gatwick airport ltd - · pdf filegatwick airport ltd nw zone hangar project ... operational...

Gatwick Airport Ltd

NW Zone Hangar Project

Landscape & Ecological

Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy

May 2017

May 2017 1 Gatwick Airport NWZ Hangar

Landscape & Ecology Mitigation & Enhancement Strategy

11125001_LEMES_05-17 Chris Blandford Associates

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 Background 2

1.2 Legislative Context 3

1.3 Previous and baseline surveys 6

2.0 MITIGATION & ENHANCEMENT CONSTRAINTS 7

3.0 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE LEMES 8

3.1 Strategic Objectives 8

4.0 METHOD STATEMENTS FOR THE MITIGATION OF FEATURES OF

ECOLOGICAL INTEREST 9

4.1 Hedgerows & Woodland 9

4.2 Waterbodies & Mans Brook 13

4.3 Bats 15

4.4 Breeding birds 22

4.5 Fish 27

4.6 Grass snakes 29

4.7 Harvest Mouse 35

4.8 Invertebrates 36

4.9 Landscape 37

TABLES

1: Summary of safeguarding legislation (in text)

2: Summary of hazardous bird species (in text)

3: Criteria for the selection of receptor sites (in text)

FIGURES

Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation Plan

Planting Plans – Areas 1 and 2

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Design specification for temporary reptile fencing (taken from DMRB Volume 10 s.4 Pt. 7)




1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Chris Blandford Associates (CBA) was commissioned by Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) to

undertake landscape and ecology appraisals to support a planning application for the

construction of a proposed maintenance hangar, located in Gatwick Airport’s North West Zone

(NWZ). The Planning Statement describes the proposed development as:

“the construction of a new hangar and other associated works including aircraft apron,

connection to taxiway ‘Uniform’, vehicle parking and external parts storage area, fire

suppression plant, diversion of Larkins Road and realigned security fencing, drainage and

lighting, together with associated landscaping and ecological mitigation and enhancement

works”

1.1.2 This Landscape and Ecological Mitigation & Enhancement Strategy (LEMES) supports statements

set out in the documentation prepared in support of the planning application submitted for the

Gatwick NWZ Hangar Project. It provides a strategy to address the potential adverse landscape

and ecological effects associated with the proposed development, by setting out a plan for the

delivery of landscape and ecological mitigation and enhancement measures designed to

ameliorate the identified adverse effects.

1.1.3 The preparation of the LEMES draws on the findings of the landscape and ecology appraisals

undertaken during 2016 and 2017, as well as desk study data drawn from previous studies

undertaken in 2008 and 2014. These reports are submitted separately in support of the

planning application1,2,3.

1.1.4 The LEMES sets out the legislative context for the protection of each species (or group of

species), and the habitats that support them; the previous surveys that have informed the

development of the LEMES; the strategic objectives of the LEMES, and the specific method

statements for mitigating impacts associated with habitats and species likely to be affected by

the proposed development.

1 CBA (2016). NW Zone Hangar Project: Ecological Appraisal. For and on behalf of Gatwick Airport Ltd. 2 CBA (2017). NW Zone Hangar Project: Reptile Survey Report. For and on behalf of Gatwick Airport Ltd. 3 CBA (2017). NW Zone Hangar Project. Bat Survey Report. For and on behalf of Gatwick Airport Ltd.




1.2 Legislative Context

Aerodrome Safeguarding

1.2.1 The mitigation set out in this LEMES has been prepared in the context of Civil Aviation

Authority guidelines set out in “CAP 772: Wildlife Hazard Management at Aerodromes”, Civil

Aviation Authority (2014) to ensure that GAL GAL fulfils its regulatory obligations relating to

wildlife management including compliance with ICAO Annex 14, EASA regulations and

CAP772. It is therefore critical that all the mitigation and enhancement proposals set out in the

LEMES fully comply with the requirements of CAP772 to ensure aerodrome safety. Any

reference to ‘enhancing’ excludes any enhancement that may attract hazardous bird species or

non-compliance with the above requirements. A summary of the relevant legislation and

protocols is described below:

Table 1: Summary of Safeguarding Legislation

Requirements ICAO Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Aerodromes, Volume 1, Aerodrome Design and Operations: Sixth Edition July 2003, Section 9.4 Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction The UK, as a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Chicago 1944, has adopted many of the provisions specified in Annex 14 to the Convention. Annex 14 published by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), includes standards and recommended practices (SARPs) that address the risk of a birdstrike and a potential increase of the birdstrike risk due to the presence or development of bird-attractant features on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome. Under the heading "birdstrike hazard reduction", Annex 14 Volume 1 (6th Edition section 9.4.1) states that: the birdstrike hazard on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome shall be assessed through: a) the establishment of a national procedure for recording and reporting bird strikes to aircraft; b) the collection of information from aircraft operators, airport personnel, etc. on the presence of birds on or around the aerodrome constituting a potential hazard to aircraft operations; and c) an ongoing evaluation of the wildlife hazard by competent personnel Annex 14 section 9.4.3 also states that: Action shall be taken to decrease the risk to aircraft operations by adopting measures to minimise the likelihood of collisions between wildlife and aircraft. Annex 14 section 9.4.4 goes further by stating that: The appropriate authority shall take action to eliminate or to prevent the establishment of garbage disposal dumps or any such other source attracting bird activity on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome unless an appropriate aeronautical study indicates that they are unlikely to create conditions




conducive to a bird hazard problem. Where the elimination of existing sites is not possible, the appropriate authority shall ensure that any risk to aircraft posed by these sites is assessed and reduced to as low as reasonably practicable" The term "in the vicinity" is taken to be land or water within 13 km of the aerodrome reference point, and "garbage disposal dumps" refers to landfill sites (i.e. the disposal of waste by landfill) as defined under relevant UK legislation. An "appropriate aeronautical study" is taken to be a study that focuses on the potential flight safety implications at the relevant aerodrome(s) that an existing or proposed bird attractant development may cause. Such a study should consist of the overall assessment of the ambient birdstrike risk at the aerodrome and a site-specific risk assessment relating to any development or site in the vicinity. In the UK, the aerodrome licence holder shall take all reasonable steps to secure that the aerodrome and the airspace within which its visual traffic pattern is normally contained are safe at all times for use by aircraft (Article 128(5) of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2005). The licence holder is therefore responsible for the development and implementation of birdstrike risk control measures.

Actions for

compliance

ICAO Airport Services Manual Part 3 Fourth Edition 2012 Section 4.7.1 [Off Airfield monitoring of bird species and behaviour should occur and should include species, flightlines, seasonal patterns, time of day etc.] Section 4.7.2 [Any significant bird/wildlife attractants within a defined radius (the exact distance will be dependent upon local or State regulations) centred on the aerodrome reference point (ARP) should be assessed and a management plan developed to reduce their attractiveness to birds/wildlife.]

Requirements COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 139/2014, ARTICAL 10, Wildlife Hazard Management, ANNEX III Part Organisation Requirements – Aerodrome Operators (Part – ADR.OR) SUBPART B – AERODROME OPERATIONAL SERVICES, EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS (ADR.OPS.B) ADR.OPS.B.020 Wildlife Strike Hazard Reduction The aerodrome operator shall: (a) Assess the wildlife hazard on, and in the surrounding, of the aerodrome; (b) Establish means and procedures to minimise the risk of collisions between wildlife and aircraft, at the aerodrome; and (c) Notify the appropriate authority if a wildlife hazard assessment indicates conditions in the surroundings of the aerodrome are conducive to a wildlife hazard problem.

Actions for

compliance

CAA CAP772 Wildlife Hazard Management: This UK CAA Guidance document is seen as providing UK Aerodromes with an alternative means of compliance to the above EASA legislation. Chapter 3, Roles and Responsibilities details the objectives that should be met by the [GAL] Bird Control Manager / Co-ordinator, these include, but are not




limited to: 5. Monitor habitat changes on and in the vicinity of the aerodrome and develop and implement appropriate management and control activities. 7. Understand the implications of not managing wildlife strike hazards effectively and not flowing the plan and initiating any necessary changes. 8. Analyse and interpret records (shift logs) of control activities, strike reports and on and off-airfield observations and intelligence 9. Understand the need for periodic surveys of bird and wildlife concentrations and movements in the local area (up to or beyond 13km as determined by aerodrome management policies. 10. Work with [third parties] in order to influence and raise awareness of bird hazard matters. 12. Monitor the effectiveness of any bird and habitat measures via quality audit or similar process. 13. Identify potential strike risks through collation of local ornithological reports and survey data.

