

terms of Ecology and Nature Conservation and is supported by Appendices 15.1 to 15.9.

The chapter describes the assessment methodology; the baseline conditions currently

existing at the Assessment Site and surroundings; the likely significant environmental effects;

the mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects;

and the likely residual effects after these measures have been employed. This chapter has

been prepared by WSP Environment and Energy.

Planning Policy Context

15.2 A summary of the planning policy, guidance, and legislation relevant to ecology and nature

conservation is provided below.

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9), Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005) (Ref.

15.1)

15.3 This paper outlines the Government’s vision for conserving and enhancing biological diversity

in England. It includes the broad aim that planning, construction, development and

regeneration should have minimal impact on biodiversity and enhance it wherever possible.

In moving towards this vision, the Government has constructed the following set of

objectives:

• To promote sustainable development by ensuring that the conservation and enhancement

of biodiversity is an integral part of all types of development;

• To conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of England’s wildlife and geology;

• To contribute to an urban renaissance; and

• To contribute to rural renewal by ensuring that developments in rural areas take account

of the role and value of biodiversity.

15.4 In PPS9 a five point approach is provided for consideration within the planning process to

ensure negative adverse effects on biodiversity are fully considered. The five points are:

information, avoidance, mitigation, compensation and new benefits [enhancements].


12212/A5/ES2010 289 January 2010

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation – Statutory Obligation and their Impact within the Planning System (Ref. 15.2)

15.5 The ODPM circular 06/2005 states that:

“The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal...”

15.6 The Circular advises that local authorities should consult Natural England before granting

planning permission if proposals could adversely affect a protected species.

Regional Planning Policy

Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East 2006 – 2026 (The South East Plan) (adopted

May 2009) (Ref. 15.3)

15.7 The South East Plan contains policies directly relating to nature resource management and a

number of ‘cross-cutting’ policies, some of which are relevant to ecology and nature

conservation. Policies considered to be potentially relevant to the Overall Development are

described below.

15.8 Policy CC4: Sustainable design and construction, includes an obligation to consider

opportunities for biodiversity gain, whilst policy CC8: Green infrastructure, promotes the

establishment of substantial networks of multi-functional green space, to deliver biodiversity

enhancement (including climate change resilience) amongst a number of other benefits.

15.9 Policy NRM5: Conservation and improvement of biodiversity states that local authorities will

avoid a net loss of biodiversity and will actively pursue opportunities to achieve a net

biodiversity gain across the region.

Local Planning Policy

Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) Local Plan (1996 - 2006) (adopted 2006) (Ref. 15.4)

15.10 Saved policy ENV 01 from the Local Plan is directly relevant to ecology at the Assessment

Site. This policy seeks to maintain, enhance and restore biodiversity interests in the

Borough, with a special focus on:

• designated conservation sites,

• priority habitats and species (listed in the UK BAP),


12212/A5/ES2010 290 January 2010

• ancient and semi-natural woodlands,

• landscape features recognised as of major importance for migration, dispersal and

genetic exchange; and

• biodiversity interests of local importance on sites proposed for development, including

previously developed land.

15.11 The Local Plan states that development that may adversely affect the resources listed above

will only be permitted if: the need for the development outweighs the environmental costs; it

can be demonstrated that there is no suitable alternative location; and it is proven that any

adverse effects will be mitigated and compensation provided. All three of these caveats have

to be met.

15.12 Policy ENV 05 deals with legally protected species in more detail. This policy states that:

“Development which would affect a legally protected species or a site supporting a legally protected species will only be permitted if: a. individual member of the species… [or] their breeding/resting

places are not harmed; and b. ...discrete colonies of the species affected can be sustained. Where development is permitted disturbance to the species should be minimised”.

TVBC Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft (October 2008) (Ref. 15.5)

15.13 The Test Valley Borough Core Strategy Pre-Submission Draft has been withdrawn and

therefore holds limited weight in planning terms. Draft Policy SSA1 of the Pre-Submission

Core Strategy identified land at Picket Piece for the development of a new neighbourhood of

800 dwellings.

Legislation

15.14 The Assessment Site contains species protected under the following legislation

National Protected Species (slow-worms, nesting birds)

15.15 Slow-worms (Anguis fragilis) are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended) (Ref. 15.6) by part of Section 9(1) and all of Section 9(5). This means that they

are protected against killing and injuring (but not ‘taking’) and against sale and transporting

for sale.

15.16 All native bird species, their eggs, nests and dependent young are protected under The

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (as amended), when they are nesting.


12212/A5/ES2010 291 January 2010

European Protected Species (bats, dormice)

15.17 Bats and dormice are fully protected under European Council Directive (92/43/EEC) on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (Ref. 15.7) which is transposed

into UK law through The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 (Ref. 15.8);

and are also protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (Ref. 15.6). This

legislation combines to make it an offence to kill, injure or disturb the species or obstruct

access to, damage or destroy their place of shelter or rest.

Protected Habitats

15.18 The Assessment Site does not contain any legally protected habitats, although the Hedgerow

Regulations (1994) (Ref. 15.8) do apply to some of the hedgerows on-site (this Regulation is

not directly relevant to development sites but provides a benchmark for habitat valuation and

impact assessment).

Other Relevant Policy Guidance

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (1994) and Hampshire BAP (1998) (Ref. 15.9)

15.19 The UK BAP (1994) (Ref. 15.9) was established in response to the Global Convention on

Biological Diversity 1992 (Ref. 15.10). Individual Action Plans define actions and measures to

meet the objectives defined in the strategy, and specify measurable targets. They determine

the broad habitats and species that are of value to the natural environment of the UK, and

identify actions and projects that could be undertaken to help protect or enhance the

national biodiversity. The UK BAP contains 1,149 species and 65 habitats that have been

listed as being of ‘principle importance for the purpose of conserving biological diversity’ in

the UK. These are commonly referred to as the UK BAP priority species and habitats.

15.20 The national BAP is supplemented by local BAPs (LBAPs) which identify habitats and species

of particular value or endangerment at the local or regional level and which set out local

actions for the conservation of priority BAP species and habitats. The Assessment Site is

covered by the Hampshire LBAP (Ref. 15.11).

15.21 BAPs in the UK have no statutory status, but provide a framework for implementing

conservation requirements. Furthermore, species listed as priority species in the UK BAP are

afforded a degree of protection under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities

(NERC) Act (2006) (Ref. 15.12), in relation to the planning process. The presence of, or

potential presence of UK BAP and Hampshire BAP habitats and species have been considered


12212/A5/ES2010 292 January 2010

throughout the preparation of this chapter, and are discussed where relevant in the

assessment of effects and valuation below.

Discussion

15.22 These planning policies effectively combine the statutory requirements of wildlife law with

national and local government targets which aim to maintain and improve biodiversity. They

have influenced the spatial arrangement of the Overall Development by ensuring that

existing habitats and populations of significant value are retained, where possible, within the

Assessment Site.

15.23 In particular, the Overall Development has been influenced by the aspiration to retain as

many native hedgerows as possible (Policy CC8, ENV 01 and UK BAP), and to provide

enhancements to retained hedgerows. This has resulted in a net gain of structural hedgerow

and tree planting across the Assessment Site.

15.24 Other major ecological influences on the design of the development parameters revolve

around the presence of protected species (dormice and slow-worms), since PPS9 (Ref. 15.1),

TVBC Local Plan policy ENV 05 (Ref. 15.4), the Habitat Regulations (1994) (Ref. 15.7) and

the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (Ref. 15.6) all oblige that new development is not

permitted unless these populations can be successfully retained in a healthy and viable

ecosystem.

15.25 In addition to the protection of specific habitats and species, the planning policies set out a

clear remit for new development to achieve biodiversity gain and to deliver new green

infrastructures in response to current declines in biodiversity. This has been reflected in the

masterplan of the Overall Development, which includes the creation of areas of open space

to act as biodiversity reserves linked by wildlife networks.

Assessment Methodology

Assessment Guidance

15.26 This assessment has been undertaken with reference to the Guidelines for Ecological Impact

Assessment in the United Kingdom (IEEM) (2006) (Ref. 15.13) and IEMA’s ‘Guidelines for

Baseline Ecological Assessment’ (1997) (Ref. 15.14). Best practice guidance is available for

survey techniques and mitigation measures for a number of species and habitats. This

assessment has been prepared with a full working knowledge of the following guidance:


12212/A5/ES2010 293 January 2010

• Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: A

Technique for Environmental Audit (Ref. 15.15);

• Froglife (1999) Reptile Survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting

surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10 (Ref. 15.16);

• Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland (1998) Evaluating local

mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and lawful standards.

HGBI advisory notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARGs). HGBI, c/o Froglife,

Halesworth. Unpublished. (Ref. 15.17);

• Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines, Bat Conservation

Trust, London (Ref. 15.18);

• BSI (2005) BS5837:2005 Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations. (Ref.

15.19);

• DEFRA (2007) Hedgerow Survey Handbook: A standard procedure for local surveys in

the UK. 2nd Edition Defra, London. (Ref. 15.20);

• English Nature (2002) Badgers and Development. External Relations Team,

Peterborough. (Ref. 15.21);

• England Nature (2006) The dormouse conservation handbook. Second Edition. Paul

Bright, Pat Morris and Tony Mitchell-Jones. (Ref. 15.21);

• Natural England (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough. (Ref. 15.22);

• Herpetological Conservation Trust (2009) Habitat Suitability Index – Guidance Notes

[online] (Ref. 15.23); and

• Rodwell (2006). NVC Users Handbook. (Ref. 15.24).

Baseline Assessment Methodology

15.27 An extended Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken with reference to the Handbook for

Phase 1 habitat survey (Ref. 15.15). The survey established the presence and distribution of

habitat types within the Assessment Site and identified any potential ecological constraints to

the Overall Development. The survey was extended to identify the potential for any

protected, scarce or notable species to be present, including a systematic field survey for

badgers and invasive weed species. The extended Phase 1 habitat survey was carried out on

21 and 22 May 2009 in dry weather conditions.

15.28 A desk study assessment was also undertaken to establish whether any ecological records of

protected and/or notable species were held for the Assessment Site and a 2km radius of the

site as recommended by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s

(IEMA’s) ‘Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment’ (1997). (Ref. 15.14) This radius was

extended for bats to 5km, as recommended by Natural England’s Bat Mitigation Guidelines,

2004 (Ref. 15.22). Data were requested from the Environment Agency, Natural England and


12212/A5/ES2010 294 January 2010

the Hampshire Biological Information Centre). In addition the following websites were

accessed, where necessary, to obtain species and designated habitat information:

• National Biodiversity Network Gateway (Ref. 15.25);

• MAGIC (Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside -(Ref. 15.26); and

• Natural England’s Nature on the Map (Ref. 15.27).

15.29 The findings of the desk study are incorporated within this chapter and records of species or

habitats which could provide a potential constraint to development are mapped on Figure

15.1. Further details of the methodology employed for the extended Phase 1 habitat survey

and desk study can be found within the Extended Phase 1 habitat report in Appendix 15.1.

15.30 As a result of the findings of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, a number of targeted

species and habitat surveys were undertaken during 2009 to enable a thorough evaluation of

the existing ecological baseline within the Assessment Site. The scope and extent of these

further surveys are presented in Table 15.1 and full methodologies for each survey can be

found within the individual protected species reports in Appendices 15.2 to 15.9.

Table 15.1: Species and Habitat Surveys undertaken in support of this Ecological

Impact Assessment

Survey Type Survey Dates Brief Description of methods Relevant Appendix

Hedgerow 7 September 2009 Standard field survey methodology

Appendix 15.2

Botanical 28 and 29 July 2009 Quadrat sampling Appendix 15.3 Reptile 8 – 23 September

2009 Seven repeat lifts using artificial

refugia Appendix 15.4

Bat 23 July – 22 September 2009

Emergence/re-entry, activity transects and point sampling

(including remote sampling), 3 repeat visits.

Appendix 15.5

Dormouse 1 October 2009 Nut search Appendix 15.6 Invertebrate 27 July – 25

September Sweep netting, beating, suction sampling, pit-fall trapping and

malaise trapping.

Appendix 15.7

Great Crested Newt (Habitat Suitability

Index)

3 September 2009 Standard field survey methodology

Appendix 15.8

Badger 1 October 2009 Standard field survey methodology

Appendix 15.9

Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) Methodology

15.31 The ecological assessment has been conducted with reference to the methodology set out

within the IEEM Guidelines (Ref. 15.14). A summary of the assessment methodology is

provided in Table 15.2 and the bullet points below.


12212/A5/ES2010 295 January 2010

Summary of EcIA steps:

• Define a Zone of Influence i.e. the areas/resources that may be affected by changes

caused by the Overall Development. This has been defined in paragraphs 15.37 - 15.40

and is illustrated in Figure 15.1;

• Assign a baseline value to each ecological receptor within the Zone of Influence using a

geographic scale of significance, Table 15.2. Valuations are described within the

baseline conditions below;

• Assign a threshold value below which ecological receptors will not be considered as

significant, and therefore not included within this assessment. For the purposes of this

assessment, a threshold value of Site (Low) value has been set;

• Characterise the potential effects of construction (including site clearance activity) and

operational phases of the development in accordance with a range of ecological factors

(including structure, function, fragility and connectivity) and state magnitude, extent,

duration, reversibility, frequency and phenology associated with each of these effects;

and

• Assign a significance level to each potential effect based upon the geographical scale at

which it is considered.

