rammsanderson ecology ltd wilnecote quarry extension
Post on 12-Jan-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Wilnecote Quarry Extension.
Ecological Appraisal
Client: Forterra Ltd
Report Reference: RSE_450_01-V2
Issue Date: July 2016
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 2 July 2016
East Midlands West Midlands
Phoenix House, Merlin Way Barn 4, Dunston Business Village [E] info@rammsanderson.com
Quarry Hill Industrial Estate Stafford Road, Dunston www.rammsanderson.com
Ilkeston, DE7 4RA Stafford, ST18 9AB Registered in England: 8999992
T: 0115 930 2493 T: 01785 711 575
(Issuing Office)
DISCLOSURE:
The information provided within this report has been prepared and provided as true and in accordance
with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) Code of Professional
Conduct. It is intended for the sole use of the client in accordance with the agreement under which our
services were performed. Unauthorised communication, reproduction or usage of this report by any
party other than the aforementioned is prohibited. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the
advice in this report or any other service provided by RammSanderson Ecology Ltd. This report has been
prepared by an ecological specialist and does not purport to provide legal advice.
Project Details
Client: Forterra Ltd
Project: Wilnecote Quarry Extension
Reference RSE_450_01-V2
Report Title Ecological Appraisal
Document Control
Originated: Mike Sims BSc
(Hons) ACIEEM
Ecologist
07/07/2016
Technical
Reviewed:
Oliver Ramm BSc
(Hons) MCIEEM Director
10/07/2016
Issued to
Client:
Mike Sims BSc
(Hons) ACIEEM
Ecologist
11/07/2016
Revisions: Mike Sims BSc
(Hons) ACIEEM Ecologist
14/07/2016
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 3 July 2016
1. Executive Summary RammSanderson Ecology Ltd was instructed by Forterra Ltd to carry out an Ecological Appraisal for
an extension of Wilnecote Quarry. The report provides ecological information to submit with an
application.
Summary of results
It should be noted from the outset, that the production of an Ecological Impact Assessment is not
considered necessary as the proposals impact only areas of low to negligible ecological importance.
Habitats
Botanically, the habitats on site have low ecological value, with only common species present. The
predominant habitats on the site are cultivated arable and pasture farmland. These habitats have
mainly been noted for their potential to support reptiles, nesting birds and small mammals such as
hedgehogs.
The removal of site habitats to facilitate proposals is unlikely to cause any lasting impact on a local
level. Restoration works upon completion of site excavation is likely to result in a net conservation
gain for the site.
Great Crested Newt
GCN have been recorded in the vicinity of the site, although due to the long distances between
ponds and the site, the sub-optimal/poor quality of terrestrial habitats within the site, the existence
of barriers to movement and poor suitability of some ponds, it has been assessed as highly unlikely
that GCN would be present within the site. A European Protected Species Mitigation Licence, is
therefore not considered necessary for this proposal.
It is recommended that initial site clearance is supervised by an Ecological Clerk of Works. If any
GCN are discovered during site clearance works, it would be necessary to stand-down operations
until a Natural England licence could be applied for and mitigation measures put in place.
Invasive Plant Species
No invasive plant species were recorded on site. As such, there will be no associated impacts upon
the works.
Birds
Whilst there are records of protected birds in the vicinity of the application area, those listed on
Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), the small number of hedgerows being
removed as part of the application is unlikely to cause any significant impacts. Site restoration upon
completion of excavations is also likely to improve the habitat quality and diversity of available
habitats for these species also.
To prevent damage of bird’s nests and harm to chicks and eggs, initial site clearance of hedgerows,
trees and grassland should take place outside the period of March to September. If this is
unavoidable, habitats should be carefully checked by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to removal.
Where active nests are found, working restrictions would be put in place until follow up survey can
demonstrate that all chicks have fledged.
Badger
No badger field signs were discovered on site, therefore no constraints with regards this species
are considered likely. Should signs of badger become apparent at any point during the working of
the site, an ecologist should be contacted and a strategy established to deal with any setts present.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 4 July 2016
Bats
No potential bat roosts were located within the application area and excavation of the site is
unlikely to have any significant effects upon general bat activity. It is recommended that the
ecological impacts of any lighting associated with the proposed works should follow the guidelines
set out in Bats and Lighting in the UK (BCT, 2009).
Reptiles
No reptiles were discovered during site surveys and it will not be necessary to implement mitigation
measures for this group.
Water vole, otter and crayfish
There is no potential for otter, water vole or freshwater white-clawed crayfish to be impacted upon
by the works.
Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan
The ecological constraints and opportunities plan overleaf summarises the areas where potential
protected species impacts have been identified, as well as highlighting potential enhancement and
retention of ecological corridors.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 5 July 2016
Figure 1: Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan
Reproduced under Licence using Google Earth Pro
High Risk Item: Further survey requirements or effect on European Protected Species requiring either mitigation or further survey Moderate Risk Item: Mitigation required for protected or notable species Low risk Item: Mitigation / Works procedures adopted for potential species which may pass through site during construction phases Enhancement Possibilities: possible enhancements suitable for this site given its context.
High Risk Item Six ponds are located within 500m of the site. Great crested newt has been discovered in these, although there is a low potential for GCN to occur within the site. Site clearance should be supervised by RammSanderson ecologists. Moderate Risk Item Hedgerows, trees, scrub and pasture land throughout the site are suitable habitats for nesting birds. Removal of this vegetation or initial work in these areas should be conducted outside of the bird breeding season or preceded by bird nesting surveys, Low Risk Six trees outside the application area have moderate potential for roosting bats. These will not be impacted upon by the works. Enhancement Possibilities Hedgerows within the site should either be protected during the works or replaced and enhanced during site restoration. Restoration plans should also include the creation of new ponds and refugia for GCN and should include species rich grasslands and woodlands planted with native species.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Phoenix House, Merlin Way
Quarry Hill Industrial Estate
Ilkeston DE7 4RA
[T] 0115 930 2493
[E] info@rammsanderson.com
[W] www.rammsanderson.com
Registered in England and Wales 8999992
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Contents
1. Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Legislation and Planning Policy .................................................................................................................................... 9
4. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
5. Results ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
6. Discussion & Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 38
7. References ........................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figures
Figure 1: Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan ............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Site Location Plan ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3: Site Context Plan ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 4: Mature Oak Tree ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 5: Blackthorn Scrub ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 6: Field 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 7: Field 4 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 8: Hedgerow between Field 1 and Field 3 .......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 9: Pond Plan .................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table
Table 1: Consulted Resources ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Table 2: Criteria for bat roost potential assessment of trees .................................................................................... 13
Table 3: HSI Scoring Criteria................................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 4: Weather Conditions During Site Surveys ......................................................................................................... 18
Table 5: Weather Conditions During Site Surveys ......................................................................................................... 19
Table 6: Summary of Designated Sites .............................................................................................................................. 21
Table 7: Non-statutory Designated Sites .......................................................................................................................... 22
Table 8: Summary of Protected and Notable Species Records ................................................................................ 23
Table 9: Phase 1 habitat types ............................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 10: HSI Assessments for Pond 1 and 2 .................................................................................................................. 33
Table 11: HSI Assessments for Pond 3 and 4 .................................................................................................................. 34
Table 12: HSI Assessments for Pond 5 and 6 .................................................................................................................. 35
Table 13: Results of GCN surveys upon Pond 6 ............................................................................................................. 36
Appendix
1 – Phase 1 habitat survey plan
2 – Species List
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 7 July 2016
2. Introduction and Background Purpose and Scope of this Report
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd was commissioned by Forterra Ltd to assess the potential ecological
impacts of a proposed extension to Wilnecote Quarry into an area of arable fields and grazed
pasture, in Wilnecote, Tamworth, Staffordshire. To complete an ecological impact assessment of
the proposals, a desk based assessment, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and a protected species
assessment were carried out, along with a ground level tree assessment for bats, great crested newt
surveys and reptile surveys. Taken together, in common with the Chartered Institute of Ecology &
Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) 2012 publication, this is termed as an ‘Ecological Appraisal’,
which can be used to lawfully determine a planning application in line with current planning policy1.
