astley lane, bedworthapps.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/bt_nbbc_planning... · astley lane, bedworth...

Astley Lane, Bedworth

Ecological Appraisal

A Report on behalf of the Arbury Estate February 2015

30 Brock Street Bath BA1 2LN

tel: 01225 445548 fax: 01225 312387

[email protected]

www.npaconsult.co.uk

Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

AE/NPA/10747 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Appraisal

2.1 Habitats

2.2 Amphibians

2.3 Reptiles

2.4 Bats

2.5 Water Vole & Otter

2.6 Badgers

2.7 Birds

2.8 Invertebrates

3.0 Conclusion

Figures

Nature Conservation Designations within 1km

References

Appendices

I: Ecology Surveys of Land Off Astley Lane

II: Biodiversity Impact Assessment

III: Offsite Habitat Survey

IV: Bat Internal/External Assessment


AE/NPA/10747 1/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document has been prepared by Nicholas Pearson Associates (NPA) on behalf of the

Arbury Estate who propose to submit an outline planning application for up to 180

residences (and related infrastructure) on approximately 11.6 ha of land (identified on the

Location Plan, dwg No. 15 0076) to the north of Astley Lane, Bedworth.

A report detailing the results of ecological surveys undertaken on Site has been prepared by

Ecological Services Ltd (ESL) and should be read in conjunction with this appraisal. As such it

is included in Appendix 1 for ease of reference. In addition two further ecological surveys

have been carried out by NPA, namely off-Site habitat surveys to inform biodiversity

offsetting proposals (see Appendix III) and bat internal/external inspections of properties on

and near the south-east corner of the Site (see Appendix IV).

This appraisal sets out a summary of the baseline conditions, the ecological mitigation and

enhancements proposed, and how the proposals accord with national and local planning

policy and legislation.

2.0 APPRAISAL

A number of valued ecological receptors were identified within the ESL report and this

section outlines the proposed mitigation/approach to each.

2.1 Habitats

Baseline Summary

The Site, with the exception of approximately 2ha of improved grassland that forms the

western field (see Warwickshire Biological Records Centre nature conservation designation

map in Appendix I), is part of the Newdigate Colliery Local Wildlife Site (LWS) (The nature

conservation designations figure is provided in the figures section of this report for erase of

reference). The LWS covers 34.9 ha in total and is designated for its large area of

semi-improved grassland, pioneer habitats, scrub and plantation woodland.



In addition the following UK and/or Warwickshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats

have been recorded on Site; Hedgerows, Ponds, Woodland, Neutral Grassland and Disused

Industrial and Railway Land.

Key Legislation and Planning Policy

Whilst LWS’s do not receive statutory protection, the policies in Table 1 below are included

in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emerging local plan.

Table 1: Key Planning Policy relevant to Local Wildlife Sites

Document Policy

NPPF Paragraph 109:

“The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment by …minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in

biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to

halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including establishing coherent ecological

networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”

Paragraph 1118:

“if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (thorough

locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated,

or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be

refused.”

Nuneaton and

Bedworth

Borough Plan:

Preferred

Options

Env1-Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy

Ecological Network

“… Within locally designated sites show that the benefits of the development

proposals outweigh the biodiversity or geodiversity value of the site, otherwise

the development proposal will not be permitted”.

“Ensure a net gain in biodiversity by firstly avoiding any adverse impacts, or,

where this is not possible, ensure adverse impacts are mitigated.”

Biodiversity Mitigation

“Require developers to use the Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics to replace any

loss of habitats due to their development. If the habitat loss cannot be replaced

on site, the replacement habitat should, firstly, be provided on a biodiversity

offsetting strategic location, secondly, where offset location buffers, links,

restores or expands a habitat out a strategic location; and lastly, where the

offset location does not contribute to the offsetting strategy.”



Whilst the UK BAP partnership no longer operates following the publication of the UK

Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, the principles of the UK BAP still remain of use, for

example the background information on UK BAP priority habitats and species which still

form the basis of much biodiversity work at country level. The habitats and species listed as

having principle importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity within the Natural

Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 continue to be regarded as

conservation priorities in the new Framework and these are the species and habitats

requiring action under the UK BAP. As such, the species list on the UK BAP and LBAP list

have been taken into consideration.

