preliminary ecological appraisal

Pury End Quarry – Restoration Preliminary ecological appraisal

Prepared for D. A. Bird Ltd

Claire Gilchrist MSc MCIEEM

Version 1.0 / 18-025

10/11/2020

Pury End Quarry – Restoration Preliminary ecological appraisal

Issue Prepared by Checked by Approved by Status Date

V1 Claire Gilchrist MSc MCIEEM

Paul Lupton MSc

MCIEEM

Paul Lupton MSc

MCIEEM

DRAFT 10/11/2020

All Argus Ecology Ltd. staff subscribe to the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Managements (CIEEM) code of professional conduct in their work.

This report has been prepared in accordance with CIEEM’s Guidelines for Ecological Report

Writing.

This report is not to be used for contractual purposes unless this approval sheet is signed and designated

as ‘FINAL’.

This report has been prepared by Argus Ecology Ltd. in its professional capacity as Ecological Consultants.

Its contents reflect the conditions that prevailed and the information available or supplied at the time of

preparation. The report, and the information contained therein, is provided by Argus Ecology Ltd. solely

for the use and reliance by the Client in performance of Argus Ecology Ltd.’s duties and liabilities under its

contract with the client. The contents of the report do not, in any way purport to include any manner of

legal advice or opinion.

Report Reference 18-025

Date 10/11/2020

Date of survey/s 09/05/2018, 26/06/2018, May-June 2020.

still

Rectangle

still

Rectangle

still

Rectangle

Pury End Quarry – Restoration 1 Argus Ecology Ltd. Preliminary ecological appraisal 10/11/2020

Executive summary

An ecological survey and assessment was carried out at Pury End Quarry, to inform the proposed

restoration of the quarry and amendment of the final levels of the current restoration plan.

The scope of works included a data search and Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, conforming to

Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) guidelines for

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The protected species assessment also included eDNA sampling

and habitat suitability index assessment of waterbodies, and preliminary bat roost risk

assessment of trees. Hedgerows were assessed for importance and breeding birds noted.

Habitats present are of no more than local value and lacked features indicative of higher quality

such as species-rich hedgerows. All hedgerow is a priority habitat and the site does support

skylark, a priority species of importance for biodiversity conservation. Mature trees on the

eastern and western boundaries, and the hedgerows they are within, are not to be impacted

upon by the extension.

Great crested newt are present within a pond to the south east of the quarry and are likely to be

impacted by the large scale disturbance of suitable terrestrial habitat. It will be necessary to

apply for a Natural England Mitigation licence to cover the proposed works. Details are provided

in a separate report (Argus 2020).

There is low potential of impact on other legally protected or priority species, with suitable

timing of works. While bats may use the site no features suitable for roosting bats are to be

impacted upon and there are alternative corridors for commuting bats available.

The development can be implemented without significant negative effects on the biodiversity

interest of the surrounding area. Mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate for disturbance

of breeding birds and to prevent direct impact on great crested newt. Enhancement measures

are also proposed to maintain and enhance features present on site and to maximise habitat

quality within the restoration plan.


Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Legislation and policy 3

2.1 Relevant legislation 3 2.2 Relevant national planning policies 5

3 Scope and methodology 6

3.1 Scope of assessment 6 3.2 Methodology 6

4 Baseline 8

4.1 Ecological context 8 4.2 Habitats and vegetation 11 4.3 Potential for protected and priority species 12 4.4 Evaluation of important ecological features 14

5 Ecological effects and mitigation 16

5.1 Key features of development 16 5.2 Predicted effects 16 5.4 Compensation measures 18 5.5 Enhancement measures 18

6 Conclusions 19

7 References 20

8 Phase 1 Plan 21

Appendix 1 Habitat survey target notes and photographs

Appendix 2 Pond descriptions

Appendix 3 eDNA results


1 Introduction

Argus Ecology Ltd. were commissioned by D. A. Bird Ltd to carry out a preliminary

ecological appraisal of Pury End Quarry along with revisions to the existing restoration

plan. The proposals include revision of infilling within the existing quarry to allow final

levels across quarry to be rationalised.

The report outlines relevant legislation and policy and sets out the survey and

assessment methodology employed. Baseline ecological conditions are described, and

any ecological interest features identified, with an assessment of their geographic scale

of importance. Potential ecological impacts are assessed, with reference to the likely

effects of the development. In-combination effects of other planned developments in

proximity to the site are considered where relevant. Based on this assessment, the

need for ecological mitigation to ensure compliance with legislative and policy

requirements is considered.