Table 15.2: Significance Scale

Geographic Significance Relation to Significance Scale that is used in other chapters

International High UK or National (i.e. Country) High

Regional High County High

Borough Medium Local (i.e. at a Parish scale) Medium

Site (Assessment Site) Low Less than site scale Negligible

15.32 To facilitate comparisons between other technical chapters of the ES, the geographic scale of

significance has been aligned with the significance scale of negligible, low, medium and high

that is used throughout the rest of the ES. This is presented in Table 15.2 of this Chapter.

15.33 In Ecological Impact Assessment, the geographical significance scale is used twice (Ref

15.14). In the first instance it is used to value the ecological receptor. The scale is then re-

visited to assign the significance level of the arising impact. It is therefore possible for an

adverse impact on a receptor of County ecological value to be significant only at a Borough

scale (for example, if the receptor is only partially affected or the effect is only temporary).


12212/A5/ES2010 296 January 2010

15.34 Species or habitats relevant to the Assessment Site that are afforded legal protection have

been identified in this assessment. It should be noted that legal protection does not

necessarily infer ecological value.

15.35 The assessment of the ecological effects of the Overall Development has been an iterative

process where the findings of the baseline surveys have been used to inform the design of

the development parameters and as such, many potential effects on the local ecologically

sensitive receptors have been avoided.

15.36 The intention of this chapter is not to document all stages of the ecological assessment

process, but to present the final conclusions of the assessment in a concise manner in order

to inform a planning decision. Detailed information to support the statements within this

chapter can be found within the Appendices 15.2 to 15.9 and are referred to throughout

this chapter.

Zone of Influence

15.37 The Zone of Influence is shown on Figure 15.1. This constitutes all areas of land which

have the potential to be affected by the Overall Development and have therefore been

considered within this assessment. If, on further consideration, land within the Zone of

Influence has been found to be unaffected by the Overall Development then this is stated

(for example, paragraph 15.148).

Habitats

15.38 The Zone of Influence includes all of the habitats within the Assessment Site, plus the

adjacent London – Exeter railway line.

15.39 Designated wildlife sites within 2km of the Assessment Site have been assessed to determine

whether they could potentially be affected by the Overall Development. These are listed

within the Phase 1 habitat report (Appendix 15.1, chapter 4: Baseline Conditions). Of the

designated sites present within 2km, potential effects are only considered likely for

Harewood Forest. This Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) is therefore

included within the Zone of Influence.

Species

15.40 All legally protected and UK or Local BAP species dependent on the habitats within this Zone

of Influence are assessed. These have been identified to be local populations of bats, birds,

reptiles and dormice. A more general assessment of effects on habitat connectivity in the


12212/A5/ES2010 297 January 2010

Assessment Site (which relates to a wider range of species in the local area) will also be

undertaken.

Baseline Conditions

Baseline Conditions in 2011

15.41 The value of the ecological receptors within the Zone of Influence are described below.

These have been based on the findings of the extended Phase 1 habitat survey, specialist

species surveys and desk study information (including locally recorded protected species

information) undertaken in 2009. The baseline conditions in 2011 are considered likely to be

very similar to those found on-site in 2009, since no changes in land use are anticipated

between now and then. Supporting information, including full habitat descriptions, is set out

within the Extended Phase 1 habitat report in Appendix 15.1 and the individual protected

species and habitat reports in Appendices 15.2 to 15.9.

Harewood Forest (Off- Site)

15.42 Harewood Forest SINC is a large ancient woodland which lies to the south-east of the

Assessment Site boundary and is less than 0.7km distance at its nearest point. The Forest is

valued for its ancient woodland habitat, which is a UK BAP priority habitat and which

supports a wide range of species including European protected species such as bat and

dormice. The site is of County (high) wildlife value. There are a number of public rights of

way which pass through the Forest and it is used for recreational activities.

Broad-Leaved Plantation Woodland

15.43 One area of broad-leaved plantation woodland exists on-site (an orchard) and a second area

is present directly adjacent to the Assessment Site (the London – Exeter railway

embankment). These are described in detail within the phase 1 habitat report and shown on

Figure 15.2. The broad-leaved woodland both on and adjacent to the Assessment Site is of

Borough (medium) ecological value. This value is assigned due to the maturity of the trees

and, in the case of the London – Exeter railway embankment, the ecological connectivity it

provides to the wider countryside.

15.44 Old orchards can also support old or rare varieties of fruit trees and can be of cultural as well

as ecological value.


12212/A5/ES2010 298 January 2010

Mixed Plantation Woodland

15.45 In the south-east of the Assessment Site is a small block of mature mixed plantation

woodland, within a residential garden and is described in the phase 1 report (Appendix

15.1). The mixed plantation woodland covers a tiny proportion of the Assessment Site and

is dominated by non-native tree species. It is considered to be of site (low) value only.

Native Hedgerows

15.46 The majority of the field boundaries on-site are well established, native hedgerows. All of

these native hedgerows qualify under the UK BAP priority habitat criteria, in that they

comprise over 80% native species and are over 20m in length. The findings of the hedgerow

survey (Appendix 15.2) have enabled the relative values of the hedges to be assessed in

greater detail. Of the 52 native hedgerows surveyed, 17 hedgerows are considered

‘important’ in ecological terms under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (Ref. 15.8); these 17

hedgerows and an additional 20 hedgerows on-site are also classified as species-rich1. 15

species-poor native hedgerows are present on-site.

15.47 Important and species rich hedges are generally of greater value for wildlife however the

habitat should be viewed as a network and the isolation of hedgerows substantially

decreases their value. The hedgerows on-site provide connectivity with the adjacent broad-

leaved plantation woodland habitat and woodland along the London – Exeter railway line on

the northern boundary of the Assessment Site. The hedgerows also provide habitat for

wildlife such as nesting birds, foraging and commuting habitat for bats and hibernation

habitat for amphibians and reptiles. Finally, they are an important food source and the

prevalence of unmanaged and low intensity managed hedgerows present on the Assessment

Site increases the quantity of nuts and fruit that are produced. This is of particular benefit

to birds and small mammals, including mice, voles and dormice (see section 15.80).

15.48 The hedgerows on-site are considered to provide a sizable network of priority habitat

identified in the UKBAP. Hampshire occupies 2.8% of England and has 4.6% of England’s

hedgerows based on national estimates of hedgerow length (Ref. 15.11 Hampshire BAP

habitat action plan for hedgerows) and therefore the hedgerow resource of Hampshire is

significant at the national scale. The habitat action plan also relates that large parts of the

‘Open Arable’ identified by the habitat action plan tend to have lower density and generally

poorer quality hedgerows. Examples include the predominantly arable area between

Winchester, Andover and Basingstoke where the Assessment Site lies and therefore the 1 In order to provide clarification of ecological value a distinction was made between species rich and species poor hedgerows, with a species rich hedgerow being defined by the pre-2007 UK BAP classification (as those with an average of five or more native woody species within the 30m surveyed sections).


12212/A5/ES2010 299 January 2010

presence of a good hedgerow network with a high number of species rich hedgerows is

considered to be of Borough (medium) importance.

Non-Native Hedgerows

15.49 There are several coniferous hedges on-site. These are predominantly Leyland cypress

(Chamaecyparis leylandii), but other unidentified conifer species are also present. These

have been planted to provide landscape screens for some of the more industrial land-uses

(such as the commercial centre, the self-storage area and the poultry farm). The non-native

hedgerows do not qualify as UK BAP priority habitat and, being non-native, do not provide a

significant source of food or shelter for native species. They also tend to ‘shade-out’ native

flora, preventing the natural colonisation of scrub or herb species along the hedge. Overall,

the non-native hedgerows are considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value.

Continuous and Scattered Scrub

15.50 Scrub is frequent across the Assessment Site in areas of low-intensity management and areas

left unmanaged. Scattered scrub is particularly prevalent at the ‘far end’ of fields that adjoin

residential properties, where mowing and hedge-management does not occur. Furthermore,

some dense stands of continuous scrub have established across disused field access routes

and in disused fields, especially in the north-west of the Assessment Site.

15.51 The scrub habitats on-site augment the existing network of hedgerows and scrub habitats

can be of value to a wide range of species (including nesting birds). However, the scrub at

the Assessment Site was not found to support a significant invertebrate assemblage and

reptiles were only found to use the scattered scrub north of Walworth Road (as shown on

Figure 15.2). Finally, scrub habitat is common, readily re-created and is quick to establish

in a wide range of conditions. For these reasons, the scrub on-site is considered to be of

less than site (negligible) value except where is specifically provides habitat for slow-worms

(slow-worm habitat is assessed in paragraph 15.69 below).

Continuous Bracken

15.52 Two patches of continuous bracken are present on-site, on either side of a wide, outgrown

native hedge. The bracken occupies a very small area of land and is not of significance

ecological value in its own right. However, the bracken habitat falls entirely within the

hedgerow/ scrub/ grassland habitat mosaic that supports slow-worms in the north-west of

the site. The value of the bracken habitat is therefore directly linked to the value of the site

for slow-worms. For this reason it is therefore considered to be County (high) value.


12212/A5/ES2010 300 January 2010

Tall Ruderal

15.53 Tall ruderal habitats are present at field edges and across areas of disturbed ground,

predominantly in the north. There is some overlap between this habitat and the grasslands

described below. This habitat was allocated a provisional local value in the Phase 1 habitat

report (Appendix 15.1) but surveys have since shown that there is no significant

invertebrate value to this habitat. It is acknowledged that tall ruderal plants can provide a

seed source for birds and for this reason the tall ruderal habitat is considered to be of site

(low) value.

Scattered Trees

15.54 The scattered trees on-site comprise a high proportion of non-native species and are

generally immature. For these reasons, they are not currently of significant wildlife value.

Overall, the scattered trees on-site are considered to be of site (low) value only.

Improved and Amenity Grassland

15.55 Approximately half of the fields on the Assessment Site are either amenity or improved

grassland. The improved grassland exists across fields that are intensively grazed by horses,

goats, chickens or cattle (or cut for silage). These show signs of significant nutrient

enrichment and, across the large fields, likely re-seeding with grasses that are productive for

grazing. They have a low species diversity and a high proportion of grasses in the sward.

15.56 The amenity grassland is located around the residential gardens and in front of the self-

storage area in the far north-east of the Assessment Site. These grasses are regularly mown

and dominated by species such as perennial rye grass and white clover. This habitat type is

defined by the intensive management regime, which restricts flowering and seed production

thereby lowering the value of the grasslands.

15.57 Both the improved and the amenity grassland on-site are considered to be of less than site

(negligible) ecological value.

Semi-Improved Grassland

15.58 The semi-improved grassland habitat on-site varies in quality, structure and species

composition. These grasslands were the subject of a detailed botanical survey in July 2009,

to determine their wildlife value and species diversity. The results of the survey are

discussed below and can be found in Appendix 15.3.


12212/A5/ES2010 301 January 2010

15.59 The semi-improved grasslands fall into four habitat categories. The most species rich

grasslands are those within habitat category S-I (4) and these are calcareous grasslands that

appear to be relatively undisturbed. The least species rich grasslands are more neutral in

character and have generally been horse grazed, these have been allocated to habitat

category S-I (1). Please refer to the botanical report (Appendix 15.3) for detailed

descriptions of each habitat type.

15.60 It is considered likely that the differences observed between each grassland type are more

influenced by current management regimes than the underlying ground conditions and it is

considered likely that the majority of these semi-improved grassland areas have the potential

to be restored to reasonably rich chalk grassland if subjected to an appropriate management

regime.

15.61 None of the grasslands surveyed qualify as UK BAP priority Habitats, Local BAP priority

Habitats or County Wildlife Site grassland. Overall, the semi-improved grassland on-site is

considered to provide an ecological resource that is of local (medium) wildlife value.

15.62 Some of the grassland habitat in the north of the Assessment Site supports a population of

slow-worms, which are legally protected species. These are discussed further in paragraph

15.69 below.

Arable

15.63 Two arable fields are present on-site, one of which is a narrow strip of land to the rear of a

property in the north-east of the Assessment Site, whilst the other is a larger agricultural

field accessed from Ox Drove to the south of the Assessment Site. Both were ploughed at

the time of survey (May) and neither support wide field margins, headlands, set aside or

other features which might provide ecological interest. The arable habitat on-site is

considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value.

Buildings

15.64 The buildings on-site are also of less than site (negligible) value. No bat roosts are present

within buildings on site (one roost has been located in an off-site location, see paragraph

15.71 for further details). Some of the outhouses and sheds on-site are suitable to support

nesting birds (such as starlings and swallows) and this element is discussed under the

valuation of the bird assemblage below (paragraph 15.82).