Mitigation

The proposals (see Illustrative Masterplan and Proposed Habitats Plan) have sought to

avoid/minimise impacts on the LWS, and those considered to qualify as local/UK BAP

habitats, as far as practicable. In addition the Masterplan has sought to maximise habitat

enhancement and creation. As such the Masterplan proposals include the:

Retention of all/ the vast majority of woodland, hedgerows, hardstanding associated

with former colliery railway and ponds,

Creation and/or enhancement of 6ha of semi-improved grassland to mitigate for the

loss of 4ha of semi-improved grassland,

Creation of three new ponds, and

Enhancement of brook along the northern edge of the development

In accordance with local planning policy the Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics were used to

assess if the proposals would provide net gains in biodiversity. The assessment and results of

the Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics are detailed within Appendix II. In summary they

demonstrate that whilst there would be a loss of habitats from within the LWS, overall net

gains in habitat biodiversity would be achieved through the mitigation measures outlined

above. In addition the proposal would provide certainty that habitat would be managed in

the long term for the benefit of biodiversity (as it is noted that currently the land owner is

under no obligation to do so).

The approach to the mitigation, including the location and proposals for the off Site

mitigation, has been subject to consultation with the Local Planning Authority (Nuneaton



and Bedworth Borough Council, NBBC), Warwickshire County Council (WCC) and

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust (WWT).

The consultation focused on retention and/or enhancement of important habitats on Site

and then sought to identify further areas off-Site which could be improved to achieve net

biodiversity gains. The area chosen for off-site mitigation has been identified as it adjoins the

northern boundary of the Newdigate Colliery LWS, is within 500m of the land to be

affected, would provide buffer habitat to the adjacent woodland and would not fragment

connectivity to other nature conservation designations in the area.

It is considered that the mitigation measures outlined above, and detailed within the

biodiversity impact assessment, together with the certainty of future land management,

would increase the resilience of the LWS to current and future pressures.

2.2 Amphibians

Baseline Summary

In 2007 prior to the development of the housing estate that adjoins the eastern boundary of

the Site, Great Crested Newts Triturus cristatus (GCN) were recorded in ponds 6, 7 & 8 (see

ESL Figure 2), with peak counts of 8, 8 and 3 recorded respectively in each pond, with a

total peak count for the ponds of 11 GCN (i.e. just falling within the 11-100 category to be

considered a medium population size class).

A period of trapping and translocation under a Natural England EPS mitigation licence was

then undertaken between 2007 and 2010, with at least 21 GCN translocated to a receptor

site in the north eastern spur of the current application Site, with pond 5 created as part of

the mitigation works.

Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys of ponds 1-6 (see ESL Figure 2) in June 2014 recorded

GCN present in each of ponds with the exception of pond 3. Ponds 7 & 8 could not be

surveyed using the eDNA method due to their shallowness and high levels of organic

matter.




GCN receive protection under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat

Regulations). As the proposals, in the absence of mitigation, could lead to the killing, injury

and/or disturbance of GCN the local authority, and later Natural England licensing, will need

to be confident that the following three tests of the Habitat Regs can satisfied:

i. The development must meet a purpose of preserving public health or public safety, or

other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or

economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the

environment; and

ii. There is no satisfactory alternative, and

iii. The action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of

the species concerned as a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Natural England’s Standing Advice on GCN states that if habitat is to be affected

“compensation should ensure, once completed, there will be no net loss of breeding or resting sites.

In fact where significant impacts are predicted there will be an expectation that compensation will

provide an enhanced habitat (in terms of quality or area) compared with that to be lost.”

Mitigation

The need for residential development in the area and the lack of satisfactory alternative sites

are discussed within the Planning Statement that accompanies this application.

The proposals, as shown in the Illustrative Masterplan and Proposed Habitats Figure,

incorporate the following key mitigation measures to avoid detrimental affecting the GCN

conservation status.