2 Legislation and policy

2.1 Relevant legislation

The following legislation is of potential relevance in terms of the habitats and species

recorded or likely to occur in the vicinity of Pury End Quarry.

European legislation

Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) provides for the establishment of protected sites

(Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)) as part of the Natura 2000 network, to protect

habitats and species of Community interest listed on Annex I and Annex II respectively

of the Directive. It also provides for strict protection of species of Community interest

listed in Annex IV(a) of the Directive (‘European Protected Species’).

Article 10 of the Habitats Directive states that Member States shall endeavour in their

land-use planning and development policies to encourage the management of features

of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora. These are

defined as linear and continuous, or ‘stepping stone’ features, which are essential for

migration, dispersal and genetic exchange.

Article 12 of the Habitats Directive sets out the system of strict protection which

Member States are required to adopt for animal species listed on Annex IV(a). Article


12(1)(b) prohibits ‘deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the

period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration’; Article 12(1)(d) prohibits

‘deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places’.

Birds Directive

Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘Birds Directive’)

provides for the conservation and management of all wild bird species naturally

occurring in the European Union, their nests, eggs and habitats. The Birds Directive

bans activities that directly threaten birds (e.g. deliberate killing and destruction of

nests and young), regulates hunting of selected species, bans non-selective and large

scale killing of birds, and promotes research for bird conservation and management.

Article 2 of the Birds Directive states ‘Member States shall take the requisite measures

to maintain the population of the species referred to in Article 1 (i.e. all wild birds within

their natural range) at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific

and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational

requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level’.

Special conservation measures for species listed in Annex I of the Directive and

regularly occurring migratory species (‘Article 4(2) species’) are principally

implemented through designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Outside the SPA

network, Article 4(4) states that Member States should “should strive to avoid pollution

or deterioration of habitats.”

Implementation of European legislation in domestic law

The Habitats Directive is implemented in England and Wales by the Conservation of

Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Regulation 41 implements Article 10,

while Regulation 43 implements the system of strict protection applied to European

Protected Species.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 also transpose the Birds

Directive into English law. Regulation 10 identifies duties of appropriate authorities in

relation to wild bird habitat. Regulation 10(3) addresses the transposition of Article 2

of the Birds Directive, while Regulation 10(8), requiring competent authorities to “use

all reasonable endeavours” to “avoid any pollution or deterioration of habitats of wild

birds.”


Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides the principal legislation

for designation of nationally important conservation sites and the protection of

species.

Section 1 addresses the protection of wild birds; Section 1(1) provides for protection

for all wild birds against deliberate or reckless killing or injuring, damage or destruction

of nests while in use or being built, or taking or destroying eggs. The Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) provides all wild birds with legal protection against

intentional killing, injuring or taking (section 1(1)(a)); taking, damaging or destroying a

nest while in use or being built (section 1(1)(b)); and taking or destroying eggs (section

1(1)(c)). Birds listed on Schedule 1 have additional protection against intentional and

reckless disturbance when nesting, as set out in section 1(5).

Protection of Badgers Act 1992

The Protection of Badgers Act is primarily concerned with animal welfare, but also has

implications for badgers in a development context. It is a criminal offence: to wilfully

kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger; to attempt to do so; or to

deliberately or recklessly interfere with a sett.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 sets out the

duty of public authorities to conserve biodiversity in the exercise of their functions,

through “having regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of their duties,

to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. Biodiversity conservation is further defined

as including the restoration or enhancement of a population or habitat.

Section 41 requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of species and habitats which

are of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England (i.e. ‘priority

species and habitats’), and to take and promote the taking of “reasonably practicable”

steps to further their conservation.

2.2 Relevant national planning policies

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018 for England sets out a number of

policies for conserving and enhancing the natural environment in Section 15. Of

particular relevance in the present context are the following policies:


• 170 a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or

geological value;

• 170 d): includes reference to the need to minimise impacts and providing net

gains for biodiversity, including establishing coherent ecological networks;

• 174 a): safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological

networks.

3 Scope and methodology

3.1 Scope of assessment

The survey scope included a data search, an Extended Phase 1 habitat survey, habitat

suitability index assessment and eDNA surveys of waterbodies, and preliminary ground

level roost assessment of trees.

The assessment included an evaluation of the site’s importance for nature

conservation, and an assessment of the risk of occurrence of legally protected species.

Any potentially significant ecological effects were highlighted, and consideration given

to mitigation measures in order to ensure the proposed development’s compliance

with legal obligations and ensure conformity with nature conservation planning

policies.

