ecological assessment of land at cowm park way whitworth … · land at cowm park way whitworth...

Land at Cowm Park Way Whitworth 2014

1

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF LAND AT COWM PARK WAY WHITWORTH LANCASHIRE

June 2014


2

Report prepared by: Greater Manchester Ecology Unit Council Offices Wellington Road Ashton-under-Lyne Manchester OL6 6DL June 2014 Disclaimer This report is prepared by The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit for the sole and exclusive use of PPS Planning Manchester in response to their particular instructions. No liability is accepted for any costs claims or losses arising from the use of this report or any part thereof for any purpose other than that for which it was specifically prepared or by any party other than PPS Planning . This report has been prepared by an environmental specialist and does not purport to provide legal advice. You may wish to take separate legal advice.


3

1 Introduction 1.1 Terms of Reference

The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) was instructed by PPS Planning to undertake an Ecological Survey and an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in support of a proposed residential development on land at Cowm Park Way, Whitworth, Lancashire.

1.2 The Site

The site NGR (centre of site) – SD 388348 417927 Area of site – 0.11 ha

A site location plan is provided in Fig. 1.

The site is in a predominantly urban location and is bounded by residential development and a road.

1.3. The Proposed Development

It is proposed that the site be developed as a small residential site (Appendix A). Given the topography of the site regrading of the site will likely be needed in order to accommodate the planned development.

1.4. Scope of Work

This EcIA presents ecological information obtained during a desk-study and extended Phase 1 habitat survey undertaken on 24th June 2014. The EcIA evaluates the nature conservation value of ecological features present at the proposed development site, assesses the significance of the effects of the proposed development on these features, and sets out possible mitigation and enhancement measures. Legislation relevant to the ecological features associated with the application site is summarised in Appendix B.

The scope of the EcIA includes:

data gathering of existing ecological information within the vicinity of the application site from appropriate sources;

an ‘extended Phase 1 habitat survey’ of land within the site and up to 50 m from the site, where access allowed or where the habitats could be viewed;

evaluation of the area of land within and up to 50 m from the application site, where access allowed or the habitats could be viewed, with regard to its nature conservation value;

the assessment of the significance of potential ecological impacts arising from the development proposals, including habitat loss, disturbance of species and off-site impacts from the proposed development;

identification of potential impacts on ecological features;

proposals for any required mitigation measures to minimise negative impacts;

proposals for possible enhancement measures to increase the biodiversity value of the land within the application site;


4

2 Methodology 2.1 General

This EcIA has been undertaken with reference to current best practice and in particular the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, June 2006).

2.2 Zone of Influence or Spatial Scope

The Zone of Influence (ZoI) is the area encompassing all predicted negative ecological effects from the proposed scheme, both those which may occur as a result of land-take and habitat loss and those which may occur through disturbance such as noise. Due to the limited scale and nature of the proposals, it is considered that a maximum zone of 1 km is appropriate for the gathering of information during the desk study. For the field survey, the application site itself plus the adjacent land (up to 50m outside the application site boundary where access allowed) is an appropriate area to survey.

2.3 Timing

Potential impacts on ecological features have been assessed in the context of how the predicted baseline conditions within the zone of influence might change between the surveys and the start of construction. It is not currently known when major construction may begin at the site; however, the assessment has assumed that the development may be undertaken within 5 years of the date of this survey.

2.4 Data Gathering

LERN is the recognised Biological Records Centre for Lancashire and holds the best available habitat and species databases for the area. These databases were interrogated to obtain existing information about the site and surrounds. The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) database was interrogated for records of important species.

Ordnance Survey (OS) maps and up-to-date aerial photographs were used to identify the presence of water bodies within and up to 250 m from the application site in order to establish if the application site could be used as possible terrestrial habitat for great crested newts, a European protected species. Great crested newts use water bodies as breeding habitat and can use terrestrial habitat up to approximately 500 m from their breeding ponds.