Development within the eastern Public Open Space (POS)/Persimmon GCN receptor

area avoided/minimised as far as practicable,

o Proposals in this area would be limited to upgrading of the existing footpath to a

cycle way and creation of a short length of new sewer.

o Existing ponds in the area which appear to have been neglected would be

subject to enhancement measures that would be detailed within a Site

management plan (e.g. thinning/removal of over-shading vegetation, removal of

encroaching vegetation and removal of accumulated silt).



Provision of optimal GCN habitat corridor to the north of the proposed residential

area.

o This corridor would link existing GCN habitat in the east to that proposed in

the west, through the retention/enhancement of terrestrial habitat and creation

of a pond specifically designed for GCN.

Creation of optimal GCN habitat in the western field.

o Habitat to include an additional two ponds specifically designed for GCN, dense

and scattered scrub, log piles, hibernacula and long grassland.

o The proposed ponds would act as “stepping stones“ so the GCN population

would have connectivity to additional woodland habitat outside their recognised

range of 500m and potentially to GCN populations to the north-west (Ponds 1

& 2, ESL Figure 2) and south-west (Pond 4, ESL Figure 2). The brook to the

north of the western field is not considered a barrier to GCN movement given

its slow flow and relatively narrow (approx. 3m) width. Astley Lane is not

considered an absolute barrier to GCN movement given the absence of kerbs in

some locations and only low kerbs present elsewhere.

Whilst the proposals would damage/destroy approximately 4ha of semi-improved grassland

(considered to provide foraging habitat for GCN), and 1ha of broad-leaved plantation, scrub,

tall ruderal and gardens which (considered to provided foraging and resisting habitat for

GCN) the mitigation strategy would lead to:

No loss of existing core GCN habitat (i.e. habitat within 50m of existing GCN pond).

Creation of:

o an additional 1.9ha of core habitat, suitable for breeding, resting and foraging

(around three proposed ponds), leading to an increase of breeding and resting

sites.

o approximately 0.7ha of scrub, which would provide resting and foraging habitat,

and include hibernacula and log piles,

o approximately 1.2ha grassland to be managed as a hay meadow, which would

provide foraging habitat,

o 3 ponds, specifically designed for GCN, within 250m of each other and/or

existing GCN ponds, providing GCN with connectivity to two additional GCN

populations and significant additional terrestrial habitat.



To avoid the potentially killing or injury of GCN a trapping programme would be

undertaken prior to construction to trap GCN out of suitable habitat which would be

affected and/or isolated. Trapping would utilize exclusion fencing and pitfall traps (in

accordance with the designs given in Natural England’s GCN Mitigation Guidelines) and

habitat manipulation. Captured GCN and other herpetofauna would either be translocated

to the existing receptor area or adjacent to ponds in the western field.

Construction boundary exclusion fencing would remain in place throughout construction to

avoid the killing and/or injury of GCN. Regular visits would be undertaken throughout the

construction period by a suitably licensed GCN ecologist and post construction monitoring

would be undertaken in accordance with the guidance within Natural England’s GCN

Mitigation Guidelines.

It is considered that the existing survey information and the detail provided regarding the

proposals and mitigation is sufficient to determine that the proposals will not be detrimental

to the favorable conservation status of the GCN population and indeed would provide

significantly enhanced habitat. However it is recognised that to apply for a Natural England

EPS mitigation licence, Natural England will require update population size class assessments

survey data to inform the licence, in particular to ascertain the number of appropriate

trapping days required and the appropriate level of post construction monitoring.

2.3 Reptiles

Baseline Summary

The reptile surveys recorded a Grass Snake Natrix natrix, on two occasions, approximately

20m from pond 5. However the baseline survey report does note that some of the surveys

were carried out in sub-optimal months and may have resulted in an under recording of

reptiles at the Site.


Common reptile species (Grass Snake, Slow-Worm, Common Lizard and Adder) are

protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) against killing and injury.

Mitigation



The proposals (see Illustrative Masterplan and Proposed Habitats Plan) have sought to avoid

and minimise impacts on areas considered suitable for reptiles. The terrestrial habitat

requirements for common reptiles are very similar to those required by GCN (with the

notable exception that reptiles require areas for basking). As such it is considered that the

avoidance and mitigation measure described for GCN above will avoid the killing and/or

injury of reptiles and provide them with significant habitat enhancements, especially Grass

Snake for which waterbodies are an important habitat.