The study area is defined as shown in the enclosed Site Location Plan and Phase 1 Habitat plan
plus a buffer zone extended to include the Zone of Influence (see section below) of the proposals
(hereafter referred to as the “Site”).
This Appraisal is based on a review of the development proposals provided by the Client, desk
study data (third party information) and a survey of the Site. The aims of this report are to:
Classify the habitat types at the sites based on standard Phase 1 Habitat survey
methodology;
Evaluate any potential for protected species to be present;
Identify any significant ecological impacts likely to result from the proposed
development; and,
Provide recommendations for any further surveys that might be required, for example
to confirm presence / likely absence of protected species, which would need to be
proven in order for a planning decision to be concurrent with current planning policy.
This report pertains to these results only; recommendations included within this report are the
professional opinion of an experienced ecologist and therefore the view of RammSanderson
Ecology Ltd.
The surveys and desk based assessments undertaken as part of this review and subsequent report
including the Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan are prepared in accordance with the
British Standard for Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development (BS42020:2013).
Zone of Influence
The term Zone of Influence is used to describe the geographic extent of potential impacts of a
proposed development. The Zone is determined by the nature of the development and also in
relation to individual species, depending on their habitat requirements, mobility and distances
indicated in any best practice guidelines.
In relation to great crested newts (GCN) for example, the zone of influence is considered to be up
to 500m from the site boundaries, as this is the distance that Natural England would require to be
considered in relation to GCN licensing.
Site Context and Location
The survey area was located to the east of the existing Wilnecote clay extraction quarry. It
comprised part of the existing quarry boundary, four fields and their margins and two other fields
in-part. This was located between Whateley Lane and Rush Lane, within Wilnecote, Staffordshire.
1 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their
Impact Within The Planning System
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 8 July 2016
The Site and extraction area is approximately 6.8ha. The survey area also covered adjacent land
and was approximately 18ha. The Site is located between residential and rural areas.
Figure 2: Site Location Plan
© Crown Copyright and Database Rights 2010 Ordnance Survey
Figure 3: Site Context Plan
© Google 2015, Image reproduced under licence from Google EarthPro
Field 2
Field 1
Field 3
Field 4
The Site
Survey area
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 9 July 2016
3. Legislation and Planning Policy
Articles of British legislation, policy guidance and both Local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and
the NERC Act 2006 are referred to throughout this report. Their context and application is
explained in the relevant sections of this report. The relevant articles of legislation are:
The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
ODPM Circular 06/2005 (retained as Technical Guidance on NPPF 2012)
Local planning policies (Tamworth Borough Council)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended);
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended);
EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds 79/409/EEC;
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992;
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;
The Hedgerow Regulations 1997;
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006;
Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Staffordshire
Bats
All species of British bats are fully protected within UK Law under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(as amended) through their inclusion in Schedule 5. Under the Act, they are protected from:
Intentional or reckless killing, injury, taking;
Damage to or destruction of or, obstruction of access to any place of shelter, breeding
or rest;
Disturbance of an animal occupying a structure or place;
Possession or control (live or dead animals);
Selling, bartering or exchange of these species, or parts of;
This law is reinforced by the UK’s transposition of the EU Habitats Regulations under The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). These Regulations also
prohibit:
the deliberate killing, injuring or taking of bats;
the deliberate disturbance of any bat species in such a way as to be significantly likely
to affect:
o their ability to survive, hibernate, migrate, breed, or rear or nurture their young;
or
o the local distribution or abundance of that species.
damage or destruction of a breeding site or resting place (roost);
the possession or transport of bats or any other part of.
Under certain circumstances a licence may be granted by Natural England to permit activities that
would otherwise constitute an offence. In relation to development, a scheme must have full
planning permission before a licence application can be made.
Seven British bat species are listed as Species of Principal Importance (SPI) under the Natural
Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. These are barbastelle Barbastellus
barbastellus, Bechstein’s Myotis bechsteinii, noctule Nyctalus noctula, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 10 July 2016
pygmaeus, brown long-eared Plecotus auritus, greater horseshoe Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and
lesser horseshoe Rhinolophus hipposideros.
Under the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 the presence of any protected species is a
material planning consideration. The Framework states that impacts arising from development
proposals must be avoided where possible or adequately mitigated/compensated for and that
opportunities for ecological enhancement should be sought.
Birds
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is the principle legislation affording protection
to UK wild birds. Under this legislation all birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is
an offence, with certain exceptions, to recklessly or intentionally:
Kill, injure or take any wild bird
Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built.
Take or destroy the egg of any wild bird.
For birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Act, it is an offence to disturb any bird while it is building a
nest, is at or near a nest with young; or disturb the dependant young of such a bird.
Species listed in Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive 1994 (e.g. Barn Owl) are required to have special
conservation measures taken to preserve their habitats and site to be classified as Special
Protection Areas where appropriate.
Reptiles
All reptile species are partially protected under Schedule 5 (Sections 9(1) and 9(5)) of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This legislation protects these animals from:
Reckless or intentional killing and injury;
Selling, offering for sale, possessing or transporting for the purpose of the sale or
publishing advertisements to buy or sell a protected species.
Where these animals are confirmed as present on land that is to be affected by development
guidance recommends that:
The animals should be protected from injury or killing during construction operations;
Mitigation should be provided to maintain the conservation status of the species locally
Great Crested Newt
The species is given full protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended). This Act makes it an offence to:
intentionally or recklessly disturb great crested newts whilst they are occupying any
structure or place which they use for shelter or protection;
intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any structure or place which great crested
newts use for shelter or protection; and to
sell, offer or expose for sale or have in possession or transport with the purpose of sale
any live or dead great crested newts, or any part of or anything derived from great
crested newts.
The species is also given full protection under Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), which is the UK’s transposition of the EU Habitats Directive
1994. The Regulations make it an offence to:
deliberately capture, injure or kill any great crested newts;
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 11 July 2016
deliberately disturb great crested newts such as would affect their ability to survive, to
breed or reproduce, to rear or nurture their young, to hibernate, to migrate, or to
significantly affect their local distribution or abundance;
be in possession or control of, to transport, to sell or exchange or to offer for sale or
exchange any live or dead, any part of or anything derived from great crested newts.
Where mentioned above, ‘great crested newts’ applies to all stages of their life cycle.
If works are to be carried out in an area which could affect GCN or their habitat, including
disturbance to both terrestrial habitats and aquatic habitats, whether breeding ponds or not, this
will require a European Protected Species (EPS) licence.
In order to obtain an EPS licence, the following three tests need to be satisfied:
the development is for the purpose of “preserving public health or public safety or
other imperative reasons of over-riding public interest including those of a social or
economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment”;
that “there is no satisfactory alternative”; and
the development will not be “detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the
species at a favourable conservation status in their natural range”.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 12 July 2016
4. Methodology Impact Appraisal
The overall ecological appraisal is based on the standard best practice methodology provided by
the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CIEEM, 2012). The assessment identifies sites,
habitats, species and other ecological features that are of value based on factors such as legal
protection, statutory or local site designations such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or
Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) or inclusion on Red Data Book Lists or Biodiversity Action Plans.
Ecological value is considered in the context of international, national, regional or local scale and
potential constraints to development are identified on that basis, with recommendations for further
more detailed surveys made as appropriate, for example to fully investigate botanical value or to
confirm presence / likely absence of a protected species.
In appraising any impacts the review considers the Client’s Site proposals and any subsequent
recommendations made are proportionate and appropriate to the site and have considered the
Mitigation Hierarchy as identified below:
Avoid: Provide advice on how the development may proceed by avoiding impacts to
any species or sites by either consideration of site design or identification of an
alternative option.
Mitigate: Where avoidance cannot be implemented mitigation proposals are put
forward to minimise impacts to species or sites as a result of the proposals. Mitigation
put forward is proportionate to the site.
