rammsanderson ecology ltd wilnecote quarry extension

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] [email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.rammsanderson.com/



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.



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.



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.


Phoenix House, Merlin Way

Quarry Hill Industrial Estate

Ilkeston DE7 4RA

[T] 0115 930 2493

[E] [email protected]

[W] www.rammsanderson.com

Registered in England and Wales 8999992

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.rammsanderson.com/


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 13: Results of GCN surveys upon Pond 6 ............................................................................................................. 36

Appendix

1 – Phase 1 habitat survey plan

2 – Species List



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



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



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



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;



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”.



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.

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



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.



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.



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



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.



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.


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



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


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.



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.



Table 7: Non-statutory Designated Sites


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




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.




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




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




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.



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%


support ground nesting birds. To be

cleared to facilitate proposals.

Bracken C1.1 0.08ha 0.67%


support ground nesting birds, reptiles

and amphibians. To be cleared to


Arable J1.1 11ha 66.67%


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


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.



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



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.



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.



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.


Figure 9: Pond Plan


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.




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.




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.


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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.


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

rammsanderson ecology ltd wilnecote quarry extension

Documents