2.4 Bats

Baseline Summary

Bat surveys recorded at least six different species of bat (Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus

pipistrellus, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Noctule Nyctalus noctula, Brown

Long-eared Plecotus Auritus, Leisler’s Nyctalus leisleri and at least one species of Myotis bat

Myotis sp.) foraging across the Site, with the majority of activity being associated with the

vegetated Site boundaries. Building inspections undertaken on Police Cottage and Colliery

Cottages (see Appendix IV) have recorded the presence, confirmed by DNA analysis of

droppings, of Brown Long-eared and Whiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus roosts respectively at

these properties.


All bats receive protection under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This protection

includes making it an offence to disturb them (in particular any disturbance which is likely to

impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or hibernate), significantly affect their

local distribution or damage/destroy their roosts.

Mitigation

Given that a bat roost has been recorded at Police Cottage, this dwelling is proposed to be

retained along with Colliery Cottages. In addition the network of proposed vegetated

corridors in the Masterplan, which will allow for bat commuting across the Site and the

wider landscape, includes a strong vegetated corridor from Police Cottage and Colliery



Cottages to the woodland in the north and to the enhanced habitat in the western field and

beyond.

To ensure the continued suitability of these corridors for bats, no lighting is proposed in the

POS in west, east and along the northern corridor, and the design allows for darkened bat

corridors from the bat roosts identified in/near the south east of Site. Section B-B’ in the

Design and Access Statement shows how retention of the southern hedgerow and a

proposed hedge with trees would form a darkened bat corridor along this boundary.

It is considered that the measures above and the proposed creation of significant areas of

optimal bat habitat (including ponds, hedgerows, diverse grassland and scrub) on and off Site

would provide an enhanced habitat for bats.

2.5 Water Vole and Otter

Baseline Summary

As the lower banks of the brook are devoid of vegetation and are of a stony substrate the

brook is considered generally unsuitable for Water Vole.

As the brook does not have close connectivity to any rivers or major watercourses and

appears to lack food resources for Otter, it is considered to be of low biodiversity value for

this species.


Otter are a European Protected Species and receive the same legal protection as bats and

GCN.

Water Vole are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which includes

making it an offence to disturb, damage, destroy or block access to their places of shelter.

Mitigation

The proposals allow for a 20-30m buffer from the brook to the nearest proposed road or

housing parcel and as such the majority of potential direct impacts on the brook would



avoided. Best practice measures would be implemented to avoid pollution events during

construction and/or operation to the watercourse.

In addition it is proposed to enhance the biodiversity value of the brook through

thinning/removal of over shading scrub/trees to allow more light to reach the brook and it

banks, and through the addition of in-channel features (e.g. faggots, small boulders) to keep a

reasonable flow in the brook even in low flow conditions.

2.6 Badger

Baseline Summary

No evidence of Badgers was recorded on or adjacent to the Site during the Extended Phase

1 Habitat Survey.


Badgers are protected by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which protects their setts

from damage or destruction.

Mitigation

The proposals retain large areas of habitat suitable for sett building and foraging, and allow

for Badger movement across the Site. Although no badger setts were identified on Site,

given the presence of habitat on and adjacent to Site suitable for future sett creation, further

checks would be undertaken prior to construction.

2.7 Birds

Baseline Summary

No birds listed on Schedule 1 of the of Wildlife and Countryside Act or Section 41 of the

Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act were returned from the local

biological record centre. Incidental sightings of a range of common and widespread species

were made during various other surveys undertaken on Site, but no breeding bird surveys

have been undertaken to date.



Anecdotal records from people visiting the Site include S41 and Local BAP species Reed

Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, Song Thrush Turdus philomelos and Yellow Hammer Emberiza

citrinella.

It is considered that the various habitats across Site are likely to support a broad assemblage

of birds.


Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act it is an offence to damage or destroy an active

bird’s nest.

Species listed on Section 41 of the NERC Act and Local BAP are conservation priorities.