Compensate: Where avoidance cannot be achieved any mitigation strategy will
consider the requirements for site compensatory measures.
Enhance: The assessment refers to planning policy guidance (e.g. NPPF) to relate the
ecological value of the site and identify appropriate and proportionate ecological
enhancement in line with both national and local policy.
Desk Based Assessment
Data regarding statutory and non-statutory designated sites, plus any records of protected or
notable species and habitats was requested from the local ecological records centre and online
resources, details of which are provided in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Consulted Resources
Consultee/Resource Data Sought Search Radius
from Boundary
Leicestershire & Rutland Environmental
Records Centre
Warwickshire Biological Records Centre
Non-Statutory Site Designations,
protected/notable species records
2km
www.magic.gov.uk2 Statutory Site Designations
NERC Act (2006) Habitats
5km
1km
NB: The desk study data is third party controlled data, purchased for the purposes of this report only.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd cannot vouch for its accuracy and cannot be held liable for any error(s) in these
data.
2 Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside Interactive GIS Map.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 13 July 2016
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
An extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Site was completed on the on the 24th February 2016.
Habitats were described and mapped following standard Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology
(JNCC, 2010), which categorises habitat type through the identification of individual plant species.
During the various protected species surveys undertaken at the site between February and June
2016, surveyors have noted any change in habitat composition since the Phase 1 survey in February.
Nomenclature follows Stace (Stace, 2010) for vascular plant species and the DAFOR scale for
relative abundance was used in the field to determine dominant plants within habitats and
communities (D = dominant, A = abundant, F = frequent, O = occasional and R = rare).
Protected / Notable Species Scoping Assessment
The habitats on Site were assessed for their suitability for supporting any legally protected or
notable species that would be affected by the proposed development. This includes invasive non-
native plant species such as Japanese knotweed, Giant Hogweed and Himalayan Balsam.
Any incidental sightings of individual species or field signs such as footprints, latrines or feeding
remains discovered during the survey were noted. In the case of bats, specific quantitative
assessment methodologies have been adopted industry wide and details of these are provided
below.
Bats
The overall value of the site and its connectivity to the wider countryside was assessed in relation
to bats. The likelihood of bats roosting at the site, or moving through the site between local roost
sites and foraging/mating/hibernation habitats was considered.
The trees at site were assessed for their potential to support roosting bats according to the Bat
Conservation Trust’s Bat Surveys: Good Surveys Guidelines (Collins, J. 2016), an extract of which is
provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Criteria for bat roost potential assessment of trees
Suitability Roosting habitats Commuting and foraging habitats
Confirmed
roost
Tree with features confirmed to be
used by roosting bats either by
historic records (verified
appropriately), or evidence
recorded during survey.
Evidence of bats found during
initial daytime inspection of
building.
High A structure or tree with one or
more potential roost sites that are
obviously suitable for use by
larger numbers of bats on a more
regular basis and potentially for
longer periods of time due to their
size, shelter, protection, conditions
and surrounding habitat.
Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well
connected to the wider landscape that is
likely to be used regularly by commuting
bats such as river valleys, streams,
hedgerows, lines of trees and woodland
edge. High-quality habitat that is well
connected to the wider landscape that is
likely to be used regularly by foraging bats
such as broadleaved woodland, tree-lined
watercourses and grazed parkland. Site is
close to and connected to known roosts.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 14 July 2016
Moderate A structure or tree with one or
more potential roost sites that
could be used by bats due to their
size, shelter, protection, conditions
and surrounding habitat but
unlikely to support a roost of high
conservation status (with respect
to roost type only – the
assessments in this table are made
irrespective of species
conservation status, which is
established after presence is
confirmed)
Continuous habitat connected to the wider
landscape that could be used by bats for
commuting such as lines of trees and scrub
or linked back gardens. Habitat that is
connected to the wider landscape that
could be used by bats for foraging such as
trees, scrub, grassland or water.
Low A structure with one or more
potential roost sites that could be
used by individual bats
opportunistically. However, these
potential roost sites do not
provide enough space, shelter,
protection, appropriate conditions
and/or suitable surrounding
habitat to be used on a regular
basis or by larger numbers of bats
(i.e. unlikely to be suitable for
maternity or hibernation). A tree
of sufficient size and age to
contain PRFs but with none seen
from the ground or features seen
with only very limited roosting
potential.
Habitat that could be used by small
numbers of commuting bats such as a
gappy hedgerow or unvegetated stream,
but isolated, i.e. not very well connected to
the surrounding landscape by other habitat.
Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be
used by small numbers of foraging bats
such as a lone tree (not in a parkland
situation) or a patch of scrub.
Negligible Negligible habitat features on site
likely to be used by roosting bats.
Negligible habitat features on site likely to
be used by commuting or foraging bats.
* Unless it is a confirmed roost, additional surveys are required of buildings to assess presence / likely absence
of a roost. The number of surveys are indicative to give confidence in a negative result, i.e. where no bats are
found, confidence in a result can be taken.
Based upon the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), targeted surveys for Great
Crested Newts and Reptiles were carried out at the site.
Great Crested Newt
All accessible ponds within 500m of the site were assessed for their suitability as great crested newt
habitat, including the measuring of their Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) score, followed by further
survey. A single pond located south-east of the site was included within further surveys, between
12th April 2016 and 6th June 2016. Ponds located within the quarry and adjacent, to the north-west,
were not included within further survey, due to health and safety conditions and as a newt exclusion
was then on going at these ponds. Further ponds located to the north-east and the west were not
surveyed, as access arrangements could not be made. Due to the presence of several barriers to
dispersal however, including highways, this is not considered a limitation to the survey effort.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 15 July 2016
Habitat Suitability Index
The accessible ponds were evaluated against the GCN Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) (Oldham et al,
2000). The HSI provides a measure of the suitability of a water-body for supporting great crested
newts by assigning an overall score of between 0 and 1, which is based on ten key criteria as follows:
SI1 Geographic location
SI2 Pond area
SI3 Pond drying
SI4 Water quality
SI5 Shade
SI6 Presence of water-fowl
SI7 Presence of fish
SI8 Number of local ponds
SI9 Terrestrial habitat quality
SI10 Plant coverage
In general, ponds with a higher score are more likely to support GCN than those with lower score and
suitability for GCN is determined according to the scale outlined in Table 3 below.
Table 3: HSI Scoring Criteria
Presence / Likely Absence
The surveys were carried out in accordance to Natural England’s Great Crested Newt Mitigation
Guidelines (2001). To determine the presence/absence of GCN using three of the survey methods
listed below on each visit at each pond. The survey methods used included:
Torchlight survey – torching was conducted at a pace of 15 minutes per 50m of bank between
dusk and midnight. Ecologists shone high powered (1 million candle power) torches into the
ponds, surveying the torch beam for newts. Particular attention was paid to any marginal
vegetation or potential display areas on the pond floor.
Bottle trapping – bottle-traps were placed along the accessible margins of the ponds,
approximately every two metres, where they were left in situ overnight. The traps were
collected early the next morning and any animals caught were identified and immediately
released.
Egg search – vegetation along the water margin was searched for any evidence of egg laying
by newts, for example leaf folding. If there was a lack of suitable vegetation, the search
concentrated on the submerged leaves of trees, shrubs and other vegetation which overhung
the water.
Sweep netting – a fine gauge net (<1mm mesh size) is used to search for newts in the pond
margins. A figure of 8 motion is effected and care is taken, where possible, to avoid damage
HSI Scoring Criteria
HSI Score Pond suitability
<0.5 Poor
0.5 – 0.59 Below Average
06. – 0.69 Average
0.7 – 0.79 Good
>0/8 Excellent
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 16 July 2016
to vegetation. This method can be destructive, so is only called upon where one of the above
methods is unavailable or ineffectual for various reasons.
In order to determine presence / likely absence of GCN four survey visits are required where three
of the above methods are used. The survey visits must be completed between the period of mid-
March to mid-June with 50% of survey effort between mid-April and mid-May.