Nature Conservation Legislation

1.2.2 The primary legislative drivers for the protection of wildlife within the UK, and that are

pertinent to this site are:

• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) • Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (otherwise known as the CRoW Act) • Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (otherwise known as the NERC Act) • The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (otherwise known as the

Habitats Regulations) • The Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

1.2.3 The requirements for complying with legislation designed to protect wildlife within the national

planning context is currently set out under Section 11 of the National Planning Policy

Framework4 (NPPF). Within the local planning context, Crawley Borough Council’s

Supplementary Planning Document for Gatwick Airport5 provides specific reference to

landscape and visual impact (para 41) and biodiversity (para 44). Additionally, Crawley

Borough Council’s Local Plan6 Policy ENV2 (Biodiversity), sets out the Council’s priorities with

respect to the protection of the natural environment with respect to development. The

requirements set out in these documents have been reviewed and taken into account as part of

the formulation of the LEMES.

1.2.4 The Site is not one of the opportunity areas identified in the Crawley Local Plan, but the River

Mole corridor is identified by GAL as a biodiversity opportunity area.

4 DCLG (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. 5 Crawley Borough Council (November 2008). Development at Gatwick Airport: Supplementary Planning Document. 6 Crawley Borough Council (December 2015). Crawley 2030: Crawley Borough Local Plan 2015-2030




1.2.5 A brief outline of current legislative protection for each species is set out under the relevant

headings below.

1.3 Previous and baseline surveys

1.3.1 Surveys for protected species and habitat quality have been conducted across the Site during

2008, 2014 and 2016. In addition, desk top information from the Sussex and Surrey Biological

Records Centre has also been reviewed as part of the appraisal process. Summaries of the key

findings of the surveys are set out under the relevant sections below and the full reports have

been submitted as separate documents as part of the planning application.




2.0 MITIGATION & ENHANCEMENT CONSTRAINTS

2.1 As described under Section 1.2.1 above, the mitigation set out in this LEMES has been

prepared in the context of the management of wildlife hazards at aerodromes, which has

placed limits on the scope of the proposals described in the following sections of the report.

Nevertheless, it is considered that the LEMES meets the overall objective of achieving a ‘no

net loss’ in biodiversity.




3.0 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE LEMES

3.1 Strategic Objectives

3.1.1 The strategic objectives of the LEMES are to ensure that the most appropriate mitigation

strategy, and opportunities for enhancement, is adopted for each of the habitats and species

affected by the proposed scheme. The strategic objectives are as follows:

• Avoidance: the opportunity to ensure that any development activity does not affect the species of interest in the first place. This may be through design, revised working methods or timing of certain activities within particular areas of the development site;

• Reduction: the opportunity to identify means for reducing overall impacts. This may be facilitated through design, incorporation of ecological protection methods within Construction Method Statements, working methods,

• Habitat recreation: the opportunity to recreate habitats that may otherwise be permanently lost as the result of development activities;

• Prevention: the incorporation of methods for preventing intentional harm being caused to species, or the reckless destruction of habitat, during the construction phase of the project, such as the use of protective fencing or the management of site drainage. These measures can also be enmeshed within existing plans and structures as part of the overall delivery of the project;

• Relocation / Translocation: the opportunity to move and re-establish populations of species or habitats that are situated within areas defined as comprising part of the proposed development area; and,

• Compensatory Habitat Creation: where it is not feasible to fully compensate for the loss of habitats of nature conservation value within the Site, consideration is given to the creation of new habitat at suitable off-site locations in partnership with local landowners and stakeholders.

3.1.2 To achieve the objectives of the strategy, a series of Method Statements have been prepared to

address mitigation relating to both habitats and species that will be affected by the

development of the NWZ Hangar Project. There are eight components of the mitigation

strategy for which Method Statements have been prepared. These are as follows:

• Hedgerows & Woodland (Section 4.1); • Waterbodies & Mans Brook (Section 4.2); • Bats (Section 4.3); • Breeding birds (Section 4.4); • Fish (Section 4.5); • Grass snakes (Section 4.6); • Harvest mice (Section 4.7); • Invertebrates (Section 4.8); and, • Landscape & Visual (Section 4.9).




4.0 METHOD STATEMENTS FOR THE MITIGATION OF FEATURES OF ECOLOGICAL INTEREST

4.1 Hedgerows & Woodland

On-Site Distribution - Hedgerows

4.1.1 A total of three hedgerows have been identified that would be affected by the proposed

development, all of which are relatively similar in species composition and structure. Most

appear to be unmanaged and now comprise more or less continuous belts of large shrubs (with

some access gaps), most commonly blackthorn Prunus spinosa, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

and willows Salix spp., especially grey willow Salix cinerea, and frequent mature standard trees,

mostly oak Quercus robur and ash Fraxinus excelsior. The field layer is quite species-rich and

includes species present within the adjoining grasslands, but also a number of woodland

species, including ancient woodland indicator species such as bluebell Hyacinthoides non-

scripta and wood meadow-grass Poa nemoralis.

On-Site Distribution – Woodland

4.1.2 A small area of woodland lies immediately north of the concrete batcher and is variable in

structure and species composition. The north western side has a canopy of ash and

pedunculate oak (including a pollard oak that exhibits veteran features) with occasional field

maple Acer campestre and a shrub layer dominated by hazel Corylus avellana and hawthorn,

though blackthorn and spindle Euonymus europaeus are present. The field layer is quite

species rich with a range of AWIS, including bluebell, wood anemone, wood meadow-grass,

wood melick Melica uniflora and wood spurge Euphorbia amygdaloides.

4.1.3 Many of the trees in the south eastern part of the wood are dead, although there are some

scattered oaks as well as widespread and locally abundant regeneration, especially of ash, but

also some pedunculate oak and field maple. In contrast to the north western part of the wood,

the field layer is quite species poor, comprising largely of stands of bramble and ruderal

(‘weedy’) species, such as nettle Urtica dioica, broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolia, thistles

Cirsium spp. and the invasive non-native Himalayan Balsam Impatiens glandulifera, but also

with frequent red campion. However, there are some wet depressions which support stands of

water pepper Persicaria hydropiper as well as gypsywort Lycopus europaeus, woody

nightshade Solanum dulcamara and remote and pendulous sedge Carex remota and C.

pendula. There is abundant standing and fallen dead wood.




Legislative Context

4.1.4 Hedgerows receive legal protection under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. A definition of

what constitutes a hedgerow is provided in the Regulations, and they also include a set of

criteria for identifying ‘Important’ hedgerows (generally hedgerows that are old, well

connected, and support a diverse range of species). Under the terms of the Regulations,

notification of the intention to remove a hedgerow must be provided to the Local Planning

Authority (LPA). The LPA has certain powers to issue hedgerow retention notices to protect or

prevent the loss of ‘Important’ hedgerows.

4.1.5 For the purposes of this development, the granting of planning permission would supersede the

Regulations (only in relation to those hedgerows specifically identified within the planning

application and/or supporting documents).

4.1.6 All three of the hedgerows identified on the Site have been classified as ‘Important’ under the

terms of the criteria set out in the Hedgerows Regulations.

Biodiversity Action Plan

4.1.7 Hedgerows are included in the UK BAP and Sussex lBAP. The woodland is classified as semi-

natural broadleaved woodland and is also therefore included in the UK BAP and Sussex lBAP.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.1.8 The hedgerows to be lost occur towards the northern end of the Site. This totals approximately

230m of hedgerow.

4.1.9 The woodland north of the concrete batcher plant is approximately 1ha. in size.

Tree loss and Replacement Requirements

4.1.10 According to the arboricultural survey a total of 83 semi-mature and mature trees located

within the hedgerow will be lost as a result of the scheme. Applying Crawley Borough

Council’s Policy CH6 (tree planting and replacement standards), there will be a requirement for

235 trees to be planted as replacements.




4.1.11 Similarly, the arboricultural survey identified a total of 58 surviving semi-mature and mature

trees within the woodland which will be lost as a result of the scheme. Applying Crawley

Borough Council’s Policy CH6 (tree planting and replacement standards), there will be a

requirement for 265 trees to be planted as replacements.