Mitigation

The proposals allow for the retention and creation of significant areas of suitable habitat.

Habitats to be created include ponds, semi-improved grassland, scrub, hedgerows and trees.

It is considered that the habitats created (most notably in the western field and off Site)

would be of benefit to the bird population present.

Disturbance to and displacement of breeding birds would be avoided by undertaking

vegetation clearance outside of the bird breeding season (March – September inclusive) or

with a prior check for active birds’ nests.

Whilst the above measures are considered sufficient to demonstrate the bird assemblage

present will not be detrimentally affected, it is recommended that breeding bird surveys are

undertaken to inform detailed mitigation measures (e.g. bird box specification, proposed

plant species).

2.8 Invertebrates

Baseline Summary

Local record centre returned on Site records for Dingy Skipper (UK and LBAP), Small Heath

(UK BAP) and Latticed Heath (UK BAP). The locations for the Dingy Skipper records are



from an old pit siding in the north east of the Site and a spoil bank between the two main

fields.


Species listed on the UK and Local BAP are conservation priorities.

Mitigation

The Masterplan retains areas where Dingy Skipper have been recorded and proposes the

enhancement and creation of grassland areas, which would contain the larval foodplants and

nectar sources of the Dingy Skipper.

It is considered that the retention, enhancement and creation of significant habitat areas

(including ponds, semi-improved grassland, scrub, hedgerows, trees and south facing scallops

in the woodland to the north of the brook) would also benefit a wide range of other

invertebrate species.

3.0 CONCLUSION

The proposals have sought to avoid and minimise impacts on the LWS as far as practicable

and maximise habitat enhancement and creation. As such the proposals include the key

mitigation measures below:

Retention of existing GCN core habitat and creation of additional ponds and terrestrial

habitat to maintain the favourable conservation status of the newts.

Retention of on Site roost for bats and provision of a network of darkened vegetated

corridors to maintain connectivity across the Site and to the wider landscape.

Creation/enhancement of 6ha of semi-improved grassland to mitigate for loss of 4ha of

existing semi-improved grassland, as well creating/enhancing a range of other habitats, to

provide a net biodiversity gain.

The above measures, and those detailed within the report, would ensure that net

biodiversity gains would be achieved, favourable conservation status of species would be

maintained and the proposal accord with all relevant legislation and planning policy.



APPENDIX I: ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS OF LAND OFF ASTLEY LANE



APPENDIX II: BIODIVERISTY IMPACT ASSESSMENT CALCUALTIONS

v. 18.3 08/08/2014Amendment from v18.2 only affects green roofs, for otPlease fill in both tables

KEYNo action requiredEnter valueDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookupResult

T. Note code Phase 1 habitat descriptionHabitat area (ha) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Area (ha) Existing value Area (ha) Existing value Area (ha) Existing value

Direct Impacts and retained habitats A B C A x B x C = D E A x B x E = F G A x B x G = HB22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 4.80 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.44 3.52 0.23 1.84 4.13 33.04B6 Grassland: Poor semi-improved grassland 0.08 Medium-Low 3 Moderate 2 0.04 0.24 0.04 0.24B4 Grassland: Improved grassland 1.92 Low 2 Poor 1 0.16 0.32 1.43 2.86 0.33 0.66A111 Woodland: Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland 0.66 High 6 Moderate 2 0.66 7.92A112 Woodland: Broad-leaved plantation 1.54 Medium 4 Moderate 2 1.24 9.92 0.06 0.48 0.24 1.92A21 Woodland: Dense continuous scrub 1.19 Medium-Low 3 Moderate 2 0.85 5.10 0.34 2.04A22 Woodland: Scattered scrub 0.29 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.29 2.32G2 Wetland: Running water 0.23 High 6 Poor 1 0.23 1.38G1 Wetland: Standing water 0.08 High 6 Poor 1 0.08 0.48C31 Other: Tall ruderal 0.23 Medium-Low 3 Moderate 2 0.08 0.48 0.15 0.90n/a Built Environment: Gardens (lawn and planting) 0.51 Low 2 Poor 1 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.20 0.35 0.70n/a Built Environment: Buildings/hardstanding 0.01 none 0 Moderate 2 0.01 0.00J4 Other: Bare ground 0.01 Low 2 Good 3 0.01 0.06B4 Grassland: Improved grassland 5.01 Low 2 Poor 1 5.01 10.02