12212/A5/ES2010 302 January 2010

Hard standing

15.65 Areas of hard standing on the Assessment Site include the tarmac car park in the far north-

east of the Assessment Site, the adjacent self-storage site, the land surrounding the poultry

units in the south-west, and the access route into the industrial units in the north-west of the

Assessment Site. These are all tarmac or hardcore with very few associated species and this

habitat is considered to be of less than site (negligible) ecological value.

Bare Ground

15.66 Two areas of bare ground are present on-site. In the north-east there is a small square of

bare ground habitat. This is a sand-school for horses. In the north-west is a rectangle of

bare ground habitat, this is a gravel car park supporting a few ruderal species such as

forget-me-not and buddleia. The bare ground habitat represents a tiny proportion of the

Assessment Site and supports a low diversity and density of vegetation. It is considered to

be of less than site (negligible) ecological value.

Ponds

15.67 One pond is present on the Assessment Site, and a second is present within 500m of the site

(the second pond was included within the Assessment Site boundary in July 2009 but the

boundary has subsequently been altered). Both ponds are man-made, concrete lined ponds

within residential gardens and both support non-native fish and aquatic plant species. The

ponds provide the only aquatic habitat on or near to the Assessment Site, and are likely to

support some aquatic invertebrate populations and common amphibians, but their small size

and artificial surroundings limits their ecological value to that of site (low) scale only.

15.68 The ponds have been assessed for their suitability for great crested newts (Appendix

15.8). Neither pond is considered suitable for great crested newts and the Habitat Suitability

Index for both ponds is less than 0.5, equating to a ‘poor’ pond suitability (Appendix 15.8).

Furthermore, no relevant records of great crested newt were recorded in the local area.

Great crested newts are considered to be absent from the Assessment Site and do not pose a

constraint to its future development.

Slow-Worms

15.69 The findings of the reptile survey (Appendix 15.4) show that all fields that contained

suitable reptile habitat were directly adjacent to the London – Exeter railway embankment

and were found to support slow-worms, a common and widespread species, at low to

moderate densities. The highest densities of slow-worms are found in the far north-west


12212/A5/ES2010 303 January 2010

corner of the Assessment Site. No other reptile species were found to be present on the

Assessment Site. No fields to the south of Walworth road support reptiles. It appears that

Walworth Road, along with associated residential housing, acts as a barrier for slow-worm

dispersal within the Assessment Site.

15.70 The number of slow-worms recorded on-site does not indicate an exceptional population and

it is considered probable that slow-worms occur along the extent of the London - Exeter

railway embankment, wherever similarly suitable rough grassland and scrub exists. It can

therefore be concluded that the Assessment Site supports part of a non-exceptional

population of slow-worms, which are a widespread but declining and threatened species that

are identified as being of principle importance to the conservation of biodiversity (i.e. a UK

BAP priority species). As such, the slow-worm population on-site is considered to be of

County (high) ecological value. Furthermore, the habitat that directly supports the slow

worm on site is also of County (high) value. This includes all of the semi-improved

grassland, hedgerows, scrub and bracken that falls within the area that slow-worms have

been recorded. The extent of the slow-worm population is shown on Figure 1 of Appendix

15.4). There are also legal implications associated with the presence of this species.

Bats

15.71 Bat surveys have been undertaken on the Assessment Site in 2009, and the findings of the

surveys are reported in full in Appendix 15.5.

15.72 Bat roosts: None of the buildings within the development parameters have been found to

support roosting bats and there are very few mature trees within the Assessment site

Boundary which could provide potential tree-roosting opportunities.

15.73 One building, just outside of the Assessment Site was included within the bat surveys as it

was within the ‘ecological survey area2’, and was considered to have a medium potential to

support bats. This building supports a transient bat roost for up to three different bat

species (common pipistrelle, brown long-eared bats and potentially serotine bats). This is the

residential property called Building 3 in the bat report (Appendix 15.5) and building 12 in

the Phase 1 habitat survey (Appendix 15.1). The building is marked as building 12 on

Figure 15.2. The survey evidence suggests that this is a transitional roost, due to the low

numbers of bats recorded using it, although access for internal inspection would need to be

granted in order to fully determine the extent of bat use at this roost. The roost is

2 At the onset of ecological surveys the exact red-line application boundary had not been determined. The ecological survey area was therefore devised, to enable baseline assessments to proceed. The ecological survey area represents the maximum extent of any potential application boundary for the site.


12212/A5/ES2010 304 January 2010

considered to be of Borough (medium) value, since it is a known temporary roosting site for

three European protected species. If the roost is also used as a maternity roost or

hibernation roost then its status would be elevated to county (high) value. (This higher

value will be used within this ecological impact assessment, in keeping with the

precautionary principle).

15.74 Only two residential properties fall directly within the development parameters. These are

building 5 and building 18 as described within Appendix E of the Phase 1 habitat survey

(Appendix 15.1). Both buildings have low potential to support roosting bats.

15.75 Bat foraging and commuting habitat: At least five species of bat have been recorded over the

site. In order of abundance these are: Common pipistrelle; serotine; noctule; Myotis species

(at least one species); long-eared bat (at least one species). Key foraging and commuting

areas for bats have been identified and are illustrated on Figure 3 within the Bat Report

(Appendix 15.5). This identifies hedgerows, woodland and fields where bats were most

frequently recorded. It also highlights areas which are considered to be important to bats

due to their plant species composition, close vicinity or connectivity to areas of high bat

activity. The key areas include:

• the overgrown hedgerow/tree line along the railway embankment which is considered to

be a particularly important commuting route for foraging pipistrelles; and

• the grassland/scrub/hedgerow mosaics in the central and eastern parts of the Assessment

Site which are used by a locally high number of serotines.

15.76 The whole site is used by a low number of noctules and the open grassland and hedgerow

network is likely to provide the greatest value to this species.

15.77 Despite the presence of a roost close to the site, Myotis bats did not appear to forage within

the Assessment Site, and this may be due to the relatively high density of street and house

lights throughout.

15.78 No long-eared bats were registered during the activity surveys however it is likely they will

have been under recorded due to their low intensity calls. This species are thought to forage

within woodland and woodland edge habitat and is likely to forage over the outgrown

hedgerows woodland on-site and also within nearby woodland.

15.79 The Assessment Site is considered to be of local (low) value for foraging and commuting bats

(especially Pipistrelles and serotines).


12212/A5/ES2010 305 January 2010

Dormice

15.80 The potential presence of dormice on-site was scoped out during the Phase 1 habitat survey

due to the absence of any connectivity between the Assessment Site and any woodland

habitat, and the patchy distribution of suitable hedgerows. However, in September 2009 WSP

were made aware of a previous dormouse survey that had been undertaken at Picket Piece in

2004 during which dormouse were found to be present. A plan showing dormouse

distribution in 2004 has been obtained (see Figure 2 of Appendix 15.6). The plan shows

that dormice were found to be present within three separate parts of the Assessment Site in

2004. Two of these areas are within Phase One and the third is within the subsequent

development area. As a result of these findings, a nut search was undertaken in October

2009 and the presence of dormice within the subsequent development area was confirmed.

The ‘nut-search’ survey method was not viable for the other two parts of the Assessment Site

due to the absence of hazel (see Appendix 15.6). Therefore, no current presence or

absence data are available for dormouse within the Phase One area. Accordingly, for the

purposes of this assessment, dormice have been assumed present in all three locations in

which they have been previously recorded, in keeping with the precautionary principle.

15.81 Dormice are legally protected under European legislation due to continued declines in

population numbers and distributional range. The dormouse population on-site is therefore

considered to be of county (high) value. Due to the small size and fragmented nature of the

habitat on-site, the long-term viability of the dormouse population on-site appears to be

threatened, even in the absence of development (see Appendix 15.6).

Birds

15.82 One building on-site (a wooden stable) has been observed to support nesting swallows

(Building B26 on Figure 15.2). Old birds nests were also observed in and on a number of

the small stables and sheds that occur throughout the Assessment Site, indicating that the

Assessment Site supports a healthy population of nesting birds, as would be expected by the

combination of hedgerows and grassland habitats on the Assessment Site and the relatively

low intensity of land management across the majority of the Assessment Site. The survey

window for breeding bird surveys is March – July and as such it has not been possible to

undertake bird surveys for the preparation of this chapter. Breeding bird surveys will be

conducted at the earliest opportunity, in the appropriate season (Spring 2010). In the

meantime, a provisional value has been allocated to the bird assemblage, which is considered

to be of Borough (medium) value due to the range of habitats on-site.


12212/A5/ES2010 306 January 2010

Invertebrates

15.83 Invertebrate surveys were undertaken between July and September 2009 and the results are

reported in the invertebrate report (Appendix 15.7). A total of 322 invertebrate species

were recorded, and this indicates that the survey effort was sufficient. This number cannot

be used to infer ecological value of the site, which is discussed below and within Appendix

15.7).

15.84 No legally protected, red data book or UK BAP priority species were recorded on-site3 and no

rare invertebrate species of significance (in the professional opinion of the invertebrate

specialist) have been recorded. Refer to Appendix 2 of the the invertebrate report (Appendix

15.7) for an explanation of the invertebrate status codes.

15.85 Three nationally scarce species were recorded on the Assessment Site, as follows:

• The solitary bee Colletes hederae was until recently not known from Britain. Its

arrival from France is probably a reflection of climate change. It colonised the South

Coast within the past ten years and has now established itself north to mid-Hampshire.

The adults feed on ivy blossom, and the discovery of adults both on ivy during surveys

at the Assessment Site represents a new location for this colonising species;

• The mining bee Lasioglossum xanthopus is present on site. It is more normally

associated with calcareous grassland, coastal landslips and sea cliffs, but it has been

found with increasing frequency at inland sites in the past ten years or so and it may be

a species that is responding favourably to climate change; and

• Roesel's Bush-cricket Metrioptera roeselii has, recent years, undergone a very

large expansion of range that is almost certainly climate-driven. This species has been

found to be present on the site. In most years the insects develop without the ability to

fly, but in favourable (hot) summers the females develop winged forms that are able to

disperse after mating and establish populations in new areas. In the south-east of

England, this cricket is present in considerable abundance in grassland habitats,

including set-a-side, field margins, road verges and lightly grazed pastures where there

is plenty of vegetation cover. The Nationally Notable status is probably no longer

warranted.

15.86 Eleven nationally local4 species were recorded, within a variety of habitats on the Assessment

Site. These are species that, whilst fairly common, are evidently not a common as truly

3 Excepting a moth species which is a ‘research only’ BAP species and is not of conservation concern. 4 species which, whilst fairly common, are evidently less widespread than truly common species (see Appendix 2 of the invertebrate report in Appendix 15.7).


12212/A5/ES2010 307 January 2010

widespread species. They include flies, beetles and leaf-hoppers and were found in

grassland and hedgerow habitats.

15.87 Whilst overall the semi-natural habitats at the Assessment Site form a habitat mosaic of local

importance, some parts of that mosaic make a greater contribution to the invertebrate value

of the Assessment Site than others as described below.

15.88 The network of hedges and occasional tree groups and scrub, including inaccessible areas

alongside the railway tracks, probably input the single most important significance to

invertebrate ecology at the Assessment Site. Hedges have two particular attributes in terms

of their support of invertebrate ecology – their intrinsic quality and their use as corridors for

physical movement across the landscape. Due to the maturity and species diversity within

the hedgerow network at the Assessment Site, the hedgerows are considered to have a very

high invertebrate value. In particular, hedgerows containing wild privet (a total of 25

hedgerows) are considered to be of potential value to the Barred Tooth-striped moth

(Trichopteryx polycommata) – a nationally rare insect that is included as a priority Species

within the UK BAP. The moth is known from this south central area of Britain and in some

areas the habitat at the Assessment Site is considered to be ideal. Surveys for this species

were not possible due to seasonal restrictions5.

15.89 The mosaic of gardens and other habitats, including the derelict orchard area, to the north of

the main road through the village presents a generally attractive range of habitats to

invertebrates. Although contributing to the overall “green mosaic”, remaining areas of the

Assessment Site currently have an apparently lower value to invertebrates or else are

replaceable.

15.90 Overall the Assessment Site is considered to be of Borough (medium) importance for

invertebrates due to the importance of the hedgerow network that is present.

Invasive species

15.91 No invasive species that are listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act,

1981 have been found on the Assessment Site. A small patch of Himalayan balsam

(Impatiens glandulifera) is present within scrub in the north-west of the Assessment Site

(Target Note 2 on Figure 15.2). This is an invasive species although not currently listed

under any legislation.

5 This moth species can only be searched for between mid- March and June, which was outside of the 2009 survey period.


12212/A5/ES2010 308 January 2010

15.92 Parrot’s-feather (Meriophylum aquaticum), a highly invasive, non-native aquatic species, is

present in one of the ponds on-site (Target note 6 on Figure 15.2). A wildlife value is not

applicable to invasive species.

Other species

15.93 Great crested newts and badgers are absent from the Assessment Site and have been scoped

out of this assessment. Please refer to the separate newt and badger reports for further

information (Appendix 15.8 and 15.9 respectively).