Where GCN are found, a total of six survey visits are necessary to determine a population ‘size class
assessment’. The six visits must also be carried out between the period of mid-March to mid-June
with 50% of the survey effort between mid-April and mid-May.
Numbers of any GCN encountered were recorded on each occasion, together with life-stage
(adult/juvenile/larvae/egg) and sex, where this could be determined. In accordance with Natural
England guidance, the highest adult count from the six visits was then used to estimate GCN
population size class.
Population size classes are defined as follows:
Small: maximum counts of up to 10 adults;
Medium: maximum counts between 11 and 100 adults;
Large: maximum counts of over 100 adults.
Records of other species were also noted, including fish, mammals, macro-invertebrates and other
amphibians such as smooth or palmate newts, frogs and toads.
Reptiles
A reptile survey was also undertaken at the site. This survey followed standard methodology, as
outlined in the ‘Reptile Habitat Management Handbook’ (Edgar Petal, 2010) and Froglife Advice
Sheet 10 - ‘Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for
snake and lizard conservation’ (Froglife, 1999).
Reptile refugia were laid out on the 30th March 2016. The refugia were placed in areas where the
habitat was considered suitable for reptiles.
At the commencement of the surveys, 90 artificial refugia, consisting of roofing felt of
approximately 0.5m X 0.5m, were distributed within the suitable habitat. The survey site was
approximately 18ha; current industry standards require a minimum of 5 refuges / ha and as such
the surveys carried out in accordance with these industry standards.
The refugia were checked during appropriate weather conditions (dry, calm and an ambient
temperature 9-18°C). During each survey visit, all other parts of the site were subject to a walkover
survey looking for reptiles.
Surveyors
The majority of these surveys have been carried out by Mike Sims BSc (Hons) ACIEEM. Mike holds
Class 2 licences for both bats (2015-10617-CLS-CLS) and GCN (2015-18172-CLS-CLS) and has been
a professional ecologist for the past five years.
Ben Goodall has been employed as an Ecological Assistant for four years. He has held a GCN licence
for three years (Licence No. 2015-18018-CLS-CLS).
Jo Surgey has been employed in consultancy for two years. During this time Jo has successfully
acted as Ecological Clerk of Works on many projects and has been involved in numerous surveys
of protected species.
Lauri Leavers has been employed as a Graduate Ecologist for 5 months and is a Grad CIEEM
member.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 17 July 2016
Mitchell Jackson has been employed as an Assistant Ecologist for 2 years, conducting surveys for a
range of different protected species.
Pete Sandham has been carrying out ecological surveys for over a year, gaining experience in
surveying for a range of different species.
All surveyors were appropriately qualified for the roles they fulfilled for these surveys. Where
necessary, supervision was given by more senior surveyors.
All surveys and reporting have been overseen and approved by Oliver Ramm MCIEEM; an
ecological consultant for over a decade and managing director of RammSanderson Ltd.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Table 4: Weather Conditions During Site Surveys
Phase 1 Great Crested Newts
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 4 Survey 5 Survey 6
Date completed 24.02.2016 12.04.2016 03.05.2016 05.05.2016 09.05.2016 24.05.2016 06.06.2016
Surveyors
Mike Sims
Lauri Leivers
Jo Surgey
Ben
Goodall
Jo Surgey
Ben
Goodall
Oliver
Ramm
Oliver Ramm Mitchell
Jackson Ben Goodall
Mike Sims
Mitchell
Jackson
Temperature (0C) 8 8 6 10 20 10 20
Wind speed
(Beaufort) 2 0 2 1 1 1 1
Cloud cover 8 3 1 5 2 2 2
Precipitation 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 19 July 2016
Table 5: Weather Conditions During Site Surveys
Reptiles
Deployment Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 4 Survey 5 Survey 6 Survey 7
Date completed 30.03.2016 10.05.2016 16.05.2016 18.05.2016 24.05.2016 07.06.2016 09.06.2016 22.06.2016
Surveyors
Mike Sims
Lauri Leivers
Jo Surgey
Mitchell
Jackson
Pete
Sandham Pete Sandham
Pete
Sandham
Mike Sims
Lauri Leivers
Mitchell
Jackson Mike Sims
Temperature (0C) 8 12 12.5 14 15 17 16 17
Wind speed
(Beaufort) 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Cloud cover 8 8 2 1 5 6 0 4
Precipitation 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Limitations
Phase 1 surveys during the period of October to April are generally less efficient than during the
spring or summer, and it is possible that some plant species have been missed by the field survey.
However, in view of the ecological character of the habitats recorded it is considered that the survey
is adequate to make a robust assessment of habitats present and the sites likely nature
conservation significance. Furthermore, the information obtained during the Phase 1 survey in
February was augmented during multiple visits to the site later in the plant growing season
therefore any notable changes would have been detected.
It should be noted that whilst every effort has been made to provide a comprehensive description
of the site, no investigation could ensure the complete characterisation and prediction of the
natural environment.
Accurate lifespan of ecological data
The majority of ecological data remain valid for only short periods due to the inherently transient
nature of the subject. The survey results contained in this report are considered accurate for
approximately 2 years, notwithstanding any considerable changes to the site conditions.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 21 July 2016
5. Results Desk Study
A total of 12 statutorily designated sites were recorded within the search area, the details of which
are summarised in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Summary of Designated Sites
Site Name Designation Location Brief Description
Kingsbury Brickworks SSSI 830m SSW A Geological Conservation Site, with semi-
improved neutral grassland.
Kettle Brook
LNR &
Biodiversity
Alert Site
1.2km ENE Provides a slow-flowing wetland habitat for
many plants and animals
Dosthill Park LNR & LWS 1.3km NW
Variety of habitats from grassland with
hedgerows, areas of parkland woodland to
broad-leaf plantation woodland and wet
meadow
Kingsbury Wood SSSI 2.7km SSE
Large ancient woodland on clay soils over
glacial drift with small areas of
calcareous clays over limestone
Tameside LNR 2.9km NW
A varied habitat of hedges, grasslands,
small pools and marshy areas providing a
wildlife haven in an urban environment
Middleton Pool SSSI 3.6km
WSW Standing open water and canals
Kingsbury Meadow LNR 3.8km S
a small remnant floodplain meadow
comprised of a narrow corridor of open
land
Warwickshire Moor LNR 4.3km N An area of marshy grassland and reed bed
Hodge Lane LNR 4.6km NNE
A network of small ponds, Oak woodland
and meadow grassland supporting Yellow
Brimstone butterflies
Abbey Green LNR 4.6km ENE A conservation area in the centre of
Polesworth with large open green areas
Broad Meadow LNR 4.8km NW
A large meadow sited on the island
between the two channels of the River
Tame
Alvecote Pools SSSI 4.9km NE Standing open water and canals
Twenty four non-statutorily designated sites were also identified within the search radius, details
of which are provided in Table 7 below.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 22 July 2016
Table 7: Non-statutory Designated Sites
Site Name Designation Location Brief Description
Hockley (west of) LWS 0.18 NE
Mosaic of previously developed land which is
being colonised by species-rich neutral
grassland and scrub.
Hockley Clay Pit (west
of) LWS 540m SW
A disused clay pit mainly semi-improved
grassland with a large area of swamp with
dense scrub along the edge.
Dosthill Quarries pLWS 900m SW A large area of industrial waste ground, the
site, has become a haven for wildlife
Whateley Quarry LGS 1km SE A disused sandstone quarry that is now partly
overgrown
Dosthill Church Quarry
(Dosthill Granite Quarry) RIGS 1.1km W
Designated as a RIGS as it is the best exposure
of Millstone Grit rocks in south east
Staffordshire
Dosthill Quarries LWS 1.2km
WSW
A series of disused quarries that have been
landscaped to form two large lakes with
fringes of emergent/marginal vegetation
surrounded by grassland with an adjacent
area of mature woodland.