Total 16.56 Total 3.84 30.00 7.14 17.26 5.58 39.50∑D + ∑F + ∑H

86.76Indirect Negative Impacts Value of loss from indirect impactsIncluding off site habitats

KK x A x B= Li, Lii Li - Lii

Before After

Before After

Before After

Before After

Before After

Total 0.00 M 0.00 HIS = J + M39.50

Nuneaton & BedworthLocal Planning Authority:

Habitats to be retained with no change within

development

Date:

Existing habitats on sitePlease enter all habitats within the site boundary Habitat distinctiveness Habitat condition

Before/after impact

Site name:To condense the form for display hide vacant Please do not edit the formulae or structure

Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull - Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator

Astley LanePlanning application reference number:

rows, do not delete themIf additional rows are required,or to provide feedback on the calculatorplease contact WCC Ecological Services

Habitat Biodiversity Value

Site habitat biodiversity value

Habitats to be lost within development

Assessor:

Habitat Impact Score (HIS)

Habitats to be retained and enhanced within

development

T. Note code Phase 1 habitat description Area (ha) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Time (years) Score Difficulty ScoreHabitat Creation

N O P Q R(N x O x P) /

Q / RB22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 0.40 Medium 4 Moderate 2 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 1.52J12 Grassland: Amenity grassland 0.50 Low 2 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.83n/a Built Environment: Gardens (lawn and planting) 1.21 Low 2 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 2.02n/a Built Environment: Buildings/hardstanding 3.24 none 0 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.00G1 Wetland: Standing water 0.11 High 6 Good 3 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 0.94J4 Other: Bare ground 0.12 Low 2 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.20

Total 5.58Habitat Enhancement Existing value

S ( = F )(( N x O x P) - S) /

Q / RB22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 0.23 Medium 4 Good 3 1.84 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.77B22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 0.76 Medium 4 Good 3 1.52 20 years 2 Low 1 3.80A22 Woodland: Scattered scrub 0.67 Medium 4 Moderate 2 1.34 10 years 1.4 Low 1 2.87G2 Wetland: Running water 0.23 High 6 Good 3 1.38 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 1.31G1 Wetland: Standing water 0.08 High 6 Good 3 0.48 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 0.46A112 Woodland: Broad-leaved plantation 0.10 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.20 10 years 1.4 Low 1 0.43A112 Woodland: Broad-leaved plantation 0.06 Medium 4 Good 3 0.48 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.20B22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 5.01 Medium 4 Good 3 10.02 15 years 1.7 Low 1 29.47

Total 7.14 Trading down correction value -1.69Habitat Mitigation Score (HMS) 43.14

HBIS = HMS - HISHabitat Biodiversity Impact Score 3.64

Percentage of biodiversity impact loss

KEYNo action requiredAction requiredDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookup

Loss to biodiversityGain to biodiversity

Proposed habitats on site(Onsite mitigation)

Overall Result

Time till target conditionHabitat

biodiversity value

Difficulty of creation / restoration

Target habitats distinctiveness Target habitat condition

ther habitats v18.2 still usable.

Comment

The 0.44ha retained is the GCN receptor area.

0.16ha to be retained around NEAP and LEAP

Ponds 1,2, 5 & 6

Bare ground considered in Good condition for it's importnace to Dingy SkipperOff site mitigation fieldsJ

Comment

Around boundary of main development and in SUDs feature

45% of housing blocks (2.68ha * 0.45) likely to be lawn/planting. Adjacent development measured at ~47% planting/lawn1.62ha of roads plus remaining 55% housing block (0.55 * 2.68)

Area enhanced to north and west of main dev through annual hay cut & collectionIn western improved field. Through cessation of fertiliser input, hay cut and collectionIn western improved field.Through allowing more light to stream and improving flowOpen water areas created in Ponds 1,2, 5 & 6 and more light allowed to reach pondsTree and shrub planting in south east corner of SiteWoodland scallops created north of the brookOff site mitigation fields. Aim to achieve target in 10 years, but allow 15 as a safety factor.