4.1.12 In summary, a total of 141 trees will be lost as a result of the scheme which, applying the

methodology of policy CH6, would require a total of 550 trees to be planted as replacements.

New tree and shrub planting

4.1.13 Species Selection: Due to the close proximity of the airport’s runway and flight path, the choice

of tree species available for including within this buffer planting is restricted and largely

excludes any nut and fruit bearing species that could attract birds and consequently increase

bird strike hazards. Therefore, it is proposed that the buffer planting will be dominated by a

variety of willow species and some oak, alder, field maple, holly (male, non-berry bearing),

aspen, downy birch and ash mixed in. Although the mix will be relatively species poor, it is

acknowledged that willows are typically fast growing species, which will help to provide the

required screening effects necessary to reduce light spill into Brockley Wood for the purposes

of mitigating the effects of lighting on bats and breeding birds.

4.1.14 A similar species mix to the one outlined above will be used for additional infill planting

proposed for the screening bund.

4.1.15 Habitat Functionality: Whilst it is never possible to directly replace an area of woodland or a

hedgerow, the provision of new planting helps to minimise the loss of these habitats and help

to establish a new mosaic of habitat types and linkages within the area.

4.1.16 Planting Locations: See the Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation Plan for proposed planting

locations. New planting is proposed along the eastern boundary of Brockley Wood (Planting

Plan – Area 2) in the protected 20m wide buffer. The planting is intended to reinforce and

extend the area of woodland in general, but protect the existing extent of ancient woodland in

particular. More specifically, it will over time also help to reduce light spill into Brockley Wood

as part of the overall mitigation to protect the bat assemblage using the woodland.

Additionally, infill planting on the screening bund is also proposed (Planting Plan – Area 1).

This will be subject to detailed survey for where it would be effective to close gaps and

integrate with existing planting.




4.1.17 It is estimated that a total of around 294 trees will be accommodated within the buffer planting

for Brockley Wood together with further infill planting of around 491 trees on the screening

bund. The proposed planting includes a range of tree species which, over time, will provide a

barrier to prevent light shed into the main boy of Brockley Wood, and to create a transition

habitat between Brockley Wood and the adjacent grassland. It is anticipated that this new

planting will be subject to selective thinning after an initial 3-5 year establishment period (with

the intention of ensuring that 550 trees are retained in the longer term). The purpose will be to

ensure a varied structure is created for the longer-term, however, the screening effect of taller

trees adjacent to Brockley Wood, will be maintained. The tree species selected, as well as the

density at which they will be planted, conform with the requirements set out for safeguarding

purposes.

4.1.18 Whilst it is acknowledged that the loss of the pollard oak that exhibits veteran features will be

unavoidably lost, the felled timber will be retained and, insofar as it may be possible, used to

create standing dead timber habitat and other log and brash habitat piles.




4.2 Waterbodies & Mans Brook

On-Site Distribution

4.2.1 A total of 4 No. small ponds will be lost as a result of the development. Each of these

waterbodies are being heavily encroached with vegetation and are either seasonally wet, or are

now permanently dry. Additionally, an approximately 200m length of a remnant channel Mans

Brook will also be lost to the development. This section of the Brook was severed by the River

Mole diversion corridor in 1999. It has a steep sided ‘ditch-like’ profile and channel with

largely stagnant water. The brook lies mainly within large dense hedges and Brockley Wood

and is therefore moderately to heavily shaded and as a consequence supports little aquatic,

emergent or marginal vegetation, although a small open area at the eastern end has soft rush,

hemlock water dropwort Oenanthe crocata, greater willowherb Epilobium hirsutum, pendulous

and remote sedge and water figwort.

Biodiversity Action Plans

4.2.2 Rivers & streams and open standing water are listed in the UKBAP and the Sussex and Surrey

lBAPs.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.2.3 4 No. wetlands and a 200m section of the Mans Brook will be lost as a result of the

development. This may either be by infilling, or culverting in the case of brook.

Wetland Creation

4.2.4 It is intended that agreements will be reached with the Environment Agency in conjunction

with GAL Aerodrome Safeguarding to deliver a series of suitable wetland mitigation

interventions to compensate for the loss of a section of the Mans Brook and wetlands within the

proposed development area. These interventions will be undertaken at appropriate locations

that do not pose a risk in relation to airport safeguarding and the potential for an increase in

bird strike hazards.




General Principles for Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement

4.2.5 In general, the principles for wetland mitigation will be to enhance the hydromorphological

characteristics of appropriately identified watercourses through the design and installation of

in-channel features intended to create irregular flow characteristics and aquatic habitat

heterogeneity, which will help to support marginal and in-channel vegetation, associated

aquatic invertebrate assemblages and fish recruitment.

4.2.6 Mitigation may also include either the restoration of existing, or creation of new, ponds or

similar small wetlands.

4.2.7 There is extensive information available on the creation of wildlife ponds such as that provided

by Pond Conservation7, however, the general principles are as follows:

• The ponds should be constructed in habitats that are not otherwise valuable in their own

right or for other species (e.g. species rich grasslands); • Ponds should be constructed in October to allow for natural charging during winter rainfall

and to avoid potential disturbance to species of conservation concern (e.g. access to a new pond site should not be over land that could be used as hibernacula, or where there is a risk of harming grass snakes during the pond construction;

• Ponds do not have to be big. Ideally, however, each pond should be a different size (between 5m and 15m in diameter);

• Ponds should be created using a 360o excavator or JCB with a toothed bucket. Pond excavation is simple and relatively quick. There is no requirement to remove the spoil from site, it can be profiled next to the pond and allowed to revegetate naturally;

• Ponds should be no deeper than 750mm at their deepest point; • Ponds should have uneven sides, but importantly at least half should be gently sloping; • The base of ponds should be uneven; • Ponds should be allowed to colonise naturally; • It does not matter if the pond is ephemeral as these are important habitats too.

Monitoring

4.2.8 The agreed mitigation and enhancement measures delivered in accordance with the principles

set out above will require a period of monitoring in order to determine their relative success

and to identify any remedial action that may be required to correct any deficiencies that may

be identified following completion of the initial work. The exact mechanism for determining

how this monitoring could be delivered will be agreed with the EA.

7 http://www.pondconservation.org.uk/advice/makeapond/




4.3 Bats


4.3.1 At least 11 species of bat have been recorded during the surveys undertaken in the NWZ area:

45kHz pipistrelle; 55kHz pipistrelle; Nathusius’ pipistrelle, long-eared, noctule, Leisler’s,

serotine and Natterer’s and Bechsteins, Additionally, whiskered and Daubenton’s were caught

during trapping surveys. The confirmation of the whiskered, Daubenton’s and Bechstein’s was

made during the trapping process in 2014. Within the analysis of the bat detector surveys it is

not possible to identify bats from this genus to species level from the echolocation call analysis

alone except in the case of Natterer’s bat if, as in the recordings made at Gatwick, the end

frequency is recorded below 25kHz.

4.3.2 In total 5,226 bat passes were recorded during the 2014 static monitoring surveys, of which

3,320 were by pipistrelle bats (63.5%) and 866 (16.6%) were by bats from the Myotis genus. In

addition 861 passes by the Nyctalus genus were recorded, 172 passes by long-eared bats and 7

by Leisler’s bat.

4.3.3 The activity and emergence surveys have identified at least two tree roosts in 2016. In 2014 a

single tree roost was found during the emergence surveys and a second was found during the

radio tracking (tree P). Furthermore, given the early emergence times recorded during the

surveys of several bats, it is considered that more bat roosts occur within the Site, specifically

within the small area of woodland to the north of the concrete batcher (adjacent to Larkins

Road) and within Brockley Wood, which supports a large number of trees with potential for

bats. In addition, the hedgerow along Mans Brook have a number of mature standard trees, of

which most are oak.

4.3.4 A more detailed description of the bat survey methodologies is discussed in the Bat Survey

report (CBA, 2016).