OS maps were also used to identify any watercourses within or adjacent to the application site to identify the potential for impacts to the watercourses or to protected species including otter, water vole and white-clawed crayfish which may use the watercourses.

Aerial photos were also reviewed to help identify any other notable habitats within the adjacent area.


5

2.5 Site Survey 2.5.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

An ecological walkover survey of areas within and adjacent to the application site (including land up to 50 m from the application site boundary where access allowed) was undertaken on the 24th June 2014 following the Joint Nature Conservation Committee guidance (JNCC, 2010), which was extended to include a search for evidence of the presence, and an assessment of each habitat's potential to support, notable and protected species as recommended by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM, 2012). Plant names recorded in this survey follow New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition, Stace 2010). English names are used throughout. The survey was undertaken by Principal Ecologist Derek Richardson. Mid-June is an optimum time of year for undertaking such surveys.

During the site visit and walkover survey the following investigations were also undertaken in respect of the presence of legally protected species:

an assessment of terrestrial habitat suitability for amphibians, including great crested newts;

an assessment of features that may be suitable for use by bats, such as trees, structures and buildings, and a search for evidence of use by bats (where possible) and an assessment of habitat that may be used by bats for foraging and commuting;

an assessment of suitable habitats for nesting birds;

a search for evidence of badger activity including setts, guard hair, tracks, snuffle holes and latrines within the application site and up to 50 m outside the application site (where access permitted);

a search for evidence of the presence of invasive plants as listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and subject to strict legal control.

2.5.2 Survey Limitations

Ecological surveys are limited by factors which affect the presence of plants and animals such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. The ecological survey has not therefore produced a comprehensive list of plants and animals and the absence of evidence of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is not present or that it will not be present in the future. However, it is considered that given the nature of the site assessed and the relatively limited scope of planned development the results of this survey have been sufficient to undertake the EcIA and have allowed an evaluation of ecological features within the zone of influence, together with an assessment of the significance of any effects of the proposed development and the likely requirements for mitigation.


6

2.6 Nature Conservation Evaluation

A number of criteria are widely accepted as a means of assessing the nature conservation value of a defined area of land. These criteria were first set out in A Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, 1977) and include diversity, rarity and naturalness.

The nature conservation value or potential value of an ecological feature is also determined with reference to the following hierarchy:

The presence of designated sites of international nature conservation importance (such as Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Ramsar sites),

The presence of designated sites of National importance (such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest);

The presence of designated sites of regional/county importance (such as Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Biological Importance, Ancient woodlands);

The presence of populations of statutorily protected species.

The presence of sites of local (district or parish) importance (such as undesignated ecological features such as old hedges, woodlands, ponds);

The presence of locally important habitats (such as woodland)

A list of nature conservation legislation likely to be relevant to this assessment is provided at Appendix B.

2.7 Impact Assessment

The assessment of the potential effects of a proposed development takes into account both on-site effects and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological features. Impacts can be permanent or temporary and can include:

Direct loss of wildlife habitats;

Fragmentation and isolation of habitats;

Disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli;

Changes to key habitat features; and

Changes to local hydrology, water quality and/or air quality that may affect habitats.

The significance of a negative impact (or a beneficial effect) is determined as the product of the magnitude of the impact (the source) and the value or sensitivity of the nature conservation features affected (the receptor). In order to characterise the impacts on each feature, the following parameters are taken account of:

The magnitude of the impact;

The extent of the area over which the impact would occur,

The duration of the impact;

Whether the impact is reversible and over what timeframe;


7

The timing and frequency of the impact.

Effects are unlikely to be significant where features of low value or sensitivity are subject to small or short-term impacts. However, where there are a number of small scale effects that are not significant alone, the assessor may determine that, cumulatively, these may result in an overall significant effect. Impacts can be assessed as being either negative or beneficial and significant or not significant. Following current guidance, this assessment identifies whether the impacts described are significant based on the conservation status of the ecological feature affected and the integrity of the site. The integrity of designated sites is described as follows and has been used in this assessment to determine whether the effects of the proposals on a designated site are likely to be significant:

“The integrity of a site is the coherence of the ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats andlor the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified.