Wood pLWS 1.3km SSW Broadleaved semi-natural birch sp woodland,
with occasional oak sp, along the railway
Dosthill Quarry
Grassland
Biodiversity
Alert Site
1.3km
WSW
Semi-improved neutral grassland situated on
a disused quarry
The Woodlands pLWS 1.6km ESE Oak sp and ash woodland with hazel coppice
Dosthill Pit and
Middleton Hall Pit pLWS 1.7km SW
A pool and marshy grassland area dominated
by soft rush
Beauchamp Industrial
Park LWS
1.7km
NNW
Open mosaic on previously developed land
which is being colonised by neutral grassland.
The site exhibits a diverse range of species.
Kingsbury Ponds LWS 1.7km SSW Site consists of a series of ponds important for
their great crested newt population
The Green, Freazley pLWS 1.7km E The site consists of farmland, meadow and
broadleaved planted trees
Kingsbury Colliery LWS 1.9km SE Former spoil-heap with a good range of
habitats
Stoneydelph Wet
Woodland LWS 2km NE
Mainly broad-leaved wet woodland with an
area of swamp, and a small brook running
from the west.
Dosthill Lake and Pond
to east
LWS &
pLWS 2km SW
A former sand and gravel workings, which was
flooded when the river over topped the banks
which has created a large expanse of water
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 23 July 2016
Site Name Designation Location Brief Description
Edge Hill Wood Ancient
Woodland 2.2km SE
An Ancient replanted woodland surrounding a
disused railway
Brook End LWS 2.2km NW
A botanically diverse small wet pasture, in the
flood plain of the River Tame that is bounded
on all sides by water courses.
Birmingham & Fazeley
Canal pLWS
2.3km
WSW
Straight section of canal (running alongside
Kingsbury Water Park) with some low
embankments
Edge Hill Woodland and
Kingsbury Spoil Mound LWS 2.3km SE
A woodland which is good for a range of
woodland bird and butterfly species.
Langley Brook pLWS 2.4km SW An overflow for the canal, a good range of
wetland flora species have been recorded
River Tame and
Tributaries pLWS 2.4km SW
The river provides a link for a complex chain
of wetland habitats which have considerable
ornithological value.
Mineral Line LWS 2.4km ESE A disused railway with grassland, scrub and
woodland.
Kingsbury Water Park LWS &
pLWS 2.5km SW
Site of very high nature conservation value
and part of the highly important Tame Valley
wetlands.
Protected species records were received from the Leicestershire & Rutland Environmental Records
Centre and the Warwickshire Biological Records Centre. A summary of the records considered most
relevant to the site and/or proposed development are provided in Table 9
Table 8: Summary of Protected and Notable Species Records
Species Records Conservation Status
Amphibian
Smooth newt 23 records; Closest record 0.4km WNW Partial protection WCA3
Great Crested Newt 19 records; Closest record 1km ENE EPS4, WCA, NERC5 & LBAP6
Common frog 25 records; Closest record 1km ENE WCA(5) 7 & NERC
Palmate newt 4 records; Closest record 1km ENE Partial protection WCA
Common toad 4 records; Closest record 1.4km ENE WCA(5) & NERC
Mammals
European hedgehog 6 records; Closest record 500m NW LBAP
Common pipistrelle 3 records; Closest record 0.9km SW EPS , WCA & NERC
3Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) 4European Protected Species (EPS), protected by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 5Natural Environment Rural Communities Act (2006) Species of Principal Conservation Importance; UKBAP & LBAP 6 LBAP – Local Biodiversity Action Plan 7 WCA5 – Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) Section 5 protecting against trade or sale of species.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 24 July 2016
Species Records Conservation Status
Pipistrelle sp. 16 records; Closest record was 0.9km SW EPS , WCA & NERC
Otter 3 records; Closest record 1km WNW EPS, WCA, NERC & LBAP
Daubenton’s Bat 4 records; Closest record 1km WNW EPS, WCA, NERC & LBAP
Soprano pipistrelle 5 records; Closest record 1km WNW EPS, WCA
Badger 7 records; Closest record 1.2km SW PBA8
Brown Long-eared bat 6 records; Closest record 1.5km W EPS, WCA, NERC & LBAP
Noctule bat 6 records; Closest record 1.8km NW EPS, WCA, NERC & LBAP
Birds
Dunnock 15 records; Closest record 319m N BoCCAmber
Common Starling 6 records; Closest record 634m N BoCCRed NERC
Common Whitethroat 11 records; Closest record 634m N BoCCAmber
House Sparrow 4 records; Closest record 634m N BoCCRed, NERC
Mistle Thrush 5 records; Closest record 634m N BoCCAmber
Song Thrush 5 records; Closest record 634m N BoCCRed, NERC
Black-headed Gull 8 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCAmber
Kestrel 2 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCAmber
Linnet 3 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCRed, NERC
Mallard 8 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCAmber
Meadow Pipit 5 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCAmber
Reed Bunting 10 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCAmber, NERC
Skylark 3 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCRed, NERC
Swallow 1 records; Closest record 736m SW BoCCAmber
Common Goldeneye 12 records; Closest record 1km WSW BoCCAmber
Common Pochard 2 records; Closest record 1km WSW BoCCAmber
Gadwall 2 records; Closest record 1km WSW BoCCAmber
Lesser Black-backed
Gull
6 records; Closest record 1km WSW BoCCAmber
Tufted Duck 6 records; Closest record 1km WSW BoCCAmber
Barn Swallow 6 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Common Cuckoo 2 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCRed, NERC
Common Greenshank 3 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW WCA1
Common Kestrel 5 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Common Kingfisher 20 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber, WCA1
Common Redshank 17 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Common Swift 4 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
8Protection of Badgers Act 1992
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 25 July 2016
Species Records Conservation Status
Eurasian Teal 3 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Fieldfare 6 records; Closest record 1.1km NNE BoCCRed, WCA1
Green Sandpiper 10 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber, WCA1
Herring Gull 3 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCRed NERC
House Martin 4 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Northern Lapwing 4 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCRed, NERC
Redwing 6 records; Closest record 1.1km SW BoCCRed, WCA1
Sand Martin 6 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Stock Dove 5 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Willow Warbler 5 records; Closest record 1.1km WNW BoCCAmber
Eurasian Oystercatcher 16 records; Closest record 1.1km NW BoCCAmber
Little Grebe 4 records; Closest record 1.2km WNW BoCCAmber
Common Snipe 4 records; Closest record 1.2km WNW BoCCAmber
Barn Owl 4 records; Closest record 1.4km WSW BoCCAmber, WCA1
Black Tern 1 records; Closest record 1.4km WSW BoCCAmber, WCA1
Little Egret 36 records; Closest record 1.4km WSW BoCCAmber
Mediterranean Gull 8 records; Closest record 1.4km WSW BoCCAmber, WCA1
Lesser Redpoll 5 records; Closest record 1.5km WSW BoCCRed, NERC
Spotted Flycatcher 2 records; Closest record 1.5km WSW WCA1
Cetti's Warbler 3 records; Closest record 1.5km WSW WCA1
Peregrine Falcon 1 records; Closest record 1.6km WSW BoCCAmber
Northern Shoveler 4 records; Closest record 1.6km SW BoCCRed, NERC
Common Grasshopper
Warbler
2 records; Closest record 1.6km WSW BoCCRed NERC
Glossy Ibis 1 records; Closest record 1.6km WSW BoCCAmber
Common Tern 18 records; Closest record 1.7km W BoCCRed
Dunlin 6 records; Closest record 1.7km W BoCCAmber, WCA1
Pied Avocet 4 records; Closest record 1.7km W BoCCRed, WCA1, NERC
Black-tailed Godwit 18 records; Closest record 1.7km WSW BoCCAmber
Ringed Plover 19 records; Closest record 1.8km WSW BoCCAmber
Ruddy Turnstone 4 records; Closest record 1.8km WSW BoCCAmber
Spotted Redshank 1 records; Closest record 1.8km WSW BoCCAmber
Bar-tailed Godwit 3 records; Closest record 1.8km W BoCCAmber, WCA1
Garganey 8 records; Closest record 1.8km W BoCCAmber
Grey Plover 1 records; Closest record 1.8km W WCA1
Little Ringed Plover 18 records; Closest record 1.8km W BoCCAmber
Pink-footed Goose 1 records; Closest record 1.8km SW WCA1
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 26 July 2016
Species Records Conservation Status
Eurasian Hobby 2 records; Closest record 1.8km W BoCCAmber
Northern Wheatear 3 records; Closest record 1.8km W BoCCRed, NERC
Yellow Wagtail 4 records; Closest record 1.8km W BoCCAmber, NERC
Eurasian Curlew 3 records; Closest record 1.8km W BoCCAmber, NERC
Common Bullfinch 1 records; Closest record 1.8km NNE BoCCAmber
Common Gull 1 records; Closest record 1.8km NNE BoCCRed, NERC
Eurasian Tree Sparrow 1 records; Closest record 1.8km NNE BoCCRed, NERC
Grey Partridge 1 records; Closest record 1.8km NNE BoCCAmber
Grey Wagtail 2 records; Closest record 1.8km NNE BoCCAmber
Short-eared Owl 2 records; Closest record 1.8km NNE BoCCRed, NERC
Yellowhammer 2 records; Closest record 1.8km NNE BoCCRed, WCA1
Ruff 16 records; Closest record 1.8km WSW BoCCAmber
Whinchat 4 records; Closest record 1.9km WSW BoCCAmber
Shoulder-striped
Wainscot
1 records; Closest record 2.1km NW BoCCAmber
Green Woodpecker 4 records; Closest record 2.1km WSW BoCCAmber
Red Kite 2 records; Closest record 2.2km WSW BoCCAmber
Reptiles
Slow worm 15 records; Closest record 0.8km NNW WCA & NERC
Grass snake 2 records; Closest record 0.9km E WCA & NERC
Full species records are available to view upon request.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 27 July 2016
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
The survey area comprised part of Wilnecote Quarry’s existing north-western boundary, four fields
and their margins, and two other fields in-part. The Site and extraction area is to cover the two
western fields and their western and central hedgerows.