15.94 Table 15.3 provides a summary of the existing baseline ecological values.

Table 15.3: Summary of Baseline Ecological Values

Feature Value Legal Protection

Scoped in or out of subsequent effect

assessment (where scoped out, brief reason is given)

Harewood Forest County (high) No In Broad-leaved woodland Borough

(medium) No In

Mixed plantation woodland Site (low) No In Native Hedge Borough

(medium) Yes (some

hedgerows) In

Non-native Hedge Less than site (Negligible)

No Out – low ecological value

Continuous and scattered scrub

Less than site (Negligible)

(County value where slow worm are present)

No Out – low ecological value, effects in relation to slow worm

are scoped in.

Bracken County (high) (as slow-worm

habitat)

No In – effects in relation to slow worm are scope in.

Tall Ruderal Site (low) No In Scattered trees Site (low) No In

Improved and Amenity grassland

Less than site (Negligible)


Semi-improved grassland Local (medium) (County value where slow-

worm are present)

No In

Arable Less than site (Negligible)


Building Less than site (Negligible)

No (except where nesting

birds)

Out – low ecological value

Hardstanding Less than site (Negligible)


Bare ground Less than site (Negligible)


Ponds Site (low) No Out – both ponds now fall outside of the red line

boundary. Slow-worm County (high) Yes In


12212/A5/ES2010 309 January 2010

Feature Value Legal Protection

Scoped in or out of subsequent effect

assessment (where scoped out, brief reason is given)

Bats: roost foraging

County (high) Local (low)

Yes No

In In

Dormouse County (high) Yes In Bird Borough

(medium) Yes In

Invertebrate Borough (medium)

No In

Invasive species N/A No In – due to risk of adverse effects

Great crested newts Absent No Out – absent from site Badger Absent No Out – absent from site


15.95 In the absence of development, the baseline conditions on the Assessment Site in 2015

would be expected to be broadly similar to those described above. In particular, the

hedgerows, trees and managed grasslands would be expected to remain the same. Some of

the immature trees would be expected to increase in size, but four years is a relatively short

time-span and would not bring about a significant change in the ecological value of the tree

stock on-site.

15.96 Where land management is currently not undertaken, or undertaken sporadically, it can be

predicted that some of the existing grasslands might revert to scrub habitat, and the areas of

existing patchy scrub might progress to dense, continuous scrub cover. This would reduce

the suitability of the land in the north-west of the Assessment Site for slow-worms,

potentially resulting in a decline in the slow-worm population on site and a shift in the

invertebrate assemblage present. Scrub encroachment could also reduce the floristic

diversity of some of the grasslands. Conversely, should areas of grassland that are currently

intensively mown or grazed be left unmanaged, these would be expected to increase in

ecological value and provide new habitat suitable for reptiles and increased value to

invertebrates.

15.97 The future baseline conditions in 2015 depend largely on the management practices that are

in place at the time. Since the Assessment Site is under multiple ownership (and therefore

each land parcel is subject to its own management regime) it is considered likely that the

overall ecological value of the Assessment Site would be expected to remain the same.


15.98 Baseline conditions would be expected change in line with the description above, right

through to 2017. In general, if the overall use of the fields was to decline across the


12212/A5/ES2010 310 January 2010

Assessment Site, there would be an increase in the overall ecological value of the

Assessment Site. Conversely, if the overall use of fields was to intensify (for example, if a

greater proportion of the fields were used for livestock) then the overall ecological value of

the Assessment Site would decrease. There are some nuances which would not follow this

trend, such as the potential loss of suitable reptile habitat and species rich grassland as

described above, which might come about if unmanaged fields are left unmanaged (so revert

to scrub) and managed fields remain managed in a relatively intensive way (therefore not

progressing to species rich, rank grassland).

15.99 Approximately one third of the existing hedgerow network is protected under the Hedgerow

Regulations, 1997 and therefore permission from TVBC would be required prior to their

removal. The remaining hedgerows could potentially be removed without any such

permission, and some hedgerow removal has clearly already been undertaken at the

Assessment Site since the original layout of private small holdings. It is therefore possible

that, even in the absence of development, further hedgerow removal could occur at the

Assessment Site over the next ten years, without any requirement for compensatory planting

and this could lead to a reduction in the value of the hedgerow network (the severity of

which will be proportional to the amount of hedgerow removal which occurs).

15.100 It can be concluded that the overall ecological value of the Assessment Site is not secured in

2017, even in the absence of development, since changes to the current land use could

significantly change the value of the Assessment Site for better or for worse.

Likely Significant Effects

Construction of Phase One

15.101 In the absence of mitigation, the following effects are likely to arise from the construction of

Phase One in relation to the baseline conditions for 2011.

Effects excluded from the construction of Phase One

15.102 Several of the receptors scoped into the assessment would not be affected during the

construction of Phase One.

15.103 There would be no significant construction effects on Harewood Forest due to the large

distance between the Assessment Site and the forest. The access routes for construction

traffic are via the existing road network and do not pass near the Forest. Neither will

additional noise or dust arising from the construction process be significant in relation to the

background levels arising from Andover town centre and the Walworth industrial estate.


12212/A5/ES2010 311 January 2010

15.104 Slow worm will not be affected during construction of Phase One, since they are absent from

the Phase One site. The same is also true for bracken, tall ruderal habitat and broad-leaved

woodland.

15.105 Effects to habitats of site value that are within Phase One are discussed under ‘loss of other

semi-natural vegetation’ in paragraph 15.110. These habitats are mixed plantation woodland

and scattered trees.

Loss and Degradation of Hedgerow Habitat (and habitat connectivity)

15.106 Hedgerow retention has been a priority in the design of the development parameters, and

approximately 80% of existing hedgerows will be retained, meaning that the overall

connectivity of hedgerow habitat across the Assessment Site will largely be retained.

However, some losses have been unavoidable and the Overall Development will bring about a

loss of one of the 17 hedgerows qualifying as ‘important’ under the hedgerow regulations

and 3 of the 20 species-rich hedgerows. Importantly, all but one of hedgerows that are

assumed to support dormice will be retained (see paragraph 15.115 for further details).

There will also be some degradation of retained hedgerows, where it has been necessary to

fragment them with roads. A significant amount of replacement planting is proposed in the

soft-estate, but this will take time to become established. The loss and degradation of

hedgerows during the construction of Phase One is considered to be a certain temporary

adverse effect of Borough (medium) wildlife value, since it amounts to a loss of over 1km of

UK BAP priority habitat for a duration of approximately 8 years (4 years during the

construction process and a further 4 years to allow the new planting to become established).

15.107 Since construction activities will occur in close proximity to the retained hedgerows, there is

also a high risk of accidental damage to these hedges, in the absence of mitigation, which

could lead to degradation or destruction of the hedgerows intended for retention. This would

also be an adverse effect of Borough (medium) significance, and there could be associated

legal implications6.

Loss of Semi-Improved Grassland

15.108 Substantial areas of semi-improved grassland will be excluded from the construction footprint

of the Phase One development, in regions proposed for informal and formal public space in

the south-east of Phase One to the south of Ox Drove and land adjacent to the village hall in

the centre of Phase One and this will ensure continuity of this habitat type on-site

throughout the construction period. Nonetheless, the construction of Phase One will bring

6 A legal offence would be committed if hedgerows are removed for which full planning permission has not been granted.


12212/A5/ES2010 312 January 2010

about a loss of semi-improved grassland habitat in the western and eastern areas which will

amount to an approximate 50% reduction in semi-improved grassland of local (medium)

wildlife value at the site clearance stage.

15.109 Additional species-rich grassland creation is proposed over approximately 1.5 ha in the final

scheme for Phase one, and retained grassland will also be enhanced. However, the

enhancement and new creation of grassland will take a few years to take effect and

therefore the construction effects on grassland habitat as a result of the Phase One

development are considered to a certain temporary, adverse effect of site-scale significance7.

Loss of Other Semi-natural Vegetation

15.110 In addition to the habitats assessed above, the construction of Phase One will lead to a wider

loss of semi-natural vegetation. This includes habitats of site value such as a small area of

mixed plantation woodland and some scattered trees.

15.111 When assessed in combination with the effects on hedges and grassland above, it is

considered that this wider loss of vegetation will bring about a temporary adverse effect on

common and widespread animals and plants on the Assessment Site for the early stages of

the construction activity (before soft-landscaping has been created). This is considered to be

a certain temporary, adverse effect of site (low) significance.

Effects on Bats

15.112 Phase One of the Overall Development does not affect any known bat roosts and the single

building-roost identified during surveys does not fall within the Phase One boundary. Neither

are long-term adverse effects on tree-roosting bats likely, since the Assessment Site does not

contain a significant resource of trees with roosting potential, and only a small proportion of

these will be lost to development leading to no significant change in the value of the site for

tree roosting bats. One dwelling (Building number 18 on Figure 15.2) with low bat potential

will be demolished as a result of the Phase One development. For the purposes of this

assessment, bats are assumed absent based on external assessments of the suitability of the

building, but this will require confirmation through internal inspections (see section 15.168).

There is a risk that construction activity could bring about the killing or injury of individual

bats, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures, and this would be a possible,

permanent adverse effect of county significance. There would also be associated legal

implications.

7 The effect is significant at a scale that is lower than the ecological value since only partial habitat loss will occur.


12212/A5/ES2010 313 January 2010

15.113 Effects on foraging bats will occur as a result of the loss of existing key foraging or

commuting resources (as illustrated on Figure 3 of the Bat Report, Appendix 15.5). The

main area of loss will be in the central/eastern part of Phase One where existing grassland

fields will be converted to residential development. High levels of serotine bat activity were

recorded here, and a roost is suspected to be present somewhere locally (off-site). Serotines

preferentially feed in open habitats and ‘edge habitats’ such as the semi-improved

grassland/hedgerow matrix on-site. Whilst it is possible that levels of bat activity could

remain high over the construction areas of the Overall Development (due to the

compensatory effects of temporary tall ruderal habitat likely to establish across large areas

of the construction site during the four year construction process) it is probable that

significant areas of the Assessment Site will be temporarily unsuitable for foraging bats for

the duration of the construction activities as a result of habitat loss during the site clearance

stages. Since alternative proven foraging and commuting routes exist across the Assessment

Site (in particular along the London – Exeter railway line to the north) and these will remain

unaffected during the construction of Phase One, it is considered likely that most bat species

will simply utilise alternative routes and foraging areas during the construction phase,

perhaps travelling further afield than they otherwise would in search of suitable foraging

habitat (e.g. Harewood Forest, to the south of the Assessment Site, or the retained

grassland/hedgerow present immediately south of Ox Drove).

15.114 It is therefore unlikely that the temporary effect of the construction work will lead to a

significant effect on bats at any scale. This is therefore a negligible effect.

Effects on Dormice

15.115 Almost all of the existing dormouse habitat on-site will be retained in Phase One, with the

exception of hedgerow ‘24’ (see Figure 2 of the hedgerow report, Appendix 15.6).

Unmitigated, removal of this hedge could lead to killing or injury of dormice and loss of

dormouse habitat, although it is not known whether this species is still present in this

location (see 15.80 - 15.81).

15.116 Extensive effort has been made to retain the existing level of hedgerow connectivity and

coverage in the Overall Development, and to consolidate suitable dormouse habitat by

providing wide buffers to the retained hedgerows. However, even if the Overall Development

were not to proceed, it is considered possible that dormice could be lost from both areas

where they are considered to be present in Phase One (see Appendix 15.6).

15.117 Due to the existing vulnerability of the dormouse population on-site any adverse effect on

the habitat resource or individual dormice would lead to a permanent adverse effect on the


12212/A5/ES2010 314 January 2010

dormouse population on-site, which is considered to be of county significance. There are also

associated legal implications.

Effects on Birds

15.118 The bird interest of the Assessment Site is likely to be closely linked to the hedgerow habitat

and residential gardens. Due to the significant levels of hedgerow retention, significant

effects on the availability of nesting habitat for the existing bird assemblage are not likely to

occur during the construction phase. However, in the absence of appropriate mitigation

direct effects on nesting birds could arise during the construction of Phase One as result of

insufficient protection of hedgerows or inappropriate timing of vegetation clearance. This is

considered to be a possible, temporary adverse effect of local significance. There are


Effects on Invertebrates

15.119 The greatest invertebrate interest on the Assessment Site is within the hedgerows and an

important factor is the age of the hedgerow network. Since direct compensation for

hedgerow loss would require greater than 100 years to reach an equivalent invertebrate

interest, it is considered that the effects of hedgerow loss is most accurately described as a

permanent and irreversible effect. Ancient or species-rich hedgerows have been

preferentially retained over species poor hedgerows (see effects on hedgerows, paragraph

15.106) and therefore the 20% reduction in the existing hedgerow network is not likely to be

directly comparable to 20% reduction in invertebrate value. In fact, the effects are

considered to be far less, and might be expressed at about a 10% in the distribution of the

most valuable invertebrate assemblage currently on-site.