The conservation status of undesignated habitats and species within a defined geographical area is described as follows and has been used in this assessment to determine whether the effects of the proposals are likely to be significant:

“For habitats, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the habitat and its typical species, that may affect its long term distribution, structure and functions as well as the long term survival of its typical species within a given geographical area; For species, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long term distribution and abundance of its population within a given geographical area”.

In addition to measures required to ameliorate negative effects on ecological features, further biodiversity enhancement measures have been identified and recommended.

3 Results 3.1 Desk study 3.1.1 Designated Sites

The development site is not within a site designated for its nature conservation value, nor is it adjacent to such a site. There are two Biological heritage Sites (Local Wildlife Sites) within 1km of the site (Fern Isle and Doctors Wood BHS and Healey Dell BHS / LNR) but there is no direct connectivity between these wildlife sites and the site being considered in this report.

3.1.2 Protected Species Bats

There are a number of bat records within 1km of the site but none from the site itself. The nearest known bat roost to the proposed development site is approximately 600m to the south.


8

Amphibians Interrogation of the NBN web-site revealed records of Great crested newt within the 10 km square SD81, with records dating from 2004 – 2007. Reptiles Interrogation of the NBN web-site revealed the records of Slow-worm approximately 5 km to the south of the Site, however the year range is between 1833 and 1959 so these are historic records.

Mammals Interrogation of the NBN web-site revealed records of Water vole within the 10 km square SD81 with records dating from 1970 – 2006. Water vole was recorded in Healey Dell LNR, some 1.5 km to the south of the Site, in 1974. Badgers have been recorded within the 10 km square SD81 in Whitworth and Healey Dell LNR. The records date back to 1974 and 1975.

Brown hare have been recorded in to the south of the Site in Bamford (1969) and Healey Dell (1974). Hedgehog has been recorded in Bamford (1960) and Healey Dell (1974). A survey of the River Spodden and an adjacent site in 2012 did not record any signs of water voles, brown hare or hedgehog locally.

3.1.3. Priority Habitats and Important Habitats

The small area of broadleaved woodland present on the site may be categorised as a local priority habitat for conservation (as lowland broadleaved woodland) but it is not a representative or particularly good example of the priority habitat type (because it is small, species-poor, has poor connectivity and has poor structure). There is a small watercourse (River Spodden) which runs close to the site to the north and west and there may be indirect connectivity between the site and the watercourse resulting from surface water drainage, although the site is separated from the watercourse by a road. The nearest pond is 350m from the site and is separated from it by built development and roads with high kerbs.

3.1.4 Priority Species

House Sparrow, a priority species for conservation, was recorded on the site during the survey. In spite of being a priority species for conservation house sparrow remains a relatively common bird species in the UK.

3.2 Site Survey

The site is bounded and separated from other areas of semi-natural habitat by residential development and by roads (note that there is a new residential development to the west of the site that is not shown in the location map (fig. 1)).


9

The site slopes steeply up from west to east. The main habitats present in and around the application site include broadleaved woodland, wet/marshy grassland, tall ruderal vegetation, neutral grassland and a defunct unmanaged hedge. These habitats are described below.

3.2.1 Broadleaved Woodland

Comprising generally young or semi-mature trees on sloping land. Tree species present include Grey Willow, Crack Willow, Rowan, Alder, Elder, Hazel, Sycamore, Hawthorn, Hybrid Whitebeam and Horse Chestnut. A closed canopy has formed but the understorey and field layers are species poor. Species that are present include Bramble, Common Nettle, Herb Robert, Hedge Bindweed, Lesser Stitchwort, Dog Rose and Lady Fern. There are informal desire-line paths through the wood and some tipping is present.

Photo 1 Typical view of woodland


10

Photo 2 Typical view in woodland 3.2.2 Wet/Marshy Grassland

There is a small area of wet grassland at the northern end of the site on more level ground. Species present include Soft Rush, Compact Rush, Jointed Rush, Field Horsetail, Creeping Buttercup and Common Sedge.