Surveys were undertaken on 9th May 2018 by Claire Gilchrist MSc MCIEEM and Luke

Cartlidge BSc and on 26th June 2018 by Claire and Paul Lupton MSc MCIEEM. Conditions

during each survey were good; dry and bright with good visibility. Additional survey

work was carried out by Heatons in 2020 to carry out a population class assessment of

the GCN population.

3.2 Methodology

Data search

Existing information on designated sites and protected and priority species within 2km

of the proposed development was obtained from Northamptonshire Biological Records

Centre (NBRC) and the Multi-agency geographic information for the countryside

(MAGIC) website hosted by DEFRA. Northants Bat Group was also contacted to request

bat records within 2km of the site. A check for granted European Protected Species

licences was also made on the MAGIC website.


Habitat survey

A habitat survey was carried out in accordance with Phase 1 methodology (JNCC, 2010),

‘extended’ to consider the value of the site for fauna (including protected species) in

accordance with IEA (1995) methodology.

Habitats were mapped in the field on an OS base plan, and locations checked with a

handheld GPS or direct measurement. Target notes were made of the species

composition and relative abundance of flora on site, and representative photographs

taken; these are set out in Appendix 1.

The survey included habitats within the proposed site boundary, and adjacent habitats

up to 20m around the red line boundary.

The surveys were carried out during May and June 2018 within the optimum period for

such surveys. There were no access constraints.

Great crested newt habitat suitability index

Two ponds are present within 250m of the site boundary and these were surveyed in

order to calculate their Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) score. The HSI score was

developed by Oldham et al. (2000) and is used by Natural England as part of the

evaluation system for the European protected species licensing process. It is a scoring

system based on an assessment of habitat quality and is derived by calculating the

geometric mean of ten component suitability indices. These include physical and

ecological parameters of the pond (size, water quality, degree of shading etc.), as well

as contextual parameters (distribution of great crested newt [GCN] in the region,

number of ponds within a 1km radius etc.), which collectively determine likelihood of

occurrence, based on empirical data from GCN sites. In general, ponds with a high HSI

score are more likely to support a great crested newt population than those with a low

HSI score.

Great crested newt eDNA sampling 2018

Field sampling was undertaken by licensed great crested newt surveyors with methods

following those detailed in Biggs et al (2014).

The method detects pond occupancy from great crested newt using traces of DNA shed

into the pond environment (eDNA). A single visit was made to each pond on under

suitable weather conditions (avoiding heavy rain) and water samples taken and

preserved in Ethanol for later analysis in the laboratory. The detection of GCN eDNA is


carried out using real time PCR to amplify part of the cytochrome 1 gene found in

mitochondrial DNA.

The survey work was carried out by Claire Gilchrist (GCN level 2 survey licence WML

CL09 number 2015-16934-CLS-CLS).

2020 surveys

A full programme of great crested newt surveys was carried out in 2020 and details of

this are provided in the appended Great Crested newt survey report.

4 Baseline

4.1 Ecological context

Statutory designated sites

There are no statutory designated nature conservation sites within 2km of the

development.

Non-statutory designated sites

There are two Local Wildlife Sites within the 2km search radius:

• Brook Cottage Meadow LWS – a relatively species rich neutral grassland

meadow, 0.34km to the south east of the proposed extension and;

• Burcote Wood LWS – a small oak-ash semi-natural ancient woodland 1.32km to

the west of the proposed extension.

• Three potential wildlife sites are also identified 1.61km – 1.89km to the south

west, no further information on these sites is available from the records centre

but these are shown on the MAGIC website as woodland sites included on the

Priority Habitat Inventory including an area of ancient and semi-natural

woodland.

Local Wildlife Sites are sites of local to County-level importance, designated by a

Wildlife Trust or Local Sites Partnership, previously in accordance with DEFRA (2006)

guidelines. LWS do not have any legal protection, but do have some policy protection

in the NPPF as part of the hierarchy of sites which make up ecological networks (policy

117); their specific role in ecological networks is also in accordance with Article 10 of

the Habitats Directive, implemented by Regulation 41 of the Habitats Regulations 2017.

Sites are identified on Figure 4.1 below.


Figure 4.1 - Pury End Quarry is also listed as a Potential Local Geological Site.

Protected and priority species

Northamptonshire Biological Records Centre data / Northants Bat Group records

Protected species records obtained from the biological records centre and bat group

include the following protected species within the 2km search radius:

• Bat (records from Northants Bat Group are at 1km OS grid square accuracy but

there are no records for the 3 OS grid squares which the site partially occupies).