Gain

Please fill in both tables

KEYNo action required Linear FeaturesEnter valueDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookupResult

T. Note code Phase 1 habitat descriptionFeature length (km) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Length (km) Existing value Length (km) Existing value Length (km) Existing value Comment

Direct Impacts and retained features A B C A x B x C = D E A x B x E = F G A x B x G = HJ21 Hedges: Intact hedge 0.45 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.43 3.47 0.02 0.12J26 Ditches: Dry ditch 0.20 Low 2 Poor 1 0.09 0.18 0.11 0.22

Total 0.65 Total 0.52 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.34 J∑D + ∑F + ∑H

3.99Indirect Negative Impacts Value of loss from indirect impacts

KK x A x B= Li, Lii Li - Lii

Before After

Before After

Before After

Before After

Before After

Total 0.00 M 0.00 HIS = J + M0.34

CAUTION - Destruction of features of medium or high distinctiveness, e.g. hedgerows and streams, may be against local policy. Has the mitigation hierarchy been followed, can impact to these habitats be avoided?Any unavoidable loss of valuable habitats must be replaced like-for-like. E.G. Loss of hedgerows must be replaced with similar or better hedgerows. All newly planted hedges should be native species-rich hedgerows.

T. Note code Phase 1 habitat description Length (km) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Time (years) Score Difficulty Score CommentLinear Creation

N O P Q R(N x O x P) /

Q / RJ23 Hedges: Hedge with trees 0.10 Medium-High 5 Moderate 2 10 years 1.4 Low 1 0.71 On eastern boundary, adjacent to Persimmon development

Total 0.10Linear Enhancement Existing value

S ( = F )(( N x O x P) - S) /

Q / R

Total 0.00 Trading down correction value 0.00Linear Mitigation Score (LMS) 0.71

LBIS = LMS - LISLinear Biodiversity Impact Score 0.37 Gain

Percentage of linear impact loss

KEYNo action requiredAction requiredDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookup

Loss to biodiversityGain to biodiversity

Linear biodiversity value

Overall Result

Hedges and other linear features can offer a higher biodiversity value per length than a standard area of habitat due to factors such as connectivity and must therefore be compensated for in parallel to the standard metric.

Linear Impact Score (LIS)

Proposed linear features on site(Onsite mitigation)

Target linear distinctiveness Target linear condition

Before/after impact

Linear Biodiversity Value

Existing linear features on site Linear distinctivenessLinear features to be lost within

development

Time till target condition

Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull - Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator - Linear Features

Site Linear Biodiversity Value

Difficulty of creation / restoration

Linear conditionLinear features to be retained

with no change within development

Linear features to be retained and enhanced within

development

Please do not edit the formulae or structureTo condense the form for display hide vacant

or to provide feedback on the calculatorplease contact WCC Ecological Services

rows, do not delete themIf additional rows are required,

Site name:Planning reference number:

Habitats Area (ha)Habitat

Biodiversity Value

16.56 86.76

5.58 39.50

12.72 43.14

3.64

Linear features Length (km)Linear

Biodiversity Value

0.65 3.99

0.13 0.34

0.10 0.71

0.37

email: [email protected]: 01926 418060

email: [email protected]: 01926 412772

Habitats negatively impacted by development Habitat Impact Score

Total existing area onsite

Total existing length onsite

Percentage of biodiversity impact

Habitat Biodiversity Impact Score If -ve further compensation required

On site habitat mitigation Habitat Mitigation Score

For any questions with regard to biodiversity impact and this development please contact Warwickshire County Council Ecological Services:

If there is an anticipated loss to biodiversity and no further ecological enhancements can be incorporated within the development it may be possible to compensate for this loss through a biodiversity offsetting scheme.