The four fields included two fields containing arable crops and two fields containing improved
grassland grazing pasture. These fields were enclosed by boundary fencing and hedgerows.
The table below identifies the habitat types within The Site and the impacts of the development
proposals to each of these habitats. Full habitat descriptions are provided after the table. For a
Phase 1 plan refer to Appendix 1, a full species list see Appendix 2, and for photos of habitats refer
to text below and for additional photos see Appendix 3:
Table 9: Phase 1 habitat types
Habitat JNCC
Code
Area / length Proportion of
Survey Area
Ecological Importance &
Outcome of Proposal
Broad-leaved
scattered trees A1 46m2 0.06%
Inherently important & likely support
wide range of species, including
nesting birds & possible bat roosts.
No large trees to be fell to facilitate
proposals
Dense Scrub B2.2 0.03ha 0.17%
Not inherently important, but may
support nesting birds, reptiles and
amphibians. May be cleared to
facilitate proposals.
Species-poor
grassland B4 5ha 32.44%
Not inherently important, but may
support ground nesting birds. To be
cleared to facilitate proposals.
Bracken C1.1 0.08ha 0.67%
Not inherently important, but may
support ground nesting birds, reptiles
and amphibians. To be cleared to
facilitate proposals.
Arable J1.1 11ha 66.67%
Not inherently important, but may
support ground nesting birds. To be
cleared to facilitate proposals.
Intact Species
Poor
Hedgerows
H2 2570m n/a
Inherently important & support wide
range of species, including birds &
bats. A proportion to be felled to
facilitate proposals.
These habitats types are detailed below, and are listed in order of the JNCC (2010) Handbook. The
species list provided in this report reflect only those taxa observed during the survey.
Broad-leaved scattered trees
Scattered mature pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) trees were located
outside of The Site’s western boundary. These were associated with the hedgerows present on field
boundaries; see Figure 4.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 28 July 2016
Figure 4: Mature Oak Tree
Dense Scrub
Scrub was discovered at a small number of locations within the survey area. The largest area was
located along the northern boundary of Field 1, where a strip of blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) formed
a field boundary; see Figure 5. Small areas of bramble (Rubus fruticosus) scrub was also located at
several other field margins, outside The Site.
Figure 5: Blackthorn Scrub
Poor Semi-Improved Grassland
During the initial Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site, Field 1 and Field 2 were heavily grazed by
sheep and supported very short grassland sward. However, during later surveys the flock was
removed, allowing these grasslands to develop; see Figure 6. During later surveys these habitats
were classified as ‘Poor Semi-Improved’, due to the small range of herb species present and the
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 29 July 2016
dominance of grasses. Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus) and perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne) were
the dominant species within both grasslands, with cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), rough
meadow-grass (Poa trivialis), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and false oat-grass
(Arrhenatherum elatius) recorded in lower abundance. The recorded herbs, which were present in
very low abundance, were indicative of the previously grazed nature of these fields. These species
included sheep’s sorrel (Rumex acetosa), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), ragwort (Jacobaea
vulgaris), common nettle, hop trefoil (Trifolium campestre) and white clover (Trifolium repens). Field
1 forms part of The Site and extraction area.
Figure 6: Field 2
Arable
Field 3 and Field 4 supported an arable crop. When this survey was carried out, the crop was at an
immature growth stage; see Figure 7. Field 3 forms part of The Site and Extraction area.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 30 July 2016
Figure 7: Field 4
Intact Species Poor Hedgerows
Hedgerows were located around the boundaries of fields within the survey area; see Figure 8. These
were mostly dominated by blackthorn, with hawthorn (Crategus monogyna), elder (Sambucus
nigra), holly (Ilex aquifolium) and hazel (Corylus avellana) present also. These hedgerows were all
partly leggy, but will still represent an ecological resource to local fauna. The hedgerows located
along the western boundary of Field 3 and located between Field 3 and Field 1 form part of The
Site and extraction area.
Figure 8: Hedgerow between Field 1 and Field 3
Preliminary Protected / Notable Species Assessment
The potential for protected species to be present on site and impacted by the proposals is
discussed under the headings below.
Great Crested Newt (GCN)
A search was carried out for ponds in the vicinity of the application area; see Figure 10.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 31 July 2016
Two ponds were located within 250m of the application area: Pond 3 and Pond 4. Pond 3 was a
large settling lagoon within Wilnecote Quarry. Pond 4 was a small lake located within an adjacent
farm and could not be access during site surveys.
A further three ponds were located within 250m of the application area. Pond 1 was located within
private land and could not be accessed, Pond 2 was located within Wilnecote Quarry and an active
GCN translocation was taking place during site surveys, and Pond 5 was assessed as unsuitable
GCN habitat, due to its very large size.
A sixth pond, Pond 6, was located within 500m of previous excavation plans, however is located
500m away from current plans.
At the distance of 500m, any great crested newts, if present within ponds, could potentially travel
to The Site, with the absence of intervening barriers to movement. As such, Habitat Suitability Index
(HSI) assessments were made of all ponds and the suitability of site terrestrial habitat also assessed.
Full GCN surveys were carried out upon Pond 6. For pond descriptions, photos and results of HSI
assessments, please see Tables 10-12 overleaf.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Figure 9: Pond Plan
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Table 10: HSI Assessments for Pond 1 and 2
Waterbody OS Grid
Reference
Water
Quality
Terrestrial
Habitat
Pond
Area
(m2)
Shade
%
Veg.
Cover
%
Pond
Drying
Water-
fowl Fish
HSI
Result Notes Photo
P1 SK223002 Moderate Moderate 103 50 20 Rarely Minor Minor Good
Located to the north of Wilnecote
quarry. Emergent vegetation was
dominated by common reed-mace
(Typha latifolia) and the banks
vegetated with dense scrubby
woodland. The water appeared to be
quite clear and the pond looked to
be good potential habitat for GCN.
This pond was located on private and
could not be surveyed further.