Closest records are a minimum of 0.06km to the south west and include several

roosts records of brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritas and pipistrelle bat

Pipistrellus sp. The same roosting species are recorded in the OS grid square a

minimum of 0.90km to the east. A grounded whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus

and roosting and grounded brown long-eared bat are recorded a minimum of


0.65km to the north and roosting and grounded pipistrelle and foraging common

pipistrelle P. pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle P.pygmaeus a minimum of

1.04km to the north west. Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, Natterer’s bat

Myotis nattereri and noctule Nctalus noctule are also recorded just outside of

the 2km search area to the north west in Towcester;

• Great crested newt Triturus cristatus - there is a record from within the quarry

from 1982, and two further records within 2km; a 2013 record 0.78km to the

south east and a 2010 record 0.94km to the south east;

• Grass snake Natrix helvetica are recorded 0.34km to the south and are also

mentioned as using gardens surrounding Brook Cotttage Meadow LWS, 0.34km

to the south east, during a survey in 2012. There is also a 1947 record for a suite

1.67km to the north;

• Barn owl Tyto alba are recorded a minimum of 0.71km to the north;

• Badger Meles meles are reported within the 2km search area.

All bat species and great crested newt are European protected species, listed on Annex

IV of the EU Habitats Directive. Barn owl are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act and badger are protected under the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act.

Grass snake receive partial protection, through listing on Section 9 of Schedule 5 of the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, against intentional injury or killing (section 9(1)) and

trade (section 9(5)).

Priority species (species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Resources and Rural

Communities Act 2006) recorded within the 2km search radius include the following:

• Brown hare Lepus europaeus;

• Chalk carpet moth Scotopteryx bipunctaria;

• Cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae;

• Common toad Bufo bufo;

• Grizzled skipper Pyrgus malvae;

• House sparrow Passer domesticus;

• Small heath Coenonympha pamphilus;

• Song thrush Turdus philomelos;


• Streak moth Chesias legatella;

• Shaded broad-bar moth Scotopteryx chenopodiata;

• Wall butterfly Lasiommata megera;

• Wood white Leptidea sinapis.

Natural England European Protected Species Mitigation licensing check

There are three granted licence applications within 2km of the site, one in respect of

bats and two in respect of great crested newt. There bat licence is for destruction of

breeding and resting places of brown long-eared bat, Natterer’s bat and common

pipistrelle, granted in 2015, for a site 1.26km to the north west.

The two granted great crested newt licences are both for destruction of a resting place

granted in 2012 for sites 1.12km and 1.23km to the south east.

4.2 Habitats and vegetation

Local ecological context

Pury End Quarry is adjacent to a minor road leading to the village of Pury End which is

200m to the south east. The quarry lies at approximately 120m AOD.

Surrounding land use is predominantly arable with hedgerow boundaries although

there are areas of permanent pasture areas associated with settlements such as Pury

End and Paulerspury to the south east.

There are arable fields to the west, north and east of the quarry with an area of

woodland with ponds adjacent to the south and a stream and permanent pasture fields

further to the south east and south.

Habitat survey results

Phase Plan 1 shows the spatial disposition of habitats and features within the survey

area. More detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix 1 as a series of ‘target notes’

with illustrative photographs, in accordance with Phase 1 survey methodology.

The northern hedgerow falls away steeply into the current extraction area along the

mid-section. Areas of bare subsoil within the red line boundary at the north eastern

corner of the existing quarry have been colonised by species such as coltsfoot Tusilago

farfara, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and teasel Dipsacus fullonum. In the central

quarry area is a subsoil slope (0.17 ha) which has been colonised by butterfly bush

Buddleia davidii and stinging nettle with occasional spear thistle, creeping thistle,


locally abundant willowherb and rare evening primrose hemlock and regenerating

willow Salix sp.

Subsoil mounds within the working quarry and to the east of the site boundary are

compacted and are sparsely colonised by similar species as the subsoil slope. Topsoil

mounds have been colonised by ruderals and are dominated by dense stinging nettle

Urtica dioica with bramble scrub around the bases.

Other areas within the quarry of interest include species rich grassland within a

restored area to the east of the quarry which included pyramidal orchid Anacamptis

pyramidalis.

4.3 Potential for protected and priority species

Protected species

No bird or dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius nests were identified within the

hedgerows during the survey.

Two skylark Alauda arvensis were observed signing over the arable field and blue tit

Cyanistes caeruleus, long tailed-tit Aegithalos caudatus, and blackbird Turdus merula

were recorded within the hedgerows.

Scrub within the existing quarry also has potential to support nesting birds.

Scrub, bases of hedgerows and ruderal covered mounds were searched for signs of

badger but no setts, trails or latrines were found. A single footprint was identified in a

wet area of an arable field to the west of the existing quarry.