Legislative Protection

4.3.5 All British bat species receive legal protection in the United Kingdom. The Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended) transposes into UK law the Convention on the

Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). The 1981 Act was

recently amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and the Habitats

Regulations 2010. All British bat species are listed under Schedule 5 of the 1981 Act, and are




therefore subject to the provisions of Section 9, which makes it an offence to: Intentionally kill,

injure or take a bat [Section 9(1)];

• Possess or control any live or dead specimen or anything derived from a bat [Section 9(2)]

• Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it

uses for shelter or protection [Section 9(4)(b)];

• Intentionally or recklessly obstructs access to any structure or place which a bat uses for

shelter or protection [Section 9(4)(c)]

• Sell, offer for sale, possess or transport for the purpose of sale or publish advertisements to

buy or sell a bat [section 9(5)]

4.3.6 Bats are also included on Annex IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the

Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (known as the Habitats

Directive). As a result of the UK ratifying this directive, all British bats are protected under The

Habitat Regulations 2010. Annex IV of the Habitats Directive requires member states to

construct a system of protection as outlined in Article 12, this is done through Schedule 2 of

the Regulations whereby Regulation 39 makes it an offence to:

• Deliberately capture or kill a bat [Regulation 39(1)(a)];

• Deliberately disturb a bat in such a way as to be likely to significantly affect i) the ability of

any significant group of animals of that species to survive, breed or rear or nurture their

young, OR

• ii) the local distribution of that species. [Regulation 39(1)(b)];

• Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat [Regulation 39(1)(d)].

4.3.7 Under the law, a roost is any structure or place used for shelter or protection. This could be

any structure, for example any building or mature tree. Bats use many roost sites and feeding

areas throughout the year. These vary according to bat age, condition, gender and species, as

well as season and weather. Since bats tend to re-use the same roosts for generations, the

roost is protected whether the bats are present or not.

4.3.8 The UK is a signatory to the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe, set up under the

Bonn Convention. The Fundamental Obligations of Article III of this Agreement require the

protection of all bats and their habitats, including the identification and protection from

damage or disturbance of important feeding areas for bats.





4.3.9 All the bats identified on the site are included in lists developed by the “UK Biodiversity Action

Plan Steering Group Report” (HMSO 1995). Pipistrelles are a Priority Species, being of

‘unfavourable conservation status’ in Europe having suffered a 25-49% decline in

numbers/range in Great Britain in the last 25 years (HMSO, 1995). All other species found on

the site are listed in the Long List of Globally Threatened/Declining Species and are of

‘unfavourable conservation status in Europe’.

4.3.10 A Species Action Plan for pipistrelles is included in the Sussex Biodiversity Action Plan.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.3.11 There are two critical elements to the NWZ Hangar Project that would directly affect bats.

These are the direct loss of woodland/trees that provide potential roosting sites and any

increase in lighting associated with the new structures, infrastructure and the diverted Larkins

Road running between the proposed hangar and Brockley Wood.

4.3.12 Woodlands/Trees: A total of 34 trees with roosting potential for the bat population would be

lost from the NWZ Stands Site. Of these 18 are considered to be Category 1 (Category 1 means

that the trees have obvious features such as broken limbs, holes, splits etc. that mean the

presence of roosting bats is most likely), 7 are considered to be Category 2 (Category 2 means

that the trees do not have obvious features when surveyed from the ground, but would require

checking prior to felling) and 3 are Category 1/ 2 trees. These trees are situated:

• Within the small area of woodland to the north of the concrete batcher plant and

immediately adjacent to Larkins Road. These trees will be removed to accommodate the

hangar and apron; and,

• The hedgerow bordering the Mans Brook that will be removed for the purposes of

constructing the proposed hangar and diverted Larkins Road.

4.3.13 Lighting: It is anticipated that once constructed, the hangar will significantly reduce current

levels of light spill currently experienced by parts of the North West Zone. Nevertheless,

lighting will be associated with the exterior of the hangar, once operational, as well as the

secure perimeter of the airfield. Final details of the lighting design will be submitted for the




approval of the Local Authority. The approach as to how the effects of light spill will be

reduced as far as possible, is summarised later below.

4.3.14 The retained woodlands, including Brockley Wood, and mature trees in the retained

hedgerows provide sufficient, good quality habitat, to retain the resident bat population within

the NWZ area. There would, therefore, be a no net loss in the bat population of the NWZ as a

result of the proposed scheme.

Natural England Licensing

4.3.15 Given the scope and nature of the proposed development, it is most likely that mitigation work

in relation to bats will need to be undertaken under a Natural England licence to an agreed

Method Statement. The following statements provide a general overview of the likely

requirements for a licence and the agreed Method Statement will develop out of more detailed

discussions with Natural England.

Tree Felling

4.3.16 The numbers and location of trees with bat potential likely to be felled is described in Section

4.3.18 and the Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation Plan illustrates the general location of

the trees to be felled.

4.3.17 To date the tree surveys have been restricted to ground inspections, with trees being

categorised on features (e.g. broken limbs, canker, rot etc.) visible from the ground. Further,

more detailed surveys would be required for a number of the trees, particularly those classified

as Category 2 where there remains uncertainty of the potential. These surveys would require

the trees to be climbed or inspected from an elevated platform such as a MEWP (mobile

elevating working platform) or cherry picker. Where tree climbing is necessary, this will be

undertaken by suitably qualified and trained bat ecologists. As well as a visual inspection of the

outside of the tree, where necessary holes and cavities will be inspected using an endoscope.

Depending on the results of these surveys, trees currently listed may be re-categorised

depending on the features identified during the inspections.

4.3.18 For those trees that are to be felled and that have the potential to support roosting bats, a series

of evening emergence surveys were undertaken in 2016, of which four were found to support

bats. Immediately prior to the felling works emergence surveys will be undertaken by suitably

qualified ecologists, positioned to enable them to observe those features of a tree from which

bats are most likely to emerge. The surveys will commence approximately 20-30 minutes




before sunset and continue until at least one hour after sunset or until such time as it is not

possible to observe bat activity. Each surveyor will be equipped with head phones to frequency

division and time expansion (e.g. make / model of detector to be confirmed) bat detectors. Each

tree will be observed and any positive evidence for bats emerging from trees will be noted on a

record sheet. This will allow recordings to be crossed referenced with observations to enable

bat species to be identified.

4.3.19 It may also be necessary for some of the surveys to be undertaken as pre-dawn surveys.

4.3.20 If a roost is discovered within a tree that needs to be removed, the felling would be undertaken

under licence from Natural England. These trees would be section felled under the supervision

of a licensed bat ecologist avoiding the periods when bats are most vulnerable; these being the

hibernation period (November/December – February/March) and the breeding period (May –

August).

4.3.21 The initial surveys suggest that Brockley Wood and the woodland around dog kennel pond and

hedgerows would retain a sufficient number of trees with good bat potential to not require the

provision of additional bat boxes, although this is subject to discussion with Natural England.

4.3.22 The loss of hedgerows and woodland trees (Section 4.1) will also affect the way in which bats

navigate the area, as they will use these landscape features for dispersal and foraging. The

establishment of proposed new tree planting within a 20m buffer strip along the eastern

boundary of Brockley Wood (see the Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation Plan) will help to

reduce these effects, although it is acknowledged that there will be a time delay between the

new planting being established and it becoming a sufficient age to be useful for navigation

and/or foraging. Nevertheless, the NWZ area and surrounding landscape retains a sufficient

area of suitable habitat that bats will be able to relatively easily adapt to the changes in the

landscape.

4.3.23 Due to the close proximity of the airport’s runway and flight path, the choice of tree species

available for including within this buffer planting is restricted and largely excludes any nut and

fruit bearing species that could attract birds and consequently increase bird strike hazards.

Therefore, it is proposed that the buffer planting will be dominated by a variety of willow

species and some oak, alder, field maple, holly (male, non-berry bearing), aspen, downy birch

and ash mixed in. Although the mix will be relatively species poor, it is acknowledged that

willows are typically fast growing species, which will help to provide the required screening

effects more quickly than may otherwise be the case. Moreover, it is intended that the tree




planting will provide an irregular woodland edge that has potential to provide additional

foraging habitat, as well as reduce light spill.

Lighting

4.3.24 The lighting of the realigned Larkins Road running alongside the new hangar will result in some

light spillage into the areas of retained habitat which may affect roosts in trees that would

otherwise be retained. Details of the lighting design will be submitted for the approval of the

Local Authority in due course. The lighting strategy will be the subject to an iterative design

process for the purpose of reducing the effects of light spill as far as possible. Importantly, the

process will be informed by the Bat Conservation Trust’s best practice guidance on lighting

design, which includes the following points:

• Do not provide excessive lighting. Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety. • Minimise light spill. Eliminate any bare bulbs and any upward pointing light. The spread of

light should be kept near to or below the horizontal; flat cut-off lanterns are best. • Use narrow spectrum bulbs to lower the range of species affected by lighting. Use light

sources that emit minimal ultra-violet light and avoid the white and blue wavelengths of the light spectrum to avoid attracting lots of insects. Lighting regimes that attract lots of insects result in a reduction of insects … that bats may be using for foraging.