Photo 3 Wet Grassland

At the northern edge of the site and adjacent to/associated with the area of wet grassland is a stand of the invasive plant species Himalayan (Indian) Balsam.


11

Photo 4 Stand of Himalayan Balsam at the northern boundary of the site 3.2.2 Boundary Hedge

There is an unmanaged privet hedgeline along the eastern boundary of the site (rear of Milner Street). It is not an ‘important’ hedge under the terms of legislation.

Photo 5 Unmanaged Privet Hedgeline, back of Milner Street 3.2.3 Neutral grassland / Tall Ruderal

On more level land adjacent to Cowm Park Way the neutral grassland supports Yorkshire Fog, Common Bent, Creeping Bent, Sweet Vernal Grass, White Clover, Red Clover, Broadleaved Dock, Annual Meadow Grass, Cock’s Foot, Perennial rye-grass, Dandelion, Creeping Buttercup, Sow Thistle, Daisy, Great Hairy Willowherb, ragwort, Ribwort plantain and Cat’s ear.


12

Photo 5 Neutral grassland

3.3 Assessment for Legally Protected and Notable Species

The potential for great crested newt, badgers, bats and breeding birds to be present within the application site is discussed below. There was no evidence or potential for any other legally protected or notable species to be present within the application site.

3.3.1 Great Crested Newt

The site has very low potential for supporting this species. The nearest potential breeding pool is 350 away from the site and is separated from it by built developments and roads.

3.3.2 Badgers

There were no signs of badgers on the site but the site does support suitable habitat for badgers.

3.3.3 Bats

None of the trees on site had apparent features considered to have high potential to support roosting bats but the habitats present may well support foraging bats. The nearby river course has high potential for supporting feeding bats. Given the extent of alternative available foraging habitat locally for any bat populations I would not consider that the loss of semi-natural habitats on this site would have a significant effect on bat populations.


13

3.3.4 Birds

Birds recorded during the field survey included blackbird, wren, house sparrow, and robin. The site has potential to support nesting birds. All of the species recorded are common and widespread in England.

3.3.5 Plants

No ‘significant’ protected or priority plant species were recorded on the site during the field survey. A small stand of Himalayan balsam was present. The spread of Himalayan balsam is an offence under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the development has the potential to cause this plant to spread.

3.3.6 Other species

Other incidental species records arising from the site survey included speckled wood butterfly, small skipper butterfly, buff-tailed bumblebee and soldier beetle.

4 Nature Conservation Evaluation

o The site is not designated at any level for its nature conservation value, nor is it adjacent to any such sites.

o The site is considered unlikely to support any significant populations of

protected or priority species.

o The site does not support good examples of any local or UK priority habitats

The site therefore cannot be said to be of substantive nature conservation importance. The site does however support locally important semi-mature broadleaved trees and woodland and an area of wet/marshy grassland. Overall the site is of local nature conservation value.

5 Assessment of Potential Impacts & Mitigation Measures 5.1. Designated Sites

The proposed development will not affect any statutory or non-statutorily designated sites of nature conservation importance.

5.2 Protected and Priority Species

The proposed development is considered very unlikely to affect any populations of protected or priority species. There is a small possibility that single or small numbers of foraging bats may be disturbed by the works.


14

5.3 Main Habitats

Under current proposals the development will result in the loss of an area of broadleaved woodland. This feature is of local nature conservation importance only but there will likely be a presumption against the loss of trees and woodland. If losses are agreed then compensation may be sought for these losses. The development will have a limited Zone of Ecological Influence (ZoI); the ZoI will be confined to the nearby river course.

5.4 Nesting Birds

The works have the potential to disturb nesting birds, primarily in the woodland and boundary hedgerow.