Areas of scrub within the quarry will also provide terrestrial habitat but are limited in

size and lack connectivity with similar habitat in the wider area.

Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index and eDNA survey

Two ponds were identified within 500m of the site, these are both outside of the site

boundary. Pond 1 is an inline pond on a watercourse, and Pond 2 is within woodland,

both are to the south/south east of the site boundary and will not be directly impacted

by the development proposals.

Ponds were assessed for suitability to provide breeding habitat for GCN. Pond

descriptions and photographs are provided in Appendix 3 and position of ponds is

shown on the Phase 1 plan.


Water samples for eDNA analysis taken at Pond 1 (Pond 2 had insufficient water to

sample) and a positive result was obtained. Great crested newt eggs were also found

during the HSI and eDNA surveys. Results are included in Appendix 4.

Habitat suitability index (HSI) scores were calculated and are presented in Table 4.2

(table taken from Natural England - GCN Method Statement - WML-A14-2-2).

Interpretation of the results is categorised according to probability of GCN occupancy

as outlined by Oldham et al 2000 in Table 4.3.

Table 4.2: HSI results

Pond ref Pond 1 Pond 2 SI1 - Location 1 1 SI2 - Pond area 1 0.1 SI3 - Pond drying 0.9 0.1 SI4 - Water quality 1 0.33 SI5 - Shade 0.4 0.4 SI6 - Fowl 0.67 1 SI7 - Fish 0.67 1 SI8 - Ponds 0.82 0.82 SI9 - Terrestrial habitat 1 1 SI10 - Macrophytes 0.45 0.3 HSI 0.75 0.45

Table 4.3 – Categorisation of HSI scores

HSI <0.5 0.5 – 0.59 0.6 – 0.69 0.7 – 0.79 >0.8

Pond suitability Poor Below average Average Good Excellent

Proportion of ponds occupied 0.03 0.20 0.55 0.79 0.93

Pond 1 would therefore be regarded as having ‘good’ suitability for GCN, while Pond 2

has ‘poor’ suitability for GCN.

2020 GCN survey results

Pond 1 was found to have a ‘medium’ population of great crested newt. Pond 2 was

negative for GCN and dried out after only two surveys. This drying was also observed

in the 2018 results.

A summary of the results can be seen in table 1 below.


Table 1

Date (Pond

Number)

Water Temp (°C)

Turbidity (0-5)

Veg Cover

(%)

Species Great

Crested Newt

Smooth Newt

Other Species

M F M F

5/5/2020 (Pond1)

15.9 2/3 75% 8 2 7 25 1x Common Frog

5/5/2020 (Pond 2)

16.8 2 80% 0 0 0 0 Toad Tadpoles

6/5/2020 (Pond 1)

13.4 3 70% 17 4 16 18 Toad Tadpoles/Signal Crayfish

6/5/2020 (Pond 2)

19.8 1 90% 0 0 0 0 Toad Tadpoles/ Signal Crayfish

13/5/2020 (Pond 1)

10.9 1 85% 0 0 8 16 Toad Tadpoles/ Signal Crayfish

4/6/2020 (Pond 1)

13.8 2 85% 0 1 0 1 Signal Crayfish/ Toad Tadpoles/Sticklebacks

10/6/2020 (Pond 1)

13.2 2 80% 0 0 0 1 Signal Crayfish/Toad Tadpoles/Sticklebacks

18/6/2020 (Pond1)

14.5 2 90% 0 0 0 3 Signal Crayfish/ Toad Tadpoles/Sticklebacks

Other fauna

No reptiles or signs of use by reptiles were identified though the quarry, the pond to

the south, adjacent woodland and rank and bare areas do provide opportunities for

reptiles such as grass snakes.

Bare ground along with species rich grassland and woodland within the working quarry

provide a habitat mosaic suitable for a range of invertebrate species.

Schedule 9 invasive species

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and cotoneaster Cotoneaster horizontalis

/microphyllus was identified within the working quarry and Japanese knotweed within

a restored area to the west. Locations of invasive species are mapped on Phase 1 plan.

4.4 Evaluation of important ecological features

Habitats

Hedgerows qualify as Section 41 priority habitats. Hedgerows are defined as lines of

trees or shrubs with at least one woody species so outgrown hedgerows also meet the

criteria of priority habitat (BRIG, 2010).


The hedgerows, although outgrown and species poor, can be considered a feature of

local importance, contributing to ecological networks and helping to maintain

biodiversity across the arable landscape. Hedgerows habitats are also of interest in

their capacity to support nesting birds and providing foraging habitat and commuting

routes for bats.