• Lights should peak higher than 550nm or use glass lantern covers to filter UV light. White LED lights do not emit UV but have still been shown to disturb slow-flying bat species.

• Increase the spacing of lanterns. • Limit the times that lights are on to provide some dark periods.

4.3.25 New planting is also proposed along the eastern boundary of Brockley Wood to further buffer

the retained woodlands from the increased lighting.

New Roosts

4.3.26 Brockley Wood has already received a fairly significant number of bat boxes during earlier

works in the area which resulted in trees with bat potential being removed within the airport.

Bat boxes will be erected on suitable mature trees within the woodlands and hedgerows to the

west of the River Mole to compensate for the loss of roosts: a total of 20 No. bat boxes will be

provided, consisting of: 10 No. Schwegler 3FNs, 5 No. Schwegler 2Fs and 5 No. Schwegler

1FFs. The provision of bat boxes will be undertake in collaboration with members of the Surrey

Bat Group, who are active in monitoring bat populations in the area, including on Gatwick

Airport landholdings. The provision of these additional roost boxes would be an extension to

this ongoing work.

4.3.27 In order to address the sensitivity of Brockley Wood with respect to the bats it supports,

additional tree planting is proposed within the 20m wide buffer along the woodland’s eastern




boundary. The primary reason for undertaking this additional planting will be to reduce as far

as possible light spill from neighbouring operational areas of the airport, including ‘back of

house’ activities associated with the hangar.

Post Construction Monitoring

4.3.28 In order to understand and evaluate the effects of the proposed development on the use of the

NWZ area by bats, it will be necessary to undertake post-construction monitoring. This will

involve a series of transect and emergence surveys undertaken annually for three years

following completion of the construction of the scheme with hibernation checks of the new

hibernacula continuing for five years post construction. The monitoring will be undertaken to

compare usage of the area pre and post construction.




4.4 Breeding birds


4.4.1 A breeding bird survey of the North West Zone in 2008 recorded a diverse assemblage

associated with the varied habitats present. It included species on the red (e.g. grey wagtail,

starling, song and mistle thrush, linnet, yellowhammer and spotted flycatcher) and amber (e.g.

reed bunting, house martin and kingfisher) lists of Birds of Conservation Concern 48. Most of

these species were recorded in habitats to the west of the Site.

4.4.2 Notable records in the North West Zone in recent years include probable passage migrants

(e.g. wheatear, black redstart and willow warbler), species probably using the area for foraging

only (herring gull, barn owl, kestrel, swift, swallow and house martin) and possible residents

(kingfisher, water rail, mallard, meadow pipit, skylark, reed bunting, linnet, house sparrow,

bullfinch, dunnock, starling and song and mistle thrushes). The red listed nightingale was

recorded among hedges and wintering woodcock (red list) and snipe (amber list) have also

been recorded.

Legislative Context

4.4.3 Birds are protected by four major pieces of legislation:

• EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds 1979 (‘the Birds Directive’) • The Habitats Regulations 2010 • The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended) • The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000

4.4.4 In the UK the provisions of the Birds Directive are implemented through the WCA and the

Habitats Regulations. The WCA gives protection to all birds during the breeding season. Birds

listed under Schedule 1 of the WCA are afforded protection at all times.

4.4.5 The CRoW Act strengthens aspects of the WCA, adding ‘reckless’ disturbance of birds,

including those listed under Schedule 1, during the breeding season is an offence.

4.4.6 Separately, bird species identified as hazardous under aerodrome safety, in line with

aerodrome requirements to comply with Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 as well as

those for biodiversity value are monitored and recorded on an annual basis and the

8 Eaton, M. et al. (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK, Channel Isles and Isle of Man. British Birds 108 pp 708-746.




Biodiversity Action Plan is updated according to the monitoring results. A summary of

hazardous bird species is set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Summary of hazardous bird species

Barn owl Tyto alba Black headed gull Choicocephalus ridibunus Buzzard Buteo buteo Carrion crow Corvus corone Common gull Larus canus Fieldfare Turdus pilaris Great black-backed gull Larus marinus Grey heron Ardrea cinerea Herring gull Larus argentatus Jackdaw Corvus monedula Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus Little egret Egretta garzetta Magpie Pica pica Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Mute swan Cygnus olor Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Red kite Milvus milvus Redwing Turdus iliacus Ring-necked parakeet Psittacula krameri Rook Corvus frugilegus Starling Sturnus vulgaris Stock dove Columba oenas Teal Anas cressa Wood pigeon Columba palumbus

Summary of Listings

4.4.7 The population status of Birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man: an

analysis of conservation concern 2002-2007 listings (Gregory et al, 20029) categorises birds

against specific criteria into Red, Amber and Green lists. Red listed birds include those that are

globally threatened, or have suffered historical population declines.

4.4.8 Seven species of bird recorded in the NWZ area are red list species (mistle thrush Turdus

viscivorus, grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea, spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata, yellowhammer

Emberiza citronella, common linnet Carduelis cannabina, common starling Sturnus vulgaris and

song thrush Turdus philomelos, and a further eight are amber list.

9 Gregory RD, Wilkinson I, Noble, DG, Robinson A, Brown AF, Hughes J, Proctor D, Gibbons W and Galbraith CA (2002) The population status of Birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-2007. British Birds 95-9 410-448.





4.4.9 Seven of the recorded species are listed in the UKBAP. One species, song thrush Turdus

philomelos is listed in the Sussex BAP.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.4.10 The main concentrations of birds are found along the woodland edges and hedgerows.

Vegetation (Site) Clearance Works – breeding bird monitoring

4.4.11 All ground clearance, tree felling, removal of hedgerows and scrub and the filling in of (or re-

engineering of) ponds should be conducted outside the bird breeding season. Natural England

and RSPB guidelines suggest March to August inclusive as the period during which the majority

of breeding bird activity takes place in the UK. However, breeding birds are protected

irrespective of the time of year and certain species, such as collared dove and song thrush, will

breed throughout the year if the conditions are suitable.

4.4.12 Irrespective of the timing, but particularly if site clearance works need to occur within the bird

breeding season, a suitably qualified ecologist will attend site immediately prior to the work

being undertaken. The ecologist will assess the site to determine whether there is evidence of

bird breeding in the affected areas.

4.4.13 In the event that breeding birds are recorded within any affected area, a 20m (radius) exclusion

will be established around individual nests in order to avoid disturbance. Nests will be

periodically monitored by the ecologist to determine when breeding is complete. Breeding is

deemed to be complete when the young have fledged and left the nest. Particular care must be

taken to determine whether adults have commenced a second brood.

Vegetation (Site) Clearance Works – Contractors

4.4.14 Due to the potential constraints that breeding bird activity may have with respect to the

development, it is recommended that more than one team of arboricultural contractors are

employed to undertake clearance works during times outside the breeding season, to increase

effort and thus ensure there are no delays as a consequence of over runs into the bird breeding

season.




4.4.15 All vegetation will be cut with either hand held power tools, or specialist felling equipment

used by arboricultural contractors (which may include tractor mounted hydraulic shears).

4.4.16 Sections of branches or trunks will be stacked neatly as habitat piles and the brashings laid

along the boundary of Brockley Wood as “dead hedges”.

4.4.17 On no account must cut vegetation be left as stock piles within the Site. Such piles of brash

tend to attract breeding birds. If piles are left, they will also be monitored by the ecologist, in

addition to any stands of vegetation that are due to be felled. Any brash piles identified as

supporting breeding birds will be subject to the 20m radius exclusion zone until such time as

breeding has been completed.

Lighting

4.4.18 New lighting associated with the scheme includes: external lights to the hangar; delivery bays

and associated back-of-house infrastructure, including offices and car parking. This lighting will

result in light spillage into the areas of retained habitat which may affect tree nesting

opportunities. In order to reduce this effect as far as possible, lights closest to the boundary of

the woodland will be fitted with deflectors to direct as much of the light into the development

area and will accord with the design principles set out in Section 4.3.24 above.