P2 SK223002 Poor Moderate 87 0 0 Sometimes Absent Absent Average
This settling pond was located within
the north of Wilnecote quarry. A
GCN exclusion was on-going at the
time of the survey, with the pond due
to be in-filled to facilitate quarry
operations.
Due to the GCN translocation taking
place at this pond, it was not
surveyed further.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 34 July 2016
Table 11: HSI Assessments for Pond 3 and 4
Water-
body
OS Grid
Reference
Water
Quality
Terrestrial
Habitat
Pond
Area
(m2)
Shade% Veg.
Cover% Pond Drying
Water-
fowl Fish
HSI
Result Notes Photo
P3 SK222000 Poor Poor 11,000 0 0 Never Absent Absent Below
average
A large settling lagoon located near
the centre of Wilnecote quarry.
Water from this was periodically
pumped into P2. The water
contained a heavy clay sediment
and the waterbody had very steep
sides. Due to this and the pumping
from the waterbody, this is likely to
be hostile environment for GCN and
other amphibians.
Due to health and safety reasons,
this pond was not surveyed further.
P4
It was not possible to access this
pond during any site surveys. This
was located approximately 130m
north-east of the proposed
excavation area. Aerial photography
showed this pond to be a large
fishing lake associated with the
adjacent farm, most likely with a
significant water-fowl population.
Due to the distance between the
pond and site and the sub-optimal
quality of the habitat, it has been
assessed being unlikely that newts
from this pond will utilise the site.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 35 July 2016
Table 12: HSI Assessments for Pond 5 and 6
Water-
body
OS Grid
Reference
Water
Quality
Terrestrial
Habitat
Pond
Area
(m2)
Shade% Veg.
Cover%
Pond
Drying
Water-
fowl Fish
HSI
Result Notes Photo
P5 SP218996 Moderate Poor 7,350 80 85 Never Major Major Poor
This was a linear waterbody
located to the west of the
excavation area. There was a
significant water-fowl population
within this waterbody and mostly
likely fish too. Due to these
factors, it has been assessed as
being unlikely that GCN will be
present within this waterbody.
This lake was located on private
land, and could not be surveyed
further due to access
restrictions.
P6 SP228993 Moderate Poor 235 65 15 Annually Absent Absent Below
average
This was a pond located to the
west of the planned excavation
area. Now-superseded
excavation plans showed this
pond to be within 500m of site
activities, however a revised
proposal shows this pond to be
located 500m from The Site. At
the beginning of the season, this
pond was suitable as GCN
habitat, although this quickly
dried, becoming unsuitable GCN
breeding habitat.
Six GCN surveys were carried
out upon this pond.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Table 13: Results of GCN surveys upon Pond 6
Pond
No.
Date Survey Method (GCN Results) Other
Amphibians
Number of
Traps
Max Count
(+ Survey Visit
Number)
Torching Trapping Egg Search
6
12.04.2016 0 1♂, 1♀ 0 Smooth newt:
11♂, 6♀,
2 juvenile
20
03.05.2016 2♀ 3♀ 0 Smooth newt:
6♂, 4♀, 10 5 GCN
Visit: 2
05.05.2016
1♂, 2♀ 1♂, 1♀ 0 Smooth newt:
5♂, 2♀
10
09.05.2016
1♂, 2♀ 0 0 Smooth newt:
10♀
10
24.05.2016 1♀ 0 0 0 10
06.06.2016 Pond Dry
Reptiles
The site features habitats potentially suitable for reptiles. This includes connective hedgerows, areas
of scrub and bracken and open slopes which could be used for basking. As such, a suite of reptile
surveys was carried out at the site.
90 reptile mats were distributed around the survey area, focussing upon areas of scrub habitat,
connective hedgerows, areas of bracken and areas potentially suitable for basking. Over the seven
survey visits carried out in optimal weather conditions, no reptiles were recorded within the survey
area.
Birds
The desk study carried out for this survey returned records of the following bird species listed on
Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981): fieldfare (Turdus pilaris), redwing (Turdus
iliacus), spotted flycatcher (Muscicapa striata), cetti's warbler (Cettia cetti) and yellowhammer
(Emberiza citronella). During eight surveys of the site, yellowhammer was the only species on this
list recorded, recorded on two occasions. This species was not displaying nesting behaviour, with
no alarm calls or territorial singing observed.
The connective hedgerows and areas of scrub habitat are also likely to provide bird nesting sites
suitable to support a range of common garden bird species. Species recorded during this survey
included chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs), chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita), wren (Troglodytes
troglodytes), blackbird and feral pigeon (Columba livia). It is noted however, that a breeding bird
survey is beyond the remit of this survey.
Badgers
There was no field signs characteristic of badger activity found either on site or immediately
surrounding the site, although habitats were present which would be potentially suitable for sett
building and for foraging.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 37 July 2016
Bats
No large and mature trees or buildings suitable for roosting bats were located within The Site.
Several mature pedunculate oak trees were located to the east of The Site, although these were a
substantial distance from proposed excavation activities.
A hedgerow is located along the western boundary of Field 3 and another between Field 3 and 1.
These may be used for foraging and commuting bats, although due to their short and gappy
nature, they are unlikely to be a high quality resource. Also, there are further hedgerows located
adjacent to The Site, forming the same connective routes as those to be removed. It is likely that
all site hedgerows will feature the same level of activity, providing commuting routes to the same
areas.
Water Vole, Otter and White Clawed Crayfish
There were no suitable habitats for any of these species within the site.
Invasive plant species
No invasive or hazardous plant species were discovered during site surveys.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 38 July 2016
6. Discussion & Recommendations Habitats
The Site and planned extraction area cover a field containing an arable crop and another field
containing improved grassland, utilised for sheep grazing. Species-poor hedgerows are located on
the margins of these fields, which have bracken and tall ruderal understories.
Botanically, these habitats hold little conservation interest, with only common sown species present
within the grassland field and a small range of woody species within the hedgerow. These habitats
have mainly been noted for their potential to support nesting birds and small mammals such as
hedgehogs. The field containing the arable crop holds no botanical interest.
The removal of site habitats to facilitate proposals is unlikely to cause any lasting impact on a local
level, due to their common and poor quality nature. Post-extraction restoration plans are likely to
greatly improve the botanical and ecological value of the site.
Fauna
Great Crested Newt
GCN have been recorded in the vicinity of the site. During the course of the surveys, it became
apparent that a separate GCN translocation was actively underway within ponds to the north,
located approximately 325m from the planned quarry extension area (Ponds 1-3). Between these
ponds and the quarry extension area is the main quarry site, including the very steep-sided lagoon.
It has been assessed as being very unlikely that newts within the north of Wilnecote Quarry will
utilise the fields of the planned extension area as their terrestrial habitat and if a translocation
scheme is in place, it is highly likely that any GCN which may be present in these areas are being
removed further from the active quarry areas.
A pond was located to the north-east of the planned quarry extension (Pond 4). This was located
on private land and could not be accessed during site surveys. Aerial photography of this pond
showed it to be a large fishing lake, most probably also supporting an abundant wild-fowl and fish
population. Due to the apparent poor suitability of this pond for GCN and other amphibians, it has
been assessed as being very unlikely that GCN from this pond will be utilising the fields of the
quarry extension area.
A large lake (Pond 5) was located to the west of the planned extension area, with the existing quarry
located between the two. This lake, due its large size and abundant fish and water-fowl populations,
has been assessed as unsuitable habitat for GCN. Furthermore, the existing quarry workings located
between the lake and extension site is likely to act as a barrier to any newts that might travel to the
quarry extension area.
Lastly, a pond was located to the east of the extension area (Pond 6). When surveys were first
planned they were based upon a now-superseded extraction plan, showing Pond 6 to be within
500m of works. Current extraction plans show works to be taking place at more than 500m from
this pond. A peak count of 5 GCN was recorded during Survey 2 of this pond, although during
subsequent visits the water level dropped dramatically, with the pond being completely dry on the
sixth visit. This pond is located at too great a distance from the planned works for newts to utilise
the expansion area as their terrestrial habitat therefore no licence will be necessary to legitimise
the proposals.