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The proposed development will not cause substantive harm to important habitats or species but will cause losses to a locally important habitat (broadleaved woodland). There is little available space within the development to provide compensatory woodland planting for that lost to the scheme, although some tree and shrub planting will be possible. Overall, therefore, the impact of the development proposal is assessed as minor negative. No further ecological surveys are considered necessary prior to determining a planning application for the site. Some precautions are recommended to protect nature conservation interests.

6.1 Recommended Mitigation and Compensation Measures

Retain trees and woodland wherever possible and protect retained vegetation.

Where trees are lost provide replacement planting.

Do not remove trees or other vegetation in the optimum period for bird nesting (March to July inclusive).

Prepare a method statement for the control of Himalayan Balsam.

Brief tree contractors about the possible, albeit unlikely, presence of bats. If bats are found at any time during works then works must cease and advice sought from a suitably qualified person.

Ensure that best available construction practice is used throughout any build period to mitigate any possibility of polluted surface water drainage reaching the River Spodden.


15

Figure 1: Site location, extent of survey and existing records


16

APPENDICES

Appendix A Plans of proposed development work (indicative draft layout)


17

Appendix B Relevant nature conservation legislation

B1 BATS

Legal protection offered to bats

All species of bats found in the UK receive a high level of legal protection under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In summary, it is an offence –

To kill, injure or take any wild bat

To damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place that a wild bat uses for shelter or protection (known as a roost). Since bats are mobile in their habits and can use different places for shelter depending on the time of year this is taken to mean all identified bat roosts, whether bats are present in the roost or not.

To disturb any wild bat while it is occupying a structure or place used for protection

It is possible to obtain licences for activities affecting bats that would otherwise be in breach of the law. In the case of development works (including building demolition) a licence can be issued under Section 39 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Strict tests must be satisfied before Natural England will agree to issue such a licence. These tests are –

That the development is to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding 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

That the issue of a licence will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range

Surveying for bats in buildings

Bats often use buildings as roosting sites because they provide a choice of safe, dry places. Buildings can provide a range of potential roost sites, e.g.

Behind tiles or weatherboarding In cavity wall spaces In crevices between wall spaces and roofs Under soffit boards In roof spaces

Bats are mobile in their habits and can occupy a range of different roosting sites depending on the time of year and the stage of their life cycle. The most obvious use of buildings by bats is between May and August when the pregnant females gather in maternity roosts to give birth and raise their young. Although females and young often remain at one roost site all summer, they are sometimes known to move and can change roosting sites if conditions become unsuitable. Although some bats (e.g. brown long-eared bats) occupy the same roosting sites throughout the year, most summer colonies will have dispersed by the autumn. Temporary roost sites can then be occupied in the autumn before bats then move again into


18

hibernation roosts for the winter. Hibernation roosts are often used by single or small numbers of bats and can be very difficult to detect.

Many buildings in areas supporting good feeding habitat can be used as temporary night roosts or feeding perches.

Since bats move roosting sites and can be difficult to detect directly the key identification feature to identify the presence of bats is droppings. Sometimes droppings are found on the outside of buildings. Otherwise droppings found in loft spaces or around chimneys or gable ends can be typical of bats. Other features used to identify the presence of bats include:

Characteristic odour ‘Chittering’ by bats, usually in warm summer weather or when bats are active

at dusk and are about to leave the roost Staining around possible access points

Any survey should include a desk-top survey for any existing records of bats close to the building being inspected and an assessment of the quality of the habitat surrounding the building. Since very many types of building can support bats, one of the best indicators of the possible presence of bats in a building is the presence of good feeding habitat for bats nearby.

It should be noted that the species of bat most commonly associated with buildings in urban areas is the pipistrelle and that pipistrelles, in spite of their protected status, remain relatively common the UK (estimated population is 2.5 million).

B2 NESTING BIRDS

Under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence to harm nesting birds, their eggs and young.

B3 INVASIVE PLANTS

Under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is an offence to cause certain plant species to spread in the wild.

ecological assessment of land at cowm park way whitworth … · land at cowm park way whitworth...

Documents