15.120 However, a new range of micro-habitats attractive to invertebrates will be created as an

incidental result of construction activity. These will comprise bare earth and an abundance

of tall ruderal habitat during the early construction phase, giving way to gardens, permanent

scrub, new hedgerows and species-rich grasslands as the scheme and landscaping

progresses. Many of these are habitats that are easily re-created and as such might be

considered to be of less value than the established hedgerows that will be lost. Therefore, in

the absence of specific compensatory or enhancement measures the construction of Phase

One would have a probable permanent adverse effect of site significance8 on the invertebrate

interest of the Assessment Site.

8 The effect is significant at a scale that is lower than the ecological value since only partial habitat loss will occur.


12212/A5/ES2010 315 January 2010

Invasive Species

15.121 The presence of the invasive species Parrot’s-feather in the Phase One development footprint

means that site clearance activities could potentially lead to the further spread of this

species in the wild. For example, the material could be removed from the Assessment Site

and disposed of elsewhere, introducing a risk of contamination of watercourses further

afield. Parrot’s-feather is an aggressive coloniser in the wild. It out-competes native species

leading to a reduction in biodiversity along watercourses because it reduces the availability

of food/shelter/oxygen and other factors within the ecosystem. It can also create a serious

flood risk. This is considered to be a possible, permanent adverse effect of local

significance.

Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Development

15.122 The operational effects of Phase One are assessed below, in combination with the

construction of the Subsequent Development phases as these are likely to occur together.

This is anticipated to occur in 2015 to 2017. For the reasons described in paragraphs 15.95-

15.100 the ecological baseline for the subsequent development has been assumed to be

comparable to the existing baseline. Where ‘in-combination’ effects of the operation of

Phase One and the construction of the subsequent development are not discussed, it should

be assumed that no significant ‘in-combination’ effects exist.

Hedgerows and Habitat Connectivity

15.123 The construction of subsequent phases of the Overall Development will result in no loss of

native hedgerows, although some fragmentation will occur as a result of new roads. This

fragmentation is not likely to prevent movement of species across the Assessment Site (due

to the retention of existing mature vegetation, including areas of bracken and tall ruderal

habitat, along the railway line), and the resulting effect is unlikely to be significant at any

scale. There would be no additional effect as a result of the operation of Phase One since all

compensatory habitat creation will be in place.

15.124 The creation of a wide buffer strip abutting the London – Exeter railway line, in which

extensive compensatory planting is proposed (in the form of native hedgerows, scrub and

species-rich grassland, creating a habitat mosaic) is likely to enhance habitat connectivity,

such that the overall effect on hedgerows and connectivity on the Assessment Site will be

neutral (and therefore is considered negligible).


12212/A5/ES2010 316 January 2010


15.125 The overall Subsequent development to the north of Walworth Road will bring about losses of

semi-improved grassland habitat in the region of 4ha or 75% of the semi-improved grassland

of the Assessment Site. This will not be in addition to losses south of Walworth Road, since

the compensatory habitat provision in Phase One will have become well established by now,

(being implemented from day one of the construction of Phase One and therefore present for

four years).

15.126 This loss will be permanent and irreversible, since there is little scope for provision of large

scale replacement grassland habitat in the Overall Development. Since the Assessment Site

as a whole enables at least 50% of the existing area of semi-improved grassland to be

represented in the final scheme, and since this amounts to a large, functional area of

grassland that will be the focus of future wildlife management (circa 5-6ha) it is considered

that the high percentage loss of grassland in the area of subsequent development is only of

site-level significance. This is considered to be a certain, permanent adverse effect.

15.127 Since slow-worms are present in some of this grassland, there will also be legal implications

associated with site clearance.

Loss of other Semi-Natural Vegetation (of site value)

15.128 Construction of the subsequent development will bring about relatively small losses of

bracken, scattered trees and tall ruderal habitat of site value, but the majority will be

retained within the wide buffer strip along the London - Exeter railway line, and connecting

hedgerows. The resulting effect is therefore of negligible significance.

15.129 Furthermore, once Phase One is operational, compensatory planting (including creation of

public open space, new structural planting and residential gardens) will have been

undertaken across this part of the development and this will off-set any previous effects on

construction-stage losses to common and widespread species. This effect is therefore

reduced to a negligible effect once Phase One is operational, irrespective of construction of

the subsequent development.

Effects on Reptiles

15.130 Construction of the subsequent development could lead to adverse effect to slow-worms,

which are present in the north-west of the Assessment Site, in grassland habitat directly

adjacent to the London – Exeter railway line. The overall area that currently supports slow-

worms is approximately 3.5ha, of which approximately 50% is within the development


12212/A5/ES2010 317 January 2010

footprint, the remaining areas fall within the retained orchard area or the large buffer strip

adjacent to the London – Exeter railway line. Both of these areas are highly suitable for the

retention and enhancement of reptile habitat.

15.131 Even without specific reptile mitigation measures, the existing slow-worm population would

be retained on-site if the development were to proceed, although in the absence of habitat

enhancement the overall population size might be reduced by up to 50% (in line with habitat

reductions).

15.132 Without appropriate safeguards in place during the construction process, there could also be

directly killing or injury of some slow-worms as a result of construction.

15.133 The unmitigated effects on slow-worms is considered to be a probable permanent adverse

effect of Borough significance and there are associated legal implications.

Effects on Bats

15.134 No significant effects of habitat loss are likely to occur to bats as a result of the construction

of the subsequent development.

15.135 As with Phase One, there is a risk that individual tree felling could bring about the killing or

injury of individual bats, in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures. This is

considered to be a possible, permanent, adverse effect of County (medium) significance.

There are also associated legal implications. One dwelling with low bat potential will be

demolished as a result of the subsequent development. For the purposes of this assessment,

bats are assumed absent based on external assessments of the suitability of the building, but

this will require confirmation through internal inspections (see section 15.168).

15.136 In the absence of appropriate measures, operation of Phase One could result in adverse

effects on foraging bats as a result of street lighting and residential security that will be in

place in the operational development. This is discussed separately below.

Effects on Dormice

15.137 Dormice are present within part of the subsequent development areas, largely within habitat

that will be retained and augmented along the London – Exeter railway line. However, as for

Phase One, construction activity could adversely affect this species, especially since

fragmentation of some hedgerows is likely to make way for road crossings.


12212/A5/ES2010 318 January 2010

15.138 Operational effects on dormice could also arise at Phase One during this time, as a result of

inappropriate hedgerow management, which could compromise the existing dormouse

population by reducing the availability of food sources, or lighting effects (as discussed in

more detail below).

15.139 Due to the existing vulnerability of the dormouse population on-site any adverse effect on

the habitat resource or individual dormice could lead to a permanent negative effect on the

dormouse population on-site, which is considered to be of county significance. There are also


Effects on Birds and Invertebrates

15.140 The substantial amount of semi-natural habitat retention proposed along the London – Exeter

railway line within the subsequent development areas, along with retention of existing native

hedgerows and the orchard area (which is of some invertebrate value for it’s deadwood

components), is considered sufficient to ensure that there would be no long-term significant

adverese effects on birds or invertebrates within these areas as a result of site clearance

activity.

15.141 However, in the absence of appropriate mitigation, direct effects on nesting birds could arise

as result of insufficient protection of hedgerows or inappropriate timing of vegetation

clearance. This is considered to be a possible, temporary adverse effect of local significance.

There are associated legal implications.

Invasive Species

15.142 The presence of the invasive species Himalayan balsam in the subsequent development

footprint means that site clearance activities could potentially lead to the further spread of

this species. The effects of the spread of this species are as described for Parrot’s-feather in

paragraph 15.121 above. This is considered to be a possible, permanent adverse effect of

local significance.

Effects arising from Artificial Lighting

15.143 There is the potential for wildlife to be adversely affected by increased artificial night-time

lighting on the operational development. Of the species known to be present on the

Assessment Site, bats and dormice are thought to be the most vulnerable to night-time

lighting, although effects on most invertebrates are largely unknown, and some birds are

also adversely affected by lighting (Ref. 15.28). The majority of studies to date have been on

bats and the effect of lighting on bats has been found to be species-specific, with some


12212/A5/ES2010 319 January 2010

species showing avoidance of lighting and others actively seeking out and foraging around

artificial lighting (due to the insects that can be attracted to the lighting) (Ref. 15.29). On

the Assessment Site, both serotines and pipistrelles appear unaffected by the existing light

spill. In fact, pipistrelles were often found feeding around street lamps. Wider research

supports these observations and it is generally accepted that these species often feed on

insects attracted to artificial light (Ref. 15.30). That is not to say that there are no adverse

effects of lighting on these species since artificial lighting is thought to increase the chances

of such bats being preyed upon and may adversely affect other natural behaviour (Ref.

15.29). In view of current knowledge of bats and lighting, it is considered that as long as

certain important foraging and commuting areas are retained (as indicated in

recommendations below), the increased light spill from other areas will not significantly

affect these species.

15.144 In contrast, Myotis bats are known to be particularly sensitive to lighting effects and actively

avoid light. Artificial lighting can therefore prevent movement of such bats across otherwise

suitable habitat (Ref. 15.29). At least one Myotis species is roosting within Picket Piece

(outside of the Assessment Site), yet apparently not spending significant time foraging on

the Assessment Site. In the absence of dark corridors through the Assessment Site, Myotis

bats could potentially be ‘cut off’ from their off-site foraging grounds, and the existing roost

would therefore no longer be suitable for these species. Long-eared bats are also sensitive

to night-time lighting (Ref. 15.29) and could be adversely affected. This species uses the

Assessment Site, but it has not been possible to ascertain the level of long-eared activity

across the Assessment Site (since this species cannot be reliably detected using current bat

detector activity).

15.145 Night-time lighting could adversely affect bats by fragmenting existing commuting corridors

and reducing the area of suitable foraging habitat available to light-sensitive bat species,

leading to a reduction in the number and diversity of species using the Assessment Site.

15.146 Dormice are a strictly nocturnal species. The affects of artificial lighting on dormice are

unknown, but as a small, cryptic, nocturnal species that avoids predation through being

undetected, it is reasonable to assume that artificial lighting of their hedgerow habitat could

lead to adverse effects such as increased predation or avoidance behaviour.

15.147 The potential unmitigated effect of artificial lighting on some bat species and dormice in the

Assessment Site is considered to be a possible, permanent adverse effect of County

significance, due to potential ‘worst-case scenario’ effects, which could result in a loss of

these species from the Assessment Site.

Effect to Harewood Forest (Recreation)


12212/A5/ES2010 320 January 2010

15.148 Consideration has been given to the potential for the operation of Phase One to bring about

adverse effects on nearby sensitive receptors. The only possible effect that could arise is an

increase in recreational pressure on Harewood Forest. Public footpaths run through

Harewood Forest and it is used for informal recreation. It is considered possible that

residents could make use of Harewood Forest as one of the nearest available public area

suitable for dog walking etc, however, since the Overall Development involves approximately

4ha of informal and formal public space, which is more convenient to the residents, it is

considered that these areas will be used preferentially. Therefore, no significant effects

resulting from recreational pressure are considered likely at Harwood Forest.

Operation of the Overall Development (i.e. Phase One and Subsequent Development

complete)

15.149 The likely significant effects of the whole development once complete and occupied (i.e.

Phase One plus the subsequent development) when compared to the baseline conditions

described for 2017 (which are considered to be equivalent to the current baseline

conditions).


15.150 The effects of lighting at this stage (when night-time lighting has also been installed into the

subsequent developments) will be similar to that already described on completion of Phase

One, except that a larger area of land would be affected, including the existing dark wildlife

corridor along the railway line. This would remain a possible, permanent adverse effect of

County significance.

Additional Recreational Pressure to Harewood Forest

15.151 The provision of substantial areas of formal and informal open space within the Phase One

development is considered likely to be more attractive to new residents of the Overall

Development than the more distant Harwood Forest, therefore adverse effects from

additional recreational pressures are considered unlikely to be significant.

Mitigation Measures

15.152 The ecological mitigation measures for each sensitive receptor comprise two phases: The

protection of the receptor during construction processes (avoidance) followed by habitat

creation measures post-construction (compensation and enhancement). Examples of


12212/A5/ES2010 321 January 2010

compensatory and enhancement measures include supplementary species planting,

augmentation of existing features and creation of entirely new habitats.

15.153 All protection measures will be put in place before site clearance activities begin within any

given construction areas, whilst compensation and enhancement will be implemented as land

becomes available. This means that compensation and enhancement of the majority of large

grassland areas (e.g. the areas of public open space) and some of the hedgerow connections

(e.g. in the south and east) will begin at the onset of construction activity, whilst other

measures may not be implemented until the later stages of the construction period (such as

planting of new hedges along the central road, creation of residential gardens and hedgerow

planting around the boundaries of the residential development).

15.154 Since the ecological mitigation measures for each receptor are a complete package of

avoidance, compensation and enhancement, these are described together in this section and

an indication of the phasing of the mitigation is provided alongside these descriptions. The

residual effects have been determined on the basis of the likely progress of each area of

mitigation at the end of each of the three development stages (i.e. at 2015, 2017 and

‘completion of subsequent development’).