Within the wider area, pond habitats can be considered features of at least local

importance. Pond 1 is a breeding pond for great crested newt and the ponds provide

invertebrate habitat and bat foraging habitat.

Species

Great crested newt are present within Pond 1, to the east of the red line boundary. The

hedgerows provide potential terrestrial habitat for great crested newt present on the

site. Much of the quarry area comprises compacted subsoil which is sparsely vegetated,

there are topsoil mounds with dense ruderal vegetation and scrub associated but

connectivity with other suitable habitat is relatively poor. The pond is adjacent to high

quality terrestrial habitat with woodland and rank grassland, this habitat is continuous

with scrub and grassland habitats developing on the southern and eastern edges of the

existing quarry. No ponds have been identified to the north and west of the site and

existing records are for areas to the south of the Site. Small populations were recorded

in two ponds >1km to the west and north-west and a medium population in a pond

>2km to the west of the site during surveys for the Towcester Southern Extension in

2006-7. GCN were found in 3 of 13 ponds surveyed indicating a low density population

in the area.

It is likely that bats will use hedgerows around the quarry and scrub habitats for

foraging. The scrub and woodland to the south and east of the quarry and watercourse

and water body to the higher quality habitats within the wider area. There are trees

with moderate risk of use as bat roosts as classified by the Bat Survey Guidelines

(Collins 2016) defined as ‘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.’ No trees with risk

of use by bats are to be removed as part of the proposed works.

No signs of use of the hedgerows by dormouse were identified during the survey and

the hedgerow provides poor habitat for this species. There is a lack of connectivity with

areas of suitable woodland and the poor species diversity of the hedgerow would not

provide sufficient food throughout the active season.


Skylark are present and holding territory within the arable field to the north and

hedgerows have potential for use by other nesting bird species.

Although no signs of badger occupation are present on site or within surrounding

habitat they are recorded in the area and presence adjacent to the site was recorded.

5 Ecological effects and mitigation

5.1 Key features of development

It is understood that hedgerows and trees in the vicinity of the quarry are to be

unaffected by works and existing habitats on the periphery of the current working area,

including established grassland, are to remain undisturbed.

5.2 Predicted effects

Direct effects

The proposed development will result in the temporary loss of subsoil and topsoil

mounds that will be moved as part of the restoration of the quarry. Re-instatement of

great crested newt terrestrial habitat within 250m of the breeding pond will form a

major part of the restoration plan. No habitat within 50m of the breeding pond is to be

impacted upon. As part of the ongoing works and restoration there will be loss of small

areas of tall ruderal vegetation and scrub within the quarry but again this is not

continuous with core terrestrial habitat.

Indirect effects

The risk that development of the site could impact on water quality in the pond within

the woodland (Pond 1) is low as the pond currently is ephemeral and does not have a

hydrological connection with the quarry site. The inline pond further to the south (pond

2) is unlikely to collect surface waters from the site. As the site is already a working

quarry there is no additional potential risk of groundwater contamination from stored

fuels etc.

There is no lighting associated with the restoration.

Cumulative impacts

A large urban extension to the south of Towcester has been approved in the planning

system. Great crested newt were identified within ponds outside of the boundary of

this application site (in excess of 1km to the west of the quarry extension site) with


small populations (Maximum counts 1 and 4 GCN) and a medium populations >2km to

the west. A Natural England mitigation licence is to be applied for to mitigate for loss

of terrestrial habitat to the north of these ponds and habitat creation is proposed to

maintain favourable conservation status of the species as a result of the development.

The ES for the site predicts no impact on the conservation status of the population.

No other developments which are predicted to impact on great crested newt have been

identified and no cumulative impacts on great crested newt are predicted as a result of

the temporary loss of a small area of terrestrial habitat within the quarry extension.

5.3 Mitigation measures

GCN Mitigation licence

Pond 1 must be considered as a breeding pond and so the loss or damage to terrestrial

habitat close to the pond must be considered as a medium scale of impact on this

European protected species.

Mitigation proposals will be in accordance with Oldham, et al. (2000). No breeding

ponds will be lost to the development but immediate terrestrial habitat will be

disturbed as restoration of the site proceeds. In mitigation, it is proposed that;

• Amphibian fencing will be used to ‘trap out’ GCN and other amphibians from

the areas of the site that are within 250m of the breeding pond, have good

connectivity with the pond and occupy habitats that offer opportunities for

amphibians.

A 60 day trapping exercise (appropriate to a medium population) is proposed. The

fencing will cover suitable terrestrial habitat within 250m of the breeding and will focus

on areas closer to the pond and on areas of higher habitat quality such as semi

improved grassland, hedgerows and scrub. Trapping will be through a combination of

bucket traps and carpet tiles placed at an appropriate density. More details are

provided in the appended GCN report.