Please contact The Environment Bank for discussions on potential receptor sites in your area:

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Summary

Percentage of linear biodiversity impact

Linear Biodiversity Impact ScoreIf -ve further compensation required

On site linear mitigation Linear Mitigation Score

Linear features negatively impacted by development Linear Impact Score

Astley Lane


AE/NPA/10747 App 111/1 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

APPENDIX III: OFF SITE HABITAT SURVEY

A walkover survey of the fields identified as potentially available to provide biodiversity offsetting

mitigation was undertaken in November and December 2014. Habitats were classified according to

the Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC, 2010) and

a condition assessment following the guidance in Natural England’s Higher Level Stewardship Farm

Environment Plan (FEP) Manual (2010). This involved determining whether any of the habitats within

the survey area corresponded to the handbook’s ‘features’ (generally a Biodiversity Action Plan

(BAP) priority habitat or other habitat of high ecological value). Such features were then assessed

against a number of criteria to determine its condition.

Survey results for the two fields which have been identified to provide off-site mitigation are

provided below. Locations of Fields A & are shown in the Existing Habitats figure.

Field A Field B

Approximate size (ha)

Species list Notes

Field A

2.6 Perennial Rye-grass, White Clover, Cock's-foot, Creeping Buttercup, Yorkshire-fog, Meadow Grass sp., Red Clover Trifolium pratense.

Mixture of grasses with up to 30% herb cover, dominated by White Clover. Sward 5-10cm, evidence of cutting (hay) and cattle grazing.

Field B

2.4 Perennial Rye-grass, Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus, White Clover Trifolium repens, Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens.

Sward dominated by Perennial Rye-grass with limited (<5%) herb species. Field currently grazed by cattle


AE/NPA/10747 App 111/2 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

Using the FEP grassland key 2a, both fields can be categorised as species-poor improved

grassland, having two or more of the following attributes:

Cover of Rye-grasses and White Clover >30%;

Species-poor sward (up to 8 species/m2); and/or

Low wildflower cover (<10% excluding White Clover, Creeping Buttercup and injurious

weeds).

No condition assessment is available for this grassland type in the FEP, however considering

the grassland fails to meet criteria for any higher quality grasslands, both fields are

considered to be in ‘Poor’ condition.


AE/NPA/10747 App 1V/1 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

APPENDIX IV: BAT INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT An external and internal assessment of Colliery Cottage and Police Cottage to assess their

potential to support roosting bats was undertaken in December 2014. The location of the

properties is shown on the Red Line Plan.

During the external building survey, the perimeter of the buildings were walked and the exterior

assessed for features that could provide roosting features for bats and/or features that could allow

bats access to the building.

The internal building survey searched through the roof spaces for evidence of bats (e.g. droppings,

feeding remains, scratch marks, staining and sightings), features suitable for roosting bats and

potential access points for roosting bats.

Colliery Cottages (no.’s 1, 2 & 3)

External

Redbrick, two storey building with pitched roof. Brick work in good condition. UPVC windows with concrete and brick lintels. Clay tiles. Two chimney breasts with lead flashing. Wooden fascia boards and open eaves. Roof in average condition with numerous slipped tiles (in particular on the southern aspect). Two single storey out buildings to the north with pitched tiled roofs.


AE/NPA/10747 App 1V/2 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

Internal Open to the tile and batten. Ridge height approx. 4m. Roof void width approx. 9m. Patchy insulation (fibre glass). Large wooden ridge and purlins. Uncluttered with no trusses. Droppings recorded within roof void of number 1 below ridge (confirmed as Whiskered Bat

via DNA analysis). Draughty due to numerous slipped tiles. Large jackdaw nest within roof spaces of number 1 & 3. Access to roof void under tiles and eaves. Access for bats between all three roof voids.

Confirmed Whiskered Bat Roost

Police Cottage

External One property but similar age and construction to Colliery Cottages Police Cottage has three chimneys, each with lead flashing (raised in areas) and hanging tiles. Numerous slipped tiles present.

Internal Construction and condition as Colliery Cottages. Clustered bat dropping at each gable end and scattered under ridge. Droppings confirmed as

Brown Long-eared via DNA analysis. Confirmed Brown Long-eared Bat Roost

astley lane, bedworthapps.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/bt_nbbc_planning... · astley lane, bedworth...

Documents