15.155 Where mitigation is not required, it has been excluded from this section.

Mitigation for Hedgerow Loss and Degradation

15.156 Accidental damage to hedgerows retained in the development parameters will be avoided

through the use of protective fencing in accordance with BS5837:2005 and the appointment

of a Construction Environmental Manager who will be responsible for implementing all habitat

protection measures on the Assessment Site during construction.

15.157 Substantial compensatory habitat creation will occur during the construction stages of the

Phase One development to off-set the adverse effect of hedgerow loss and degradation. This

will involve supplementary native species planting to enhance the retained hedgerows, and

create new lengths of species-rich hedgerow. There will also be domestic hedgerow planting

(a mixture of native and near native species) around almost all of the boundaries between

existing residential housing and new residential housing, thereby increasing the overall

amount of structural vegetation (hedgerows and trees) on-site by approximately 20%. It is

the intention that a large proportion of the retained and created hedgerows on site will

eventually come under a 3-5 year rotational cutting regime, which would be described within

a habitat management plan for the hedges.


12212/A5/ES2010 322 January 2010

15.158 The net increase in the quantity of hedgerows and trees on-site will go a long way to

compensate for the reduction in established hedgerows on the Assessment Site.

15.159 In the subsequent development areas, the existing habitat network will not be significantly

affected due to the retention and enhancement of the wide buffer of semi-natural vegetation

along the London - Exeter railway line. Therefore no mitigation is required.

Mitigation for Loss of Semi-improved Grassland

15.160 Semi-improved grassland retention and creation is proposed throughout Phase One, within

areas of informal and formal public space which include the three large fields to the south of

Ox Drove, the fields to the back of the village hall and smaller strips of grassland adjacent to

retained hedgerows. Many of these are located over existing species-rich grassland although

there are some notable exceptions. For example, the large arable field south of Ox Drove

will be converted into an open grassland area.

15.161 Species-rich grasslands will be created in the areas of informal and formal public space

through habitat management and natural species colonisation in preference to re-seeding

with a ‘wild flower mix’. The reason for this is two-fold; a) the underlying substrate is chalk

and existing areas of grassland left unmanaged on the Assessment Site currently exhibit a

species-rich composition, providing confidence that species rich grasslands can be

successfully created/ re-created on the Assessment Site; and b) natural recolonisation retains

a local, native gene pool in the area, without risk of introducing horticultural varieties and

sub-species that originate from other regions in Britain or Europe.

15.162 The future management of the grasslands will is most likely to be undertaken by Test Valley

Borough Council. A habitat management plan will be devised for the grasslands to ensure

that appropriate ecological management techniques are used across the grasslands.

Management will seek to promote herb-rich grassland whilst restricting encroachment by

scrub, nettle and ragwort, such that the grassland habitat is maintained in the long-term.

Scrub removal will not seek to eliminate scrub from the Assessment Site (as it is of wildlife

value in itself) but will ensure that a sensible balance is maintained between scrub and

grassland. An annual or twice-yearly cut should be sufficient to appropriately manage this

habitat. Cutting/mowing of the nettle areas and pulling of ragwort may need to be

undertaken more regularly, perhaps three or four times a year. Again, the aim will be to

control but not eradicate these two species, as both have wildlife value, especially to certain

butterfly species. All cut material will be removed from the grassland to prevent further

nutrient enrichment through organic decomposition. This can be stored in piles on the edge

of the habitat to provide habitat for reptiles and invertebrates.


12212/A5/ES2010 323 January 2010

15.163 Where grasslands exist along hedgerow lengths, cycle paths or footpaths, these may need to

be mown on a more regular basis and mowing in these areas will be undertaken rotationally,

to reduce effects on invertebrates and ensure continuity of long-grass habitat on the

Assessment Site.

15.164 Since the aim is to create species-rich grassland from the existing grasslands on-site, the

management plan for the grasslands will need to be under continual review, and changes

made as necessary, in response to the emerging site conditions. An ecologist will therefore

be involved in the development of the habitat management and the review process.

15.165 There is little scope for extensive habitat replacement to compensate for the grassland loss

in the subsequent development. However, once established, the quality of retained

grassland will be greater than that lost, and will be secured in the long term. Furthermore,

some of the lost grassland habitats across the Assessment Site will be replaced by gardens,

which can contain a high density of flowering species of value to many invertebrate species.

Mitigation for Semi-natural Vegetation

15.166 The adverse effect of site (low) significance that will arise through losses of semi-natural

vegetation relate solely to the construction-stage loss of habitat connectivity across Phase

One. The only measure available to mitigate this effect would be to retain a greater

proportion of semi-natural habitat on site at any one time during construction. This would

bring about an unreasonable restriction to construction movements on the site and is not

considered to be practical to implement. Therefore no mitigation is recommended.

Mitigation for Bats

15.167 Since bats tend to use tree-roosts in a more temporary and transitional manner than building

roosts, it will be necessary to undertake pre-felling inspections of any mature trees that are

proposed to be lost at the detailed design stage. Such inspections should begin within six

months of the proposed felling works, and initial ground-inspection surveys may need to be

followed by subsequent ‘climb and inspect’ investigations or evening emergence survey.

15.168 The two dwellings that fall within the Assessment Site (building 5 and 18 on Figure 15.2)

have been assessed as holding low potential for roosting bats, meaning that it is highly

unlikely that bats would be found present in the buildings. However, they have not been the

subject of specific bat surveys and since bats have been known to roost within surprising and

apparently ‘unsuitable’ locations it is recommended that a precautionary pre-demolition

inspection of both buildings is undertaken, prior to the onset of demolition activity. One


12212/A5/ES2010 324 January 2010

building is within the Phase One development, the second is within the subsequent

development area.

15.169 In the unlikely event that bats are found to be roosting within any tree or building that is to

be lost, a European Protected Species licence would be required from Natural England for the

development to proceed, including a detailed Method Statement describing how the works

would be undertaken (in a manner that would avoid harming bats) and the measures that

would be taken to compensate for the loss of the original roosts.

15.170 Bats will benefit directly from the proposed species-rich grassland and hedgerow creation on

the site, which will come under a management programme, thereby securing foraging

grounds for bats in the long-term.

15.171 Further enhancement for bats will be provided through the inclusion of woodcrete bat boxes

or bat bricks within some of the new housing, to introduce additional roosting opportunities

for bats into the Assessment Site.

15.172 These mitigation measures will be adopted throughout the Phase One development and the

subsequent development.

Mitigation for Dormice

15.173 Since the long-term future of dormice on-site is considered to be threatened even in the

absence of development, significant enhancement of the existing situation is proposed as

part of the Overall Development, in order to secure a viable habitat for dormice on-site in the

future.

15.174 Mitigation for dormice has been built into the scheme design so that there is confidence that

the new scheme will have sufficient capacity within it to accommodate a population of

dormice, should they be confirmed to be present during nest tube surveys which will be

conducted between April – October 2010. This has been achieved through the following

measures;

a) Increasing the availability of food within the hedges supporting dormice; these hedges

currently contain virtually no hazel (favoured by dormice) and, in the east, are dominated

by several large coniferous trees which provide no food for dormice. Careful

supplementary planting of species such as hazel, wayfaring tree, honeysuckle and

occasional oak standards will be undertaken within new and retained hedges to increase

the variety of food that is available. In addition, wide buffers have been secured around

these hedgerows, allowing them to be managed specifically to benefit dormice by being


12212/A5/ES2010 325 January 2010

cut on a 3-5 rotation whereby alternate sides of the hedge are cut each time, so that

there is a continual food supply each year.

b) Increasing the connectivity of habitat for dormice; the retained dormouse habitat is

linked to the wider hedgerow network through the development, and similar

enhancements will take place along these hedgerows (although some of the hedgerows

are set within narrower buffers and these will necessarily be managed on a shorter

rotation). In particular, the hedges along the eastern boundary will be linked to the wide

hedgerow buffer that surrounds the public open space proposed in the south-east.

Although these hedgerows are separated by Ox Drove, links for dormice will be

established by encouraging tree canopies to meet above the road (either using existing

vegetation or by planting oak trees on either side of Ox Drove). This canopy connection

could be supplemented by a specific ‘dormouse crossing’ as illustrated in the dormouse

conservation handbook (Ref. 15.21) and this will be undertaken if further surveys identify

dormice in this area.

c) The creation of the wide buffer zone along the railway line in the Subsequent

Development area will deliver a large increase in the amount of available dormouse

habitat in the Overall Development and is a significant enhancement to the existing

situation.

d) If dormice are confirmed to be present during the 2010 surveys, monitoring of the

dormouse population will take place. Monitoring will begin in the year following any

disturbance to dormouse habitat (i.e. after the licenced displacement or translocation of

the species) and would continue for a period of 5 years (appropriate intervals for this

monitoring will be agreed with Natural England as part of the licencing process). This

provides important information about the existing and future composition and size of the

dormouse population and will directly influence the on-going habitat creation and

management methods at the site.

15.175 All works that could lead to disturbance of dormouse habitat will require a European

Protected Species licence from Natural England. This will include the clearance of small

areas of hedgerow to make way for the road networks (in Phase One and the subsequent

development) and the removal of hedgerow number 24, as part of the site clearance

activities for the Phase One development. The mitigation approach (and therefore the

European Protected Species licence application) will be informed by the findings of a nest-

tube survey conducted from April to October 2010. It is most likely that the clearance

methods employed will involve displacement of dormice using the hedge into the adjacent,

retained, suitable habitat through persuasion techniques (as described within NE, 2006 Ref

15.21). This approach would involve enhancement of adjacent suitable habitat through

additional planting and bespoke habitat management measures during summer and autumn.

This would be followed by careful clearance of a high proportion of the above-ground

sections of the hedge during winter, taking care to avoid disturbance to hibernating dormice


12212/A5/ES2010 326 January 2010

at the hedge base. In this way, dormice emerging from hibernation in the spring are

persuaded to move into the adjacent suitable habitat. Once emergence is complete (usually

the end of May) full clearance of the hedge can continue. A full method statement including

a detailed assessment of the resulting impacts to dormice will be submitted to Natural

England as part of the EPS licence application, for their approval.

15.176 Within the subsequent development areas, the creation of additional dormouse habitat within

the wide buffer zone adjacent to the railway line will lead to an enhancement of the existing

situation.

15.177 The habitat clearance measures described above have the potential conflict with site

clearance measures for nesting birds and reptiles, and an overall site clearance strategy will

be developed at the detailed planning stage, to ensure all ecological constraints are

appropriately avoided during site clearance activity.

Mitigation for Birds

15.178 To avoid adverse effects on nesting birds during the construction phase of the development,

general site clearance works (removal of scrub, trees and hedgerows and building demolition

work) will be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season in order to prevent any adverse

effects on nesting birds in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, (1981) (Ref.

15.6). This mitigation applies to all phases of the Overall Development.

15.179 In addition to the mitigation and enhancement measure that will be adopted across the semi-

natural habitats on-site, new habitat types (buildings and gardens) will be introduced on to

the Assessment Site as a result of the Overall Development which will potentially attract

additional bird species to breed on-site. For example, starling, house sparrow, house martin

and swallow have all been recorded in the local area meaning that they could adopt habitats

proposed within the application site. These species are red and amber listed (i.e. of

conservation concern) and starling and house sparrow are also UK BAP priority species. For

these reasons species-specific nest boxes and/or nest bricks will be incorporated into the

new housing specifically targeting these four species.

15.180 Recommendations for the timing of site-clearance work has the potential conflict with site

clearance measures for dormice and reptiles, and an overall site clearance strategy will be

developed at the detailed planning stage, to ensure all ecological constraints are

appropriately avoided during site clearance activity.


12212/A5/ES2010 327 January 2010

Mitigation for Invertebrates

15.181 Effects of habitat loss on invertebrates will be compensated for through habitat creation.

This includes the significant amounts of new hedgerow and tree planting, which will be

exclusively native species in the areas of open space, and will contain a mix of native and

near-native species along the more urban areas (for example, street trees and in residential

gardens). Please see Chapter 8 of this ES (Landscape and Visual Assessment) for an

indicative species list. A particular emphasis will be placed on the provision of wild privet

within new species-rich hedgerows, due to the value of this species to the barred striped-

moth.

15.182 Dead wood habitats will be created using material that is cut-down during the site clearance

phase. This will involve the creation of buried log piles within some new grassland areas,

and the creation of small brash piles along the wider retained hedgerow strips (these may be

used to protect newly planted hedgerow species from deer grazing.

15.183 With the exception of sports fields and LEAPs/NEAPs, all grassland will be managed to

benefit wildlife (i.e. allowing grasses and herbs to flower and set seed). In addition, all of

the hedgerows will be set within small grassland buffers (c. 2m), enabling the establishment

of long-grass habitat at the hedge base. Therefore, whilst there is a net loss in semi-

improved grassland habitat on-site, the quality of retained grassland for invertebrates will be

high, and this value will be secured in the long-term through appropriate habitat

management.