Timing of works to avoid impact on nesting birds

It is recommended that trees, shrubs and scrub are removed and topsoil from the

extraction area cleared outside of the bird breeding season which is March to July

inclusive for most species. Above ground clearance of hedgerow vegetation within the

winter period will also remove suitable nesting habitat for birds.


Management of retained habitats

A standoff of 2m from the centre of boundary hedgerows and outside of canopy spread

of hedgerow trees to the east and west will be required. This applies to compaction

from soil storage as well as to the excavation.

Avoiding impacts on the water environment

The extraction works should operate in accordance with best practice guidance for the

avoidance of pollution of surface water and groundwater from plant and any stored

hydrocarbon fuels.

Management of invasive species

Japanese knotweed and wall cotoneaster were identified within the area of the

working quarry. Disturbance of the areas where these species occur could result in

spreading of these species. Current information from the GOV.UK website indicates it

is permissible to bury plant material and contaminated soil on the same site at which

it is produced. Plant material must be buried at least 5m depth and covered with a root

barrier membrane layer.

Guidance on methodology was previously issued by the Environment Agency but is now

withdrawn and current information recommends that the Environment Agency should

be contacted for further information. This work could be carried out during the site

restoration process.

5.4 Compensation measures

Retention of invertebrate habitat

Standing deadwood within the surrounding hedgerows and woodland provides good

habitat for invertebrates.

5.5 Enhancement measures

Hedgerow planting around translocated sections along the north east boundary of the

existing quarry will provide connectivity of the woodland to the east of the quarry . This

would create additional habitat for great crested newt and better future connectivity

to allow colonisation by dormouse.

Species rich grassland habitats are already established to the south of the existing

quarry, there are areas of ephemeral short perennial vegetation forming on subsoil to

the west of the quarry and on the eastern boundary. Retention of a bund of subsoil at

the north eastern corner of the quarry will provide good basking habitat for


invertebrates. The compacted nature of the substrate will prevent dense colonisation

by ruderal species and provide a mosaic of habitat types within the restored site.

6 Conclusions

A Natural England development licence will be required to allow temporary destruction

of great crested newt terrestrial habitat 50-250m from a breeding pond. The licence

will include provision for translocate of GCN and a method statement outlining how

works will be undertaken.

A re-check for signs of badger will be required if there is a significant time lapse

between this survey and works.

Mitigation measures are proposed to ensure the integrity of retained hedgerows.

Enhancement as part of the restoration plan could include hedgerow transplant and

planting of hedgerow to enhance habitat connectivity and retention of a subsoil bund

to retain the developing mosaic of habitats which provide good opportunities for

invertebrates.


7 References

Biggs J., Ewald N., Valentini A., Gaboriaud C., Griffiths R.A., Foster J., Wilkinson J., Arnett

A., Williams P. and Dunn F. 2014, Analytical and methodological development for

improved surveillance of the Great Crested Newt. Appendix 5. Technical advice note

for field and laboratory sampling of great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)

environmental DNA. Freshwater Habitats Trust, Oxford.

BRIG (ed. Ant Maddock) 2008, Updated 2010, UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority

Habitat Descriptions.

CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland:

Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management, Winchester

CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, 2nd edition. Chartered

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines

(3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London.

JNCC 2010, Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey. A technique for environmental audit.

JNCC, Peterborough.

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. & Jeffcote, M. 2000, Evaluating the suitability of

habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10, 143-

155.


8 Phase 1 Plan

Appendix 1 Habitat survey target notes and photographs

1 Scrub/Woodland

Woodland can be found along the western and south eastern boundaries of the site and these areas will not be impacted by the proposed restoration

of the quarry. They consist of abundant hawthorn Crateagus monogyna and blackthorn Prunus spinosa with occasional field maple Acer campestre,

cherry Prunus spp, hazel Corylus avellana and ash Fraxinus excelsior. There is dense bramble Rubus fruticosus scrub at the margins as well as abundant

teasel Dipsacus spp, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, mullein Verbascum thapsus, weld Reseda luteola, broad-leafed dock Rumex obtusifolius and cow

parsley Anthriscus sylvestris as well as common grasses such as cocksfoot Dactylus glomerata and Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus.