Nest boxes

4.4.19 It is most likely that breeding territories may be reorganised in the first season after vegetation

has been cleared. In addition, due to safety concerns regarding the potential of bird strikes,

additional nesting boxes will not be provided for the NWZ area. Alternative locations for the

provision of additional nest boxes will be identified in the land east of the railway land.

New Planting

4.4.20 The provision of new planting on the eastern boundary of Brockley Wood (see Section 4.6)

will, in time (est. 7 – 20 years, depending on species), provide new and alternative nesting

opportunities for breeding birds.




Post-Construction Monitoring

4.4.21 A series of post-construction monitoring surveys for the 3 years immediately following

completion of the development will be undertaken. The purpose of the monitoring will be to

assess site usage, determine what changes may have occurred in the overall bird assemblage

and identify the extent to which breeding territories have been reorganised within the

remaining habitats of the NWZ area.




4.5 Fish


4.5.1 Fish surveys undertaken in 2004 and 2008 revealed the presence of up to eight species of fish

in the retained western arm of the Man’s Brook (at the confluence with the River Mole. Dace

Leucisus leucisus were the most numerically abundant species, with chub Leuciscus cephalus

making up the greatest biomass. Gudgeon Gobio gobio and minnow Phoxinus phoxinus were

also recorded, as were roach Rutilus rutilus, stickleback spp and bleak Alburnus alburnus in

small numbers. The population density was estimated at 35 fish 100m2.

Legislative Context

4.5.2 None of the species of fish identified in the survey receive legal protection for their nature

conservation value. However, the movement of fish is controlled under the Salmon and

Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (see Section 4.5.5 below).


4.5.3 None of the species of fish identified in the survey are listed in the UK or local Biodiversity

Action Plans.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.5.4 Fish are known to occur in the Mans Brook and feeder ditches, connected with the River Mole

to the West of the River Mole. Fish are not thought to be present in the remnant channel of

Man’s Brook east of Brockley Wood based on local site knowledge, however, their presence

cannot be ruled out, accordingly an ecologist will survey for the presence of fish prior to works

being undertaken.

Environment Agency Consent

4.5.5 The movement of fish (both removal and reintroduction) requires Environment Agency consent.

These consents are issued under Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.

The written consent is usually a one-off 'permission' issued for a specified date, site and

consignment of fish. This is known as a “Section 30” consent.




4.5.6 Under Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975*

A person shall be guilty of an offence if he introduces any fish or spawn of fish into an inland

water, or has in his possession any fish or spawn of fish intending to introduce it into an inland

water, unless he first obtains the written consent of the water authority** or the inland water is

one which consists exclusively of, or of part of, a fish farm and which, if it discharges into

another inland water, does so only through a conduit constructed or adapted for the purpose.

*Including an amendment under Section34, Salmon Act 1986

**The authority is the consenting authority, i.e. The Environment Agency

4.5.7 The Environment Agency regulates the removal of fish from, and introduction of fish into,

inland waters in England and Wales to protect fisheries and the environment from aspects such

as the impacts of inappropriate fish transfers and disease transmission. The national application

form enables an application to be made for this at the same time as for using fishing

instruments (other than rod and line). Before introducing (stocking) any fish (or fish spawn) into

inland waters (including all private fisheries and stillwaters), the written consent of The

Environment Agency must be obtained.

Fish Removal and Reintroduction

4.5.8 The removal of fish will solely relate to the 200m length of Mans Brook that will require

permanent removal or culverting as part of the development.

4.5.9 The fish removal will be undertaken by specialist fisheries contractors. The contractors, in

consultation with the Environment Agency, will select the most efficient method for catching

fish but in all probability this will be a combination of either electrofishing and/or netting.

4.5.10 Any fish caught will be transferred downstream to the confluence of the Mans Brook with the

River Mole.




4.6 Grass snakes

On Site Status

4.6.1 A small population of grass snakes Natrix natrix is present within the Site. The extent and

distribution of the grass snake population is discussed in detail in the Reptile Survey Report

(CBA, 2016). In general, grass snakes have been recorded within and along the boundaries of

the small relic woodland adjacent to Larkins Road.

4.6.2 Surveys were undertaken between September and October 2016. The standard Froglife10 and

Herpetofauna Workers Manual11 survey techniques were used with the deployment of roofing

felt tiles and corrugated tin sheets at a density in excess of the minimum 10 tins per hectare

recommendation. The highest, single survey, peak count was 3 grass snakes. Using the Froglife6

methodology for evaluating population sizes using peak counts, it was calculated that the total

estimated maximum population within the Site is approximately 20 – 30 individuals.

4.6.3 Suitable habitat within the Site is generally restricted to the woodland, hedgerows and the wet,

rush dominated, grassland along the southern boundary. The majority of the site consists of an

open grass field with few features offering shelter, hibernation opportunities or protection from

predation and as such grass snakes are considered to be largely absent from this area (although

it is possible, but largely unlikely, that individual grass snakes may occasionally traverse the

field when moving between different areas of suitable habitat. As a consequence, it is

considered that grass snakes are most likely present within discrete areas of the Site, which is

important to understand in order to identify the appropriate level of mitigation required for

each specific area of suitable habitat within the Site. The sub-division of the development site

into a series of discrete compartments also enables separate teams of ecologists to undertake

mitigation activities simultaneously to aid the timely and efficient delivery of the mitigation.

Legislative Protection

4.6.4 All British reptiles are afforded legal protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) (as amended) largely as a consequence of a national decline in

numbers associated with habitat loss. Under the terms of the Act, it is illegal to intentionally

kill or injure a reptile.

10 Froglife (1999). Reptile Survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10, Froglife, Halesworth. 11 Gent, T and Gibson, S. (1998). Herpetofauna Workers Manual. JNCC.




4.6.5 The protection of grass snakes in anticipation of proposed development activities usually relies

on one of two mitigation strategies: relocation or translocation. For the purposes of the NWZ

Hangar Project, the most appropriate method to employ is relocation within the NWZ area.


4.6.6 Grass snakes are included in lists developed by the “UK Biodiversity Action Plan [BAP]

Steering Group Report” (HMSO 1995). They are included in the Long List of Globally

Threatened/Declining Species and are of ‘unfavourable conservation status in Europe’.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.6.7 The mosaic of semi natural habitats within the NWZ area adjacent to the Site supports good

grass snake habitat. The surveys have also shown the numbers and distribution of resident grass

snakes, confirming that the western and northern boundaries of the NWZ area have capacity to

support the resident grass snake population. Furthermore, the NWZ area is not isolated as the

River Mole corridor provides linkages to the wider landscape.

Receptor Area

4.6.8 Prior to commencement of any relocation exercise, it is important to ensure that the long-term

viability of the receptor site is established. In order to do this, the receptor site needs to fulfil a

number of criteria (see Table 3 below):

Table 3: Criteria for the selection of receptor sites

Criteria Performance of receptor site against criteria Locality: as a matter of good practice, it is preferable that grass snakes are safely relocated as close as possible to the area from which they have been moved.

The proposed areas to which grass snakes will be relocated are to the west of Brockley Wood, adjacent to the River Mole corridor.

Owners consent: it is important that the landowner of any potential receptor site is prepared to receive relocated grass snakes. Furthermore, it is necessary to establish a guarantee that the receptor site remains protected against changes in land use or future development.

The land to which the grass snakes will be located is under Gatwick ownership. The land identified for the reptile relocation will not be used by Gatwick for any future planned development.

Aspect and geology: grass snakes in any particular location will be suited to certain

The receptor area is in direct continuity with the land which will be used for the NWZ Hangar




Criteria Performance of receptor site against criteria conditions dictated by the aspect and underlying geology of their habitat. It is important that these features are replicated as closely as possible at the receptor site.

Project and consists of the same aspect, underlying geology and vegetation types.

Vegetation structure: grass snakes require a mosaic of habitat including open grassland with varying sward height, scrub fringes and areas of broken ground and/or tree roots. The structure of the habitat provides food (specifically insects, molluscs etc.), opportunities for thermo-regulation, shelter from predation and suitable shelter for hibernation.

The receptor area consists of a mosaic of rough grasslands, shrubs, trees and woodland, the River Mole corridor and associated riparian vegetation.