Mitigation for Reptiles

15.184 Although no reptiles were found within Phase One, it is best practice to adopt a

precautionary approach when clearing any habitat suitable for reptiles. This is because some

species (specifically grass snake) are very mobile and may pass through sites at low

densities, undetected by standard survey methods. Precautionary site clearance measures

will therefore be undertaken in the suitable reptile habitat across the Assessment Site. This

involves undertaking specific grassland vegetation clearance between May and September

(when reptiles are active) and dismantling large scrub piles by hand to ensure reptiles have

sufficient time to escape from scrub clearance activities.

15.185 In the subsequent development areas, habitat retention and enhancement will occur across

approximately 50% of the current range of slow-worms on-site. It is therefore considered

that the most appropriate form of mitigation is to encourage slow-worms to move out of the

development areas and into the adjacent areas of habitat retention directly adjacent to the

railway line, which can then be protected during the construction phase.


12212/A5/ES2010 328 January 2010

15.186 This would be achieved by cutting all vegetation in the affected areas to a height of 15 cm

at least two days in advance of commencement of any development works. This vegetation

management should be carried out by, or under the supervision of, a suitably experienced

ecologist to ensure that no reptiles are harmed in the process and should avoid the coldest

part of the year, when reptiles are less active (generally October- April). Other potential

ecological constraints would need to be considered when scheduling such vegetation

management (e.g. nesting bird seasons) and it may be necessary for site clearance to be

undertaken in two or more phases, or under specific ecological supervision. Once the

vegetation has been cut to a height of 15 cm, it would be maintained at this height until

ground clearance works begin. Ground clearance would be carried out under the supervision

of a suitably experienced ecologist, in case any reptiles were still present. Using appropriate

machinery, the upper layer of top soil and any remaining vegetation would be scraped away

slowly so as to allow the ecologist to search for reptiles and, if found, transport them to a

safe location such as within the retained vegetation alongside the railway line.

15.187 The above method is considered to be more desirable than a reptile translocation, as it will

result in less disruption to the slow-worm population.

15.188 Enhancement of the receptor land would be undertaken in advance, to ensure that the land

has sufficient carrying capacity to accommodate the additional slow-worms. This would

include the creation of rank grassland and scrub, hedgerow edge habitat and the provision of

reptile hibernacula (log, rubble or wood chipping piles). A method statement describing the

reptile mitigation plan, including all site clearance and enhancement measures, would be

submitted to Natural England for approval, prior to the onset of the displacement activity.

15.189 These measures have the potential to conflict with site clearance measures for dormice and

nesting birds, and an overall site clearance strategy should be developed at the detailed

planning stage, to ensure all ecological constraints are appropriately avoided during site

clearance activity.

Mitigation of Increased Artificial Lighting

15.190 To minimise the potential for adverse effects of night-time lighting during the operation of

the development, a sensitive lighting strategy will be adopted such that dark passages are

retained to enable light-sensitive wildlife (including bats and dormice) to commute and

forage across the Assessment Site.

15.191 Where possible, lighting will be directed away from areas of semi-natural vegetation and the

use of high specification luminaries (lights) will be considered across the most sensitive areas


12212/A5/ES2010 329 January 2010

of the scheme, where street lighting backs on to wide hedgerow buffers. In these locations

it is recommended that luminaries have a full horizontal cut-off, thereby directing light only

onto the surfaces that need to be lit and limiting light-spill into the night sky.

15.192 In addition, the new vegetative planting that will be introduced across the Overall

Development will act as ‘baffles’ (screens) that will partially shield the surrounding open

countryside from light-spill. This is particularly the case along the railway line, which will

remain dark through a combination of the very wide buffer zone and the patches of tree

planting which will further shield the river from the effects of light spill or ‘glare’ from

residential properties. The footpath lighting in this area will be of the appropriate

specification and orientation to avoid light spill into the buffer zone (and additional baffles or

screens may be inserted into the luminaries to further direct lighting away from the semi-

natural vegetation).

Mitigation for Invasive Species

15.193 A control strategy will be put in place for both of the invasive species that are present on the

site. This will follow Environment Agency guidelines (Ref. 15.30) and the aim of the strategy

will be to eliminate both species from the site. It is most-likely that Parrot’s-feather will be

eradicated in one attempt by removing it from the pond and burning it on-site. The

Himalayan balsam is more appropriately controlled over three years by pulling or cutting in

June on an annual basis until no further growth occurs (cut material should be burnt),

however burning in one season can also be successful.

Residual Effects


Loss and Degradation of Hedgerow Habitat (and Habitat Connectivity)

15.194 Protection of the retained hedgerows will guarantee that the construction effects on

hedgerows is minimised as far as possible and this reduces the construction phase effects on

an adverse effect of site-scale significance. It also means that any potential legal issues will

be avoided.

15.195 The compensatory effects of the supplementary planting and hedgerow creation are unlikely

to be fully in place by the end of the construction period, since the planting will be

immature. This compensatory habitat has therefore not been included within the assessment

of residual effects at the end of the construction of Phase One.


12212/A5/ES2010 330 January 2010

Loss of Semi-improved Grassland

15.196 Since the largest areas of grassland creation will be available from the beginning of the

construction phase, the compensatory grassland habitat will be approximately 4 years old at

the end of the construction period. At this point it will be reasonably well established, and

many of the micro-habitats of wildlife value will be in place. The residual effect is therefore

considered to be neutral (negligible) even at the construction phase.

Loss of Other Semi-Natural Vegetation (of Site Value)

15.197 The ecological mitigation for overall losses of semi-natural vegetation relates to a

combination of grassland creation, hedgerow planting and residential gardens. Whilst the

full network of vegetation will be in place at the end of the construction period, this will

include immature components (such as trees and hedgerows) and it is considered that the

overall effect of site clearance will not be mitigated until the vegetation has matured (i.e. a

few years into the operation phase). The residual effect at the end of construction of Phase

One is therefore considered to remain as a certain temporary, adverse effect of site-scale

significance.

Effects on Bats

15.198 The mitigation will ensure that no killing or injury of bats occurs, thereby removing any

potential for adverse effects on roosting bats to take place (and eliminating the potential for

a legal offence to occur). Furthermore, construction stage effects on foraging bats are

considered negligible even without mitigation. Therefore, the residual effect on roosting and

foraging bats is considered to be negligible at the end of the construction phase.

Effects on Dormice

15.199 The adoption of the mitigation measures will ensure that direct killing or injury of dormice

will be avoided and will lead to an enhancement of the existing situation for dormice on-site.

This is considered to be a beneficial effect.

Effects on Birds

15.200 With the adoption of scrub clearance in the correct season, direct effects on nesting birds

will be avoided. This mitigation, combined with the retention of 80% of the hedgerow

network means effects on birds will be negligible during the construction of Phase One.


12212/A5/ES2010 331 January 2010

Effects on Invertebrates

15.201 In combination with the wider habitat retention and landscape planting proposals, the

additional habitat creation for invertebrates is considered to provide partial compensation for

the adverse effect of the construction phase on invertebrates. Whilst it is not likely that the

existing assemblage of invertebrates would remain on the Assessment Site after site

clearance has been undertaken, invertebrates will colonise the newly created permanent

habitats within retained grasslands. They will also benefit from temporary habitats such as

stands of tall ruderal vegetation, although the significant construction activity is likely to

reduce the overall value of the site for invertebrates, during the construction of Phase One.

15.202 The residual effect on invertebrates at this stage is likely to remain as an adverse effect of

site-scale significance.

Invasive Species

15.203 The responsible removal of invasive aquatic plants from the Assessment Site removes the

risk of future contamination of local aquatic environments. This is considered to be a

positive effect of site-scale significance.

Operation of Phase One and Construction of Subsequent Phases


15.204 Additional losses of semi-improved grassland habitat during construction of subsequent

development will be partially compensated for through enhancement and management of

retained grassland areas and eventual creation of residential gardens. However, there is no

space for additional creation of grassland in order to fully off-set grassland losses and it is

considered that there will be a certain, permanent adverse effect of site significance as a

result of the construction of the subsequent development.

15.205 The mitigation measures for slow-worms will ensure that site clearance does not bring about

a legal offence.

Hedgerows and Habitat Connectivity

15.206 Once the new planting within Phase One has been in place for approximately 10 years it is

considered that it will be sufficiently mature to adequately compensate for the adverse

effects on hedgerows, and the ecological value of the new planting will continue to increase

with time. Furthermore, the additional construction activity within subsequent development


12212/A5/ES2010 332 January 2010

will not bring about an additional significant effect to this habitat type. Therefore, once

Phase One is operational, the residual effect on hedgerows and habitat connectivity will be

neutral (negligible) with the adoption of the mitigation measures described above.

Loss of other Semi-natural Vegetation (of site value)

15.207 This effect is reduced to a negligible effect across the Assessment Site as a result of

compensatory planting.

Effects on Bats

15.208 The mitigation will ensure that no killing or injury of bats occurs, thereby removing any

potential for adverse effect to roosting bats to take place (and eliminating the potential for a

legal offence to occur). In addition, habitat creation and management in the operational

stage of Phase One will retain the foraging interest of the Assessment Site and provide

roosting opportunities. Therefore, the residual effect on roosting and foraging bats is

considered to be negligible at the end of the construction phase. (Please note that lighting

effects are considered separately below).

Effects on Dormice

15.209 The adoption of the mitigation measures will ensure that direct killing or injury of dormice

will be avoided and will lead to an enhancement of the existing situation for any dormice on-

site. This is considered to be a possible beneficial effect. The significance of the effect is

dependent on whether the measures lead to the long-term security of dormice on the

Assessment Site. If this is achieved this would be of county significance.

Effects on Birds and Invertebrates

15.210 With the adoption of scrub clearance in the correct season, direct effects on nesting birds

will be avoided and the residual effect on birds will be negligible.

15.211 Once the Phase One development is operational, the habitat grassland, hedgerow and garden

habitat creation will be in place, and the specific measures such as provision of dead wood

habitat will have matured. At this stage, the residual effects on invertebrates are considered

to be reduced to negligible.


12212/A5/ES2010 333 January 2010

Effect to Reptiles

15.212 With the adoption of the mitigation described above, slow-worms will be retained on-site,

even during the construction stages of the subsequent development. The resulting effect is

negligible.


15.213 If the mitigation recommendations described above are adopted within the operational Phase

One development, the resulting effects of artificial lighting on wildlife would be negligible.

Effects on Harewood Forest (Recreation)

15.214 The effect remains unchanged (as described in paragraph 15.148) and is negligible.


complete)


15.215 If the mitigation recommendations described above are adopted within the Overall

Development, the resulting effects of artificial lighting on wildlife would be negligible.

Effects on Harewood Forest (Recreation)

15.216 The effect remains unchanged (as described in paragraph 15.151) and is a negligible.

Cumulative Effects

15.217 Of the cumulative schemes presented in Table 2.2, it is not considered that there would be

any cumulative effects on ecology as a result of the Andover Airfield development, because

of its location approximately 5km west of the Assessment Site on the far side of Andover.

This site is therefore excluded from the assessment.

15.218 The East Anton and Picket Twenty schemes are both within 1km of the Assessment Site and

have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on ecology.

15.219 East Anton comprises a large development located over predominantly arable land. Field

sizes are very large and there are few interconnecting hedgerows across the site.


12212/A5/ES2010 334 January 2010

15.220 Picket Twenty is located over a mixture of arable and pastoral farmland. Field sizes are

smaller than at East Anton, and there is a reasonable hedgerow network throughout the site.

It also appears that this site supports semi-natural habitat types such as scrub and semi-

improved grassland. The site adjoins the Harewood Forest SINC.

15.221 It is assumed that each scheme will have been designed in accordance with the standard

ecological principles of avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement to ensure that

the developments do not bring about significant adverse ecological effects. However, as for

the Overall Development, some adverse effects are unavoidable. Where adverse affects

occur for each cumulative scheme, it is possible that these may form a cumulative effect of a

greater significance than each independent effect, and this is assessed below.


Adverse Effects

15.222 At the Assessment Site, the construction of Phase One will lead to a residual adverse effect

to hedgerow habitat (UK BAP habitat), habitat connectivity and invertebrates. These effects

are likely to be significant at a site-scale only. That is to say that the wider ecology of the

local area would not be significantly affected.

15.223 East Anton does not appear to contain significant amounts of hedgerow habitat or habitat

typically of value to invertebrates, and it is reasonable to assume that the boundary

hedgerows will be largely retained within that development. Therefore construction at East

Anton is unlikely to contribute to a significant additional pressure on invertebrate populations

or hedgerow resources.

15.224 In contrast, Picket Twenty supports some notably wide hedgerows and potentially interesting

scrub and grassland habitat and is linked to a woodland of County importance (Harewood

Forest). It appears likely that there could be a significant stress to the hedgerow and scrub

network during construction activity at Picket Twenty. When this is combined with the

construction of Phase One of Picket Piece it is likely that there could be a residual temporary

adverse effect on invertebrates, hedgerow habitat and hedgerow connectivity of local

significance. This residual effect is likely to last no longer than the duration of construction

of the Overall Development and no further mitigation (other than that which has already

been described within the impact assessment above) is possible.