Due to the assessed unlikely presence of GCN with the planned extraction area, it is considered
that supervision of initial site clearance by appropriately qualified RammSanderson Ecologists
would be a proportionate level of protection for local amphibians, including GCN. However, in the
highly unlikely scenario that any GCN were discovered during site clearance works, it would be
necessary to stand-down operations until a Natural England licence could be applied for and
mitigation measures put in place.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 39 July 2016
Invasive Plant Species
No invasive non-native plants were recorded within the application or surveyed areas.
Birds
The desk study carried out for this survey returned records of the following bird species listed on
Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981): fieldfare, redwing, spotted flycatcher, cetti's
warbler and yellowhammer. During eight surveys of the site, yellowhammer was the only species
on this list recorded, recorded on two occasions. This species was not displaying nesting behaviour,
with no alarm calls or territorial singing observed.
More generally, the trees and hedgerows at site offered potential nesting habitats for a range of
common garden species. Skylark, which is a ground nesting species, was observed showing nesting
behaviour outside the western boundary of the site, within the planned excavation area. As such,
it is recommended that initial site clearance, including removal of hedgerows and trees and
vegetation within Wilnecote Quarry, takes place outside the bird nesting season to ensure
compliance with the general protection afforded to wild birds under the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 (as amended). If this is unavoidable, these areas should be carefully checked by a suitably
qualified ecologist, prior to removal. Where active nests are found, working restrictions would be
put in place until follow up survey can demonstrate that all chicks have fledged.
Badger
Although the site has been assessed as potentially suitable habitat for badger foraging and sett
building, no field signs of this species, such as setts, prints and territorial latrines, were discovered
either on site or within a 30m zone of influence.
Records of badger have however been returned of badger 1.2km from the site (Staffordshire and
Warwickshire Records Centre). As such, it is recommended that measures are taken to prevent
harm to individuals that may visit the site during the works period. This includes capping the ends
of pipes, creating sloped batters where feasible at the ends of excavations and ensuring that
potentially hazardous substances (fuel etc) are safely stored overnight.
Bats
No trees or buildings were located within The Site which were assessed as potentially suitable
habitat for roosting bats, with all trees classified as being ‘negligible’ potential habitat. As such,
proposals will have no direct impacts upon roosting bats and there will be no need for specific
mitigation for this group.
It has been assessed as being unlikely that proposals will impact upon bat foraging and commuting
activity over the site. Two species-poor hedgerows are to be removed as part of the work, and
although hedgerows are commonly used as commuting and foraging routes for bats, these are in
poor condition and their removal is insignificant. Furthermore, there are perimeter hedgerows
which are more structurally likely to provide foraging areas and act as commuting routes for bats
which are to remain. Field 2 and 4 will be remaining after works have concluded, and any open-
space foraging occurring at the site can continue in those areas. Although night working is unlikely
at the site, it is recommended that the ecological impacts of any lighting associated with the
proposed works should follow the guidelines set out in Bats and Lighting in the UK (BCT, 2009).
Water vole, otter and crayfish
No flowing watercourses were located either within the site or within close proximity. As such, there
is no potential for otter, water vole or freshwater white-clawed crayfish to be impacted upon by
the works and there will be no need for specific mitigation for these species.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 40 July 2016
Reptiles
A suite of seven reptile surveys has been carried out at the site, during optimum weather conditions
in the peak survey season. No reptiles were discovered during any of these surveys and as such it
will not be necessary to implement mitigation measures for this group.
Enhancement Recommendations
As part of the application for extension of Wilnecote Quarry, there is to be a full restoration plan
after the lifespan of excavations has concluded. As well as agricultural areas, there are to be areas
of grassland, woodland, reedbeds, hedgerows and waterbodies.
To compliment these elements of the restoration scheme, it is recommended that the following
enhancements are incorporated into the scheme:
To provide additional habitat for the local amphibian population including newts, it is
recommended several ponds are created within the restoration area. This will provide
a network of waterbodies to support sustainable populations.
These waterbodies should be allowed to vegetate naturally, although if after a year,
marginal and emergent vegetation has not developed, appropriate plant species
should be planted to allow newts opportunities to lay their eggs.
Refugia piles should be created between the ponds to act as over-wintering habitat,
Currently, pedunculate oak and beech are common large trees in the vicinity of the site,
and as such, these species should be incorporated into the planned woodland areas.
Sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), silver birch
(Betula pendula), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia) and whitebeam (Sorbus aria) would also
make attractive additions to the site. Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and elm (Ulmus sp) should
currently be avoided due to the prevalence of ‘Ash die-back’ and ‘Dutch elm disease’,
as stocks of these species cannot be guaranteed to be free from these afflictions.
It is recommended that a Naturescape N5 Long Season Meadow Mixture is used to
seed grassland areas. This mix as this will provide flowers through the entire season,
from April to mid-September, as well as attracting bees and butterflies.
Where hedgerows are to be planted within the restoration area, they should include at
least five different native woody species, evenly mixed over a 30m length. Appropriate
species would include hawthorn, blackthorn, hazel, elder and holly. The hedge-bottoms
should also be sown with N9 Hedgerow Meadow Mixture.
Additional enhancements that could easily be met within the development scope
include the incorporation of bird nest boxes and hedgehog boxes. Bird boxes could be
placed on retained trees within the site boundaries and hedgehog boxes within the
planting and compost piles.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd Forterra
Wilnecote Quarry Extension 41 July 2016
7. References
Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom, 2010. ARG UK Advice Note 5: Great Crested
Newt Habitat Suitability Index. s.l.:s.n.
BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of Practice for Planning and Development 2013: The British
Standards Institution.
Clements, D. & Tofts, R., 1992. Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading Systems (HEGS). s.l.:s.n.
Department of Communities & Local Government, 2012. National Planning Policy Framework,
London: DCLG.
English Nature, 2001. Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. Peterborough: English Nature.
Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition).
The Bat Conservation Trust, London.
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2006. Guidelines for Ecological Impact
Assessment in the UK. 2nd ed. Winchester: IEEM.
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, 2012. Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal. 2nd ed. Winchester: IEEM.
Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995. Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment.
London: E & FN Spon.
Joint Nature Conservancy Council, 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey. Peterborough:
JNCC.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2004. Bat Workers Manual. 2nd ed. Peterborough: s.n.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 06/2005. Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation - Statutory Obligations and their impact within the planning system. London: ODPM.
Terra geological, 2015. Wilnecote Eastern Extension Exploration Drilling Report - drawings [tender],
Excavation Concept Design Option 1.
RammSanderson Ecology Ltd
Appendix 1 – Botanical Species List
Common Name Scientific Name
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore
Agrostis sp. Bent-grass
Alnus glutinosa Alder
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal-grass
Anthriscus sylvestris Cow parsley
Arrhenatherum elatius False oat-grass
Arum maculatum Lords-and-ladies
Campanula rapunculoides Creeping bellflower
Cerastium fontanum Common mouse-ear
Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay willowherb
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle
Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed
Corylus avellana Hazel
Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn
Dactylis glomerata Cock’s-foot grass
Galium aparine Cleavers
Hedera helix Ivy
Heracleum sphondylium Common hogweed
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog
Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell
Ilex aquifolium Holly
Senecio jacobaea Ragwort
Mercurialis perennis Dogs mercury
Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain
Plantago major Common plantain
Poa trivialis Rough meadow-grass
Prunus spinosa Blackthorn
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken
Quercus robur Pedunculate oak
Ranunculus acris Meadow buttercup
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup
Rubus fruticosus agg. Brambles
Rumex acetosella Sheep's sorrel
Salix fragilis Crack willow
Sambucus nigra Elder
Sonchus asper Prickly sowthistle
Sonchus oleraceus Common sowthistle
Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion
Trifolium campestre Hop trefoil
Trifolium repens White clover
Tussilago farfara Coltsfoot
Urtica dioica Common nettle
Vicia sativa Common vetch
top related