2 Hedgerow 1 (northern edge of existing quarry)

Continuous outgrown hedgerow 3-8m in height, 1-3m in width, dominated by hawthorn with abundant elm Elymus sp., there was occasional elder

Sambucus nigra and locally frequent blackthorn. There were no mature hedgerow trees but there was a 0.75m wide stump felled to ground level and

two pollarded deadwood trunks approximately 3m in height. Signs of laying at some time in the past in small areas. There was an area of locally abundant

blackthorn present to the south of the hedgerow in the north west corner of the existing quarry and locally frequent comfrey Symphytum sp. in the

same area. Along the southern edge of the hedgerow ground is the existing quarry and understorey is mostly exposed subsoil colonised by frequent

coltsfoot Tussilago farfara.

Understorey with abundant common nettle and frequent cleavers, locally frequent Lords and Ladies Arum maculatum, occasional white dead nettle

Lamium album, broad-leaved dock and ivy Hedera helix. Rare species included hemlock Conium maculatum, bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., creeping

thistle Cirsium arvense, dogrose Rosa canina and hogweed Heracleum sphondylium.

3 Scrub

Area of blackthorn scrub inside the north-west corner of the existing quarry

4 Tall ruderal

Topsoil mounds at the north east of the existing quarry dominated by common nettle with occasional spear thistle, hemlock, great willowherb

Epilobium hirsutum, creeping thistle, spear thistle Cirsium vulgare, mugwort and broad-leaved dock.

5 Scrub

Area colonised by scrub with ruderal species. Abundant butterfly bush Buddleja davidii with abundant common nettle, locally abundant rosebay

willowherb , occasional spear thistle, creeping thistle and regenerating willow Salix sp. with rare evening primrose, hemlock, and coltsfoot where the

scrub grades into bare ground.

6 Bare ground

Much of the site that will be restored consists of bare compacted aggregate with little or no vegetation. Around the periphery of this are ruderals such

as teasel, birds-foot trefoil and coltsfoot. At the time of survey there was recent excavation leaving exposed faces which were un-vegetated.

7 Grassland

Much of the grassland on site is rank but with a mosaic of small patches of higher value calcareous grassland to the south-east of the site. Rank grassland

includes tall fescue Festuca glauca, red fescue Festuca rubra, cocksfoot and brown bent Agrostis vinealis as well as tall ruderals such as frequent creeping

thistle, spear thistle, great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum and teasel.

Higher quality herb rich grassland includes frequent self-heal Prunella vulgaris, birdsfoot trefoil Lotus corniculatus , coltsfoot Tusilago farfara. Pyramidal

orchid Anacamptis pyramidalis, tormentil Potentilla erecta, ox-eye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare and fairy flax Linum catharticum. Frequent rock rose

Helianthemum nummularium and meadow cranesbill Geranium pratense are also present. There is also frequent red and white clover as well as creeping

buttercup and occasional creeping thistle. The areas of existing grassland are unlikely to be impacted by the restoration of the site.

Appendix 2 Pond descriptions

Pond 1 – Pond on watercourse at SP 709 459

Well established pond approximately 50m x 10m with a likely maximum depth >1m, created on the line of a watercourse by a dam at the eastern end. There was

a small amount of flow at the time of the survey. The pond is within a fenced area adjacent to semi-mature broadleaved woodland to the north and permanent

improved pasture to the south.

Aquatic vegetation included frequent narrow-leaved pondweeds Potamogeton spp. and submerged willowherb rosettes, and rare common duckweed Lemna

minor. There was a small amount of algal growth. Emergent species included occasional water mint Mentha aquatica, yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus and soft

rush Juncus effusus.

Netting of the pond was carried out. Invertebrates recorded were mayfly Ephemeroptera nymphs from at least two families, water hoglouse Ascellus aquaticus,

diving beetle larva, backswimmer Notonectidae, pond snail Lymnaeidae and freshwater shrimp Gammarus sp.

Tufted duck Aythya fuligula, Canada goose Branta canadensis with goslings and mallard Anas platyrhynchos with ducklings were also recorded at the pond.

No fish were observed although the pond provides suitable habitat.Water samples were taken for eDNA analysis.

Pond 2 – Pond within woodland at SP 707 458

Small pond maximum dimensions 6m by 2m with maximum depth 20cm. One of two waterbodies within young broadleaf woodland although the other was dry

at the time of the survey (9th May), it is expected that this pond will also be dry within the current spring.

Terrestrial habitat was good comprising young semi-mature woodland and scrub. No aquatic or emergent species were present and there was abundant algal

growth and ruderal species dominating the ground flora around the pond margins.

No wildfowl or fish were present and no invertebrates were netted.

Pond was not sampled for eDNA as it was assesses as not providing suitable great crested newt breeding habitat.

Appendix 3 eDNA results

preliminary ecological appraisal

Documents