12212/A5/ES2010 335 January 2010


15.225 Once Phase One of the Overall Development is operational and the subsequent development

is under construction, there is only one residual adverse effect. This is due to losses of

semi-improved grassland in the subsequent development that cannot be further compensated

for. This is considered to be a loss of site-scale significance.

15.226 Losses of semi-improved grassland are also likely to arise across part of Picket Twenty, but

would not be a consequence of development of East Anton (which is almost entirely

agricultural land). As a result of the provision of new public open space including

recreational land and parkland within all of these developments, it is likely that there will be

an overall increase in the amount of semi-improved grassland in both schemes that is

managed in such a way as to be of ecological value (i.e. annual or bi-annual cuts to allow

species to flower and set seed). Furthermore, there will be a big increase in the amount of

land laid to residential gardens, which can also provide significant ecological value (especially

for birds and invertebrates). It is therefore considered that there will be no additional,

cumulative adverse effect, since both the East Anton and Picket Twenty Scheme will be part-

way complete at this stage and therefore some of the benefits of these schemes will be in

place.

15.227 The operational phases of all three developments will lead to an increase in artificial lighting.

Provided that sufficient dark corridors are maintained within each development, and lightspill

onto adjacent vegetation is avoided, there should be no specific loss of ‘functionality’ of the

local environment with respect to key sensitive receptors. That is to say that light-sensitive

species would still be able to move through each site and through the wider countryside.

Since light sensitive species of significance on the Assessment Site (bats, birds and

invertebrates) would not be excluded from the local area as a result of cumulative effects, it

is considered that there would be no cumulative adverse effect of significance.

15.228 However, it should be noted that the mechanism and extent of effects on wildlife arising

from artificial lighting are still poorly understood, and therefore the significance of the effect

of increased lighting across the east of Andover on common and widespread species is

unknown (as is the case for all new development).


complete)

15.229 There are no residual adverse effects for the Overall Development when it is fully

operational. When considered in combination with the other two schemes, no additional

significant effects are likely. In particular, effects of additional recreational pressure on


12212/A5/ES2010 336 January 2010

nearby sensitive receptors (such as Harewood Forest) are not expected due to the large

amount of informal and formal open space that is provided within the Overall Development.

It is assumed that the cumulative schemes will include adequate open space for their future

occupants.

Summary

15.230 The primary ecological value of the Assessment Site is within the well established and

extensive network of hedgerows, which are of Borough value and qualify as UK BAP priority

habitat. In addition to their innate wildlife value, they also support invertebrate, bird and bat

populations all assessed as of local or Borough value. Dormice also live within these

hedgerows in three discrete locations, and these are a receptor of county importance,

although their patchy distribution across the Assessment Site indicates that this population

may not be viable even in the absence of development.

15.231 Retention of hedgerow habitat has been a primary focus of the design of the development

parameters and it has been possible to maintain a valuable network of hedgerows on the

Assessment Site through a combination of retention and habitat creation. This has enabled

the majority of the existing wildlife value of the site to remain.

15.232 The overarching ecological mitigation measures comprise a site clearance strategy (for the

construction phase) and a hedgerow and grassland management plan (for the operational

phase).

15.233 The site clearance strategy will set out the seasonal timing, methodology and, where

appropriate, licences required for clearance of semi-natural habitat on the site. The key

receptors are bats, reptiles, nesting birds and dormice. Each of these have different optimal

seasons for clearance and require slightly different treatments. A co-ordinated approach will

therefore be critical to ensuring that adverse effects and legal offences are avoided.

15.234 The hedgerow and grassland management plans will set out the techniques that will be used

to create habitats of ecological value and maintain that value in the long-term. This includes

measures such as rotational 3-5 yearly cutting for many of the hedgerows and a programme

of extensive management to promote natural regeneration within the grasslands.

15.235 Other valuable receptors include slow-worms, along the London – Exeter railway line

embankment in the north of the subsequent development area and a bat roost, immediately

north of Phase One (and therefore off-site). These receptors are of county value and will be

retained within the final scheme. Special mitigation measures will be adopted in relation to


12212/A5/ES2010 337 January 2010

the slow-worms and these include enhancement of retained habitat and supervised site-

clearance work in the appropriate season.

15.236 The residual effects of the Overall Development on ecology and nature conservation are

generally negligible although there will be some temporary adverse effects on hedgerows and

habitat connectivity during the construction period, before compensatory habitat provision

becomes established. One residual adverse effect of site-scale significance will remain within

the Overall Development and that is a residual loss of semi-improved grassland. Substantial

grassland retention and creation will take place, and this residual effect is an unavoidable

result of development over previously undeveloped ground. The Overall Development will

bring about beneficial effects through eradication of invasive weeds and, if achieved, the

long term retention of the currently vulnerable dormouse population on the Assessment Site

as a result of species-specific habitat enhancements. Long-term population monitoring for

dormice will be undertaken in the built scheme.

15.237 Table 15.4 contains a summary of the likely significant effects of the Overall Development.


12212/A5/ES2010 338 January 2010

Table 15.4: Table of Significance – Ecology and Nature Conservation

Geographical Importance* Potential Effect

Nature of Effect

(Permanent/ Temporary)

Significance (Major/Moderate/Minor)

(Beneficial/Adverse/ Negligible)

Mitigation / Enhancement Measures

I UK E R C B L

Residual Effects (Major/Moderate/Minor)

(Beneficial/Adverse/ Negligible)


Loss of semi-improved grassland Certain, temporary

Adverse site-scale (low)

Species-rich grassland restoration. Production and implementation of management plan that is subject to regular review by an ecologist.

* Negligible

Loss and degradation of hedgerow habitat

Certain,

Permanent

Adverse Borough (medium)

Legal implications

Protective fencing during construction activities. New planting with native species of local provenance.

* Adverse, site-scale (low)

Loss of semi-natural vegetation Certain

temporary

Adverse, site-scale (low)

New planting with native species of local provenance.


Effects on roosting Bats (killing and injury)

Possible,

Permanent

Adverse county (high) Legal implications

Pre-felling surveys and inspections. EPS licence obtained if necessary. Adoption of bat boxes within new housing.

* Negligible

Effects on foraging/ commuting bats (habitat loss)

Certain

temporary

Negligible Habitat retention and creation is integral to the scheme design.

* Negligible

Effects on Dormice (killing, injury and habitat loss)

Probable

permanent


Nest tube survey from April- October. Enhancement of retained habitats and creation of new habitats. EPS licence obtained prior to onset of any site clearance activity that could affect dormice. Dispersal or translocation of dormice from areas to be cleared.

* Negligible to Beneficial, county

(high)

Effects on Birds (killing and injury)

Possible

temporary

Adverse local (medium)

Legal implications

Vegetation clearance to avoid March-July inclusive. Develop an overall site clearance strategy, to avoid conflicts between different protected species requirements.

* Negligible


12212/A5/ES2010 339 January 2010

Bird boxes in new development

Effects on Invertebrates (habitat loss)

Probable

permanent


Retention and long term management of hedgerows and grassland will benefit invertebrates. Specific planting of wild privet within new hedgerows (for the barred striped moth). Creation of buried log piles and brash piles within informal open space.


Invasive species Possible

permanent


Adoption of control strategy with the aim of eradicating both species from the site.

Beneficial, Site-scale (low)


Loss of semi-improved grassland

Certain permanent


Legal implications

Species-rich grassland restoration. Production and implementation of management plan that is subject to regular review by an ecologist.


Degradation of hedgerows and habitat connectivity

N/A Negligible Retention of important hedgerows and significant habitat creation along the northern railway line. Retention and creation is integral to the scheme design.

* Negligible

Loss of Semi Natural Vegetation N/A Negligible Retention and creation is integral to the scheme design.

* Negligible

Effects on roosting Bats (killing and injury)

Possible permanent

Adverse County (high)Legal implications

Pre-felling surveys and inspections. EPS licence obtained if necessary. Adoption of bat boxes within new housing.

* Negligible

Effects on Dormice (killing, injury and habitat degradation)

Possible permanent


Nest tube survey from April- October. Enhancement of retained habitats and creation of new habitats. EPS licence obtained prior to onset of any site clearance activity that could affect dormice. Dispersal or translocation of dormice from areas to be cleared.

* Negligible to Beneficial, county

(high)

Effects on birds and invertebrates

Possible temporary


Vegetation clearance to avoid March-July inclusive. Develop an overall site clearance

* Negligible


12212/A5/ES2010 340 January 2010

* Geographical Level of Importance I = International; UK = United Kingdom; E = England; R = Regional; C = County; B = Borough; L = Local

Legal implications strategy, to avoid conflicts between different protected species

Effects on Reptiles (killing, injury and habitat loss)

Probable permanent

Adverse Borough (medium)

Legal implications

Mitigation strategy to be submitted to Natural England in advance of site clearance work. This will describe how reptiles will be displaced into retained and enhanced areas on the site.

* Negligible

Invasive species Possible

permanent


Adoption of control strategy with the aim of eradicating both species from the site.

Beneficial, Site-scale (low)

Effects on artificial lighting on wildlife

Possible permanent

Adverse county (high) Adoption of sensitive lighting strategy to maintain dark corridors.

* Negligible

Impacts to Harewood Forest

N/A Negligible N/A * Negligible

Operation of the Overall Development

Effects on artificial lighting on wildlife

Possible permanent

Adverse county (high) Adoption of sensitive lighting strategy to maintain dark corridors.

* Negligible

Impacts to Harewood Forest

N/A negligible N/A * Negligible

Cumulative Effects

Construction of Phase One: hedgerow loss, habitat connectivity and invertebrates

Possible temporary


No further mitigation is possible during the construction phase.

* Adverse, local (medium)

Operation of Phase One and construction of Subsequent Development

No significant effects

N/A N/A N/A

Operation of the Overall Development

No significant effects.

N/A N/A N/A

Scale @ A3 : Figure 15.1

Picket Piece, Andover

1:22,308Ecological Constraints Plan

12260671-002PROJECT No:PROJECT: GH

ABABANovember 2009

Drawn:Checked:

Approved:Revision:

Date:Wales Development LtdClient:

9

7

8

6

2

3

1

Historic GCN Record

45

KeySite Boundary

Anton Lakes LNRSINC

Ancient WoodlandSemi-NaturalReplanted

Protected Species RecordBrown hare (UK BAP)Dormouse

2km Search Area

Designated Sites

1. Ladies Walk Down South2. Andover (Churchill Way - London Road Verges3. RV:NS54, A303/A3093 Junction4. Hackwood Copse5. Trinley Wood6. Harewood Forest (2)7. Harewood Peak8. Harewood Forest (1)9. Faulkners Bushes

Zone Of Ecological Influence

KEY:

Scattered ScrubScattered Tree (Broadleaved)Scattered Tree (Coniferous)Target Note

Fence

Buildings

Arable Land

Site Boundary

Continuous Bracken

Bare GroundHardstanding

Plantation Woodland (Broadleaved)Plantation Woodland (Mixed)Amenity Grassland

Tall Ruderal

Semi-improved Grassland (Calcareous)

Continous Scrub

Open Water (Pond)Improved GrasslandImproved/Semi-improved GrasslandSemi-improved Grassland/Wasteland

Other Habitat of NoteCaravan Park

Native Hedgerow (Intact)Native Hedgerow (Defunct)

Trees within Hedge

Hedge Non-native (Intact)Hedge Non-native (Defunct)Mixed Hedgerow

Indicating hedgerows which are encroachinginto fields

Scale @ A3 : Figure 15.2

Picket Piece, Andover

7

77

2

B8a

A

I/S-II/S-I

II

INo access for survey

S-I/Wa

3

8

1

A

IS-I/Wa

I/WaA

I

I

B7B6

B5

A

Metal Storage Sheds

B1

B2a

B2bB4

B3

5

II

IB3a

B4a

B3c B3b

I

I

I

AA A

A

A

B11

I

I

S-I

I/S-I

Caravans

B25B24B23

B25aB22

B21

II

I

7

7

7

I

S-I

S-I

S-I

S-I

S-I

AllotmentI

I/S-I

I/S-I

I/S-I

A

S-I

S-I S-I

S-I

S-IS-I

B20

IAI/S-I

I/S-I

I/S-I

I/S-IB16B15

B14

B17

6

7

B19

I/S-I

I

A

S-I/Wa

I/S-I

S-I

B26

I

S-I

S-I

I

S-I

S-I

S-I/Wa

S-I

I

S-I/Wa

S-I

S-I/W

S-I/Wa

B10

B12

B9

B8c

B13

B18B11

B8b

B12a

B12b

7

1:4,000Phase 1 Habitat Plan

12260671-002PROJECT No:PROJECT: GH

ABABANovember

Drawn:Checked:

Approved:Revision:

Date:Wales Development LtdClient:

15.0 ecology and nature conservation documents/es main text/12212... · 12212/a5/es2010 292 january...

Documents