Existing land management: it is important that existing land management practices are either sympathetic, or can easily be adapted, to ensure suitable vegetation structure is maintained. Inappropriate management (such as heavy grazing or close mowing) can lead to either direct harm being inflicted on grass snakes, or more subtly, the erosion of suitable habitat can lead to pressure on food resources and consequently lead to starvation for a proportion of the population.

The receptor area is not subject to an intensive land management regime. Some light cutting of vegetation occurs in specific areas, however, much of it has been left to develop a rank sward. The grasslands, woodland and wetter areas provide foraging opportunities, whilst access to the edges of Brockley Wood offer shelter and places for hibernation.

Future land management: through consent of the landowner it is necessary to establish agreement to ensure that appropriate current land management is not altered in such a manner as to cause deterioration in the quality of the habitat. Alternatively, it may be necessary to agree changes in current land management to improve or enhance the quality of the habitat.

Gatwick is committed to retaining this land as a receptor area for grass snakes and has confirmed that the land will not be the subject of future development.

4.6.9 As grass snakes are already present in the NWZ area, it is expected that maintenance of the

current management regime would ensure that the receptor area (shown on the Landscaping

and Ecological Mitigation Plan) remains suitable for grass snakes.

Reptile Capture Methodology

4.6.10 Reptile capture is restricted by seasonal constraints. Depending on the prevailing weather, it is

expected that the relocation would commence during early April. The work may commence

earlier if there is an early warm Spring, conversely the work may be delayed until early May if

the weather is cold and wet. Either way, the early establishment of refugia (see Section 4.6.12

below) will enable the emergence of grass snakes to be monitored.




4.6.11 A suite of methods are employed in order to guarantee that a reasonable effort is made to

remove as many grass snakes as possible from the Site, within an appropriate time period.

These methods are described below.

Tinning

4.6.12 The use of corrugated tins or roofing felt (refugia) is a tried and tested method for capturing

grass snakes. Sheets of tin and/or roofing felt are spread over a given area at a minimum density

of 50 tins per hectare. It is anticipated that the density used for the NWZ Hangar Project will far

exceed this threshold. The tins are checked approximately twice daily and any grass snakes

encountered are caught.

4.6.13 Population densities vary across the Site and trapping effort varies accordingly, in line with

current Natural England guidelines. The number of checks of the tins needs to be balanced

such that maximum capture effort is made without causing undue disturbance that prevents the

animals from using the tins.

4.6.14 Each of the tins is numbered and a record made of which tin each reptile is captured under.

Furthermore, a record is kept of tin numbers where a reptile was encountered but not caught.

Over time a map can be created of the distribution of animals, allowing capture effort to be

targeted and refined to increase efficiency.

4.6.15 Biometric data (sex, life stage, weight, length) of each grass snake is recorded. This data is kept

and will be used for subsequent post-relocation monitoring (see below).

Drift Fencing and Vegetation Clearance

4.6.16 Alongside the tinning effort, a series of reptile proof drift fences will be constructed to increase

capture rate (the Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation Plan shows the general layout of the

proposed drift and exclusion fencing). In particular, drift fencing will be constructed on either

side of the hedgerows affected by the proposed development, further fencing will be

established around the small woodland adjacent to Larkins Road and the western most extent

of the proposed development. The purpose of the drift fencing is to prevent grass snakes

entering the development site and to help direct any grass snakes within the development site,

to areas of suitable habitat away from the construction footprint. It is recommended that the




reptile proof fence follows the design set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

(DMRB12) and included as Appendix 1.

4.6.17 Once the fences are established the vegetation within the development site is cleared using a

combination of hand cutting using saws (to remove scrub), brush cutters and strimmers. The

principle is that as the vegetation is removed the grass snakes will begin to preferentially use

the tin traps. The next stage is to cut and remove vegetation using brush cutters. This requires

teams of operators to work in sequence with one another such that they are always cutting

towards a drift fence line or from areas of unsuitable habitat (e.g. areas of existing hard

standing), towards suitable habitat outside the construction area. This has the effect of making

the tins more attractive for shelter, but also, encourages grass snakes to move away from the

vibration of the cutters. This operation is then repeated using strimmers until the ground is

virtually bare.

4.6.18 It is important to undertake this work slowly and in stages in order that no grass snakes are

harmed during the process. Overall, however, the effect is to improve capture efficiency within

a given area.

Destructive Searches

4.6.19 The final technique to be employed is destructive searching. Following an appropriate tin

trapping period and the removal of vegetation using brush cutters, there may still be

opportunities for grass snakes to remain within a given area. This is particularly true of areas of

made ground, broken ground or piles of rubble etc. Under these circumstances it is necessary

to undertake a programme of destructive searching using a mechanical digger, or removal of

rubble by hand.

4.6.20 A machine driver and ecologist will work as a team, with the search commencing from a

position at the edge of the area and working inwards. In doing so there is no chance of the

machine driving over potential areas and harming grass snakes. In general the purpose will be

to remove the top few inches of ground a little at a time, in order to flush out or see grass

snakes that may be hiding. In some circumstances buried rubble may be encountered, in which

case the operation continues until the machine driver encounters natural ground level. Any

animals seen are caught and removed from the area during the operation.

12 Highways Agency (2005) Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Reptiles and Roads Vol. 10 Section 4 Part 7 HA 116/05 Annex B page B/1. Highways Agency.




4.6.21 The use of destructive searches is not a substitute for trapping effort. Rather, destructive

searches are employed as part of a “belt and braces” approach to delivering effective and

successful mitigation.

4.6.22 The timely and sequential use of these techniques ensures the removal of all animals from a

given area within an appropriate timeframe.

Post Relocation Monitoring

4.6.23 It is proposed that an annual programme of monitoring for each of the first three years,

following completion of the NWZ Hangar Project, will be established. This will involve the

capturing of a proportion of the reptile population over a two week period, with biometric data

being recorded to compare with the data collected at the time of the relocation. Whilst it will

not be possible to identify individual grass snakes, an overall comparison of age and sex

structure, as well as size, will enable an assessment of population status.




4.7 Harvest Mouse

On Site Distribution

4.7.1 Harvest mice have been recorded in low numbers in the NWZ area, including within the Site.

Legislative Context

4.7.2 The harvest mouse is listed under s41 of the NERC Act 2006 (Species of Principal Importance).

Biodiversity Action Plan

4.7.3 The harvest mouse is a UK and Sussex BAP species.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.7.4 Harvest mice are known to occur in low densities in in areas of tall grassland and scrub

bordering the Mans Brook and the woodland adjacent to Larkins Road.

Relocation

4.7.5 In order to conserve the existing population of harvest mice, it is proposed that a period of

trapping be undertaken within areas of suitable habitat, during April and May. Trapping will be

undertaken by suitably qualified ecologists experienced in small mammal ecology, using a

combination of longworth and tube traps. These will be placed in appropriate locations,

mounted on canes so that they are located within the stalk zone in areas of tall vegetation, and

visited daily. Any mice found in the traps will be collected and moved areas of suitable habitat

within the River Mole corridor (the Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation Plan). Harvest mice

occur in low density within the Development site, and therefore it is considered that that there

is sufficient carrying capacity to support harvest mice introduced to the R Mole corridor

habitat.




4.8 Invertebrates


4.8.1 Invertebrate surveys undertaken in 2008 and 2014 have identified over 130 terrestrial

invertebrate species within the NWZ area including 1 Nationally Scarce a (NSa) species, the

bee Hylaeus cornutus, 5 NSb species including the ruddy darter dragonfly Sympetrum

sanguineum, Roesel’s bush cricket Metrioptera roeselli, the ladybird Hippodamia variegate and

two solitary wasps Ectemnius dives and Pemphredon morio.

Legislative Context

4.8.2 Two species listed under s41 of the NERC Act 2006 (Species of Principal Importance) are

present within the Site; the potter wasp Odynerus melanocephalus and the long-horned bee

Eucera longicornis.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.8.3 Both s41 species occur in the grassland between the Larkins road woodland and Brockley

Wood.

Habitat Creation

4.8.4 Much of the grass field will be lost as a result of the development. In order, however, to support

the retained population of invertebrates, small scale landscape interventions would be

undertaken to create shallow south facing banks across the retained area of the field and the

edges of the diverted Larkins Road. The banks (illustrated on the Landscaping and Ecological

Mitigation Plan) would be approximately 2m wide and no greater than 1m in height. The bund

will be sown with a seed mix comprising a variety of grass and forb species. It is anticipated

that this new grassland will be managed in accordance with airport safeguarding requirements,

but periodic management would create small areas of bare ground to ensure that nesting sites

are available. Further sites in the land east of the railway line will also be identified for

enhancing invertebrate diversity.




4.9 Landscape

On Site Distribution

4.9.1 The landscape of the proposed Site and its surroundings to the north and west consists of a

mosaic of woodlands connected with hedgerows that include mature trees, with fields

comprising grassland / scrub mosaic habitats. The realigned River Mole forms the western

boundary of Gatwick Airport’s landholdings, beyond which lies a predominantly pastoral

landscape of hedged fields interspersed with woodlands and small settlements. To the south

and east, lies the main body of the airport, runway and associated infrastructure.

Legislative Context

4.9.2 The legislative context for the protection of the airfield from wildlife hazards is summarised in

Section 1.0.

Mitigation Strategy

Site Organisation

4.9.3 Within the Site, the proposed development comprises the direct extension of operational

facilities immediately adjacent with the existing airfield. Moreover, the Site is also broadly

geometric in shape which will therefore result in the direct loss of existing landscape features

(fields, hedgerows and trees), but will not lead to the fragmentation of those features that will

be retained.

Scheme design

4.9.4 In recognition of the landscapes sensitivity to a development on the scale proposed, the design

of the hangar has gone through a number of iterations, informed in part by the ongoing

landscape and visual appraisal. This iterative process has achieved a development which is

considered to have the least possible landscape and visual impacts. Measures have included

ensuring the hangars footprint and that of its apron are as small as possible, whilst the adoption

of a stepped roof line would minimise the extent of the highest part of the roof. The maximum

height of the hangar is the minimum required to meet the operational needs of the type of

aircraft to be maintained.




4.9.5 The choice of ‘goosewing grey’ as the selected colour for the metal exterior cladding has

sought to further minimise landscape and visual impacts. This would involve the use of a

darker shade of grey on the lower parts of each elevation and a lighter shade on the upper

parts. This is considered to be the best arrangement and use of colour to assist with the

buildings integration into its environment and in particular, to blend the building into the sky

from low lying views.

4.9.6 Other measures include avoiding the use of windows on the upper elevations and instead

setting skylights within the flat roof behind the parapets. Whilst there would be flood lighting to

the front of the hangar, low level security lighting is proposed around the other three sides of

the building complex and alongside the diverted Larkins Road. This would ensure there is no to

light spillage beyond the airport.

On-site planting

4.9.7 The proposed development will result in the loss of 141 trees, for which around 550 new trees

will be planted as their replacements. For reasons set out in Sections 4.1 and 4.3 above

(particularly in relation to bat mitigation), this additional planting will be undertaken along the

eastern boundary of Brockley Wood. It will consist of a range of tree species to provide a

woodland edge buffer to protect Brockley Wood from disturbance, but particularly lightshed

arising from the new buildings and associated infrastructure.

4.9.8 Additional planting will also be provided on the existing airport noise bund over the area

shown in the Landscaping and Ecological Mitigation Plan. This will be subject to detailed

survey regarding where the landscape planting will interface with existing planting to be of

most benefit.

Off-site views

4.9.9 A separate Landscape and Visual Appraisal has been undertaken for the scheme. It is

acknowledged that the new hangar will be visible from viewpoints outside the airport

perimeter. However, the scheme has been subject to an iterative design process to try and

ameliorate the visual effects of the development on the wider landscape. In particular,

westward facing windows on the upper elevations of the hangar have been replaced with the

use of skylights, as a means of reducing increased light intrusion into the night time views of

this part of the airport.

FIGURES

LANDSCAPING AND ECOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN

PLANTING PLANS

AREAS 1 AND 2

APPENDIX 1

Design specification for temporary reptile fencing

(taken from DMRB Volume 10 Section 4 Part 7)

FIGURES

LANDSCAPING AND ECOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN

LA

RK

IN

S R

OA

D

AIR

SID

E R

OA

D

M

a

n

s

B

r

o

o

k

B

r

o

c

k

l

e

y

W

o

o

d

R

e

e

d

s

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

D

r

a

i

n

D

r

a

in

F

B

D

r

a

i

n

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

in

River Mole

D

r

a

in

F

B

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

F

o

r

d

R

iv

e

r

M

o

l

e

P

o

n

d

Drain

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

P

o

n

d

M

a

r

l

e

s

D

r

a

i

n

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

in

5

8

.

2

m

5

8

.

5

m

H

O

R

L

E

Y

R

O

A

D

S

t

o

c

k

w

e

l

l

N

i

t

o

n

5

8

.

8

m

D

r

a

i

n

D

r

a

i

n

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

M

a

n

s

B

r

o

o

k

T

a

n

k

C

a

r

P

a

r

k

S

t

e

p

p

i

n

g

S

t

o

n

e

s

L

T

w

r

L

T

w

r

L

T

w

r

L

T

w

r

L

A

R

K

I

N

S

R

O

A

D

E

l

S

u

b

S

t

a

E

l

S

u

b

S

t

a

B

l

a

s

t

S

c

r

e

e

n

L

T

w

r

L

T

w

r

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

R

H

U

n

d

B

o

r

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

R

H

U

n

d

E

l

S

u

b

S

t

a

P

o

n

d

s

T

a

n

k

C

o

n

v

e

y

o

r

T

r

a

c

k

P

a

t

h

(u

m

)

T

a

n

k

s

T

r

a

c

k

F

B

s

F

B

F

B

B

a

l

a

n

c

i

n

g

P

o

n

d

EX

IS

TIN

G T

AX

ILA

NE

U

NIF

OR

M

LANDSCAPING AND ECOLOGICAL

MITIGATION PLAN

958: LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY

900 : ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

LJ 02.02.2017 GH/LJ

02.02.2017

NM 02.02.2017 1:1250

IFS

20760-00-U-958-GA-000001 C

Conceptual Design

20760-00-U-958-GA-000001

C

KEY

REDLINE BOUNDARY

LARKINS ROAD DIVERSION

RETAINED DITCH

BROCKLEY WOOD

GRASS

ANCIENT WOODLAND: BROCKLEY WOOD BUFFER

MIX 1:

PROPOSED TREE PLANTING

PROPOSED SHRUB PLANTING

LARKINS ROAD BUND: SCREEN BUND MIX 1:

PROPOSED SEEDING

HABITAT RELOCATION AND EXCLUSION AREAS:

HARVEST MOUSE RELOCATION SITE

GRASS SNAKE RELOCATION SITE

TEMPORARY REPTILE EXCLUSION FENCE

A 02.02.17 For Planning Permission GH LJ NMB 06.02.17 Tree planting details adjusted KM LJ NM

N

DIRTY SIDE

BALANCING POND M

CLEAN SIDE

CONNECT TO EXISTING AIRSIDE ROAD

FOR GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

PLAN OF ROADS AND AIRSIDE

BOUNDARY, REFER TO DRAWING

NO. 20760-00-C-600-GA-000001

EX

IS

TIN

G L

AR

KIN

S R

OA

D

N

BROCKLEY WOOD -

ANCIENT WOODLAND

M

AN

S B

R

O

O

K

REFERENCE DRAWINGS:

20760-00-M2-000-000001-D5A-DR-A-915-0001-C.DWG

20760-00-M2-000-000001-EGKK_2500 BACKGROUND_GAL AIRPORT

SURVEY.DWG

20760-00-M2-000-000001-OS MASTERMAP.DWG

20760-00-M2-000-000001-PRIORITY ROAD OPT2.DWG

20760-00-M2-000-000003-LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY.DWG

11 NO. ACER CAMPESTRE 5%

16 NO. ALNUS GLUTINOSA 7.5%

11 NO. BETULA PUBESCENS 5%

16 NO. CARPINUS BETULUS 7.5%

11 NO. CORYLUS AVELLANA 5%

11 NO. FRAXINUS EXCELSIOR 5%

11 NO. ILEX AQUIFOLIUM 5%

11 NO. POPULUS TREMULA 5%

63 NO. QUERCUS ROBUR 30%

27 NO. SALIX ALBA 12.5%

27 NO. SALIX FRAGILIS 12.5%

MIX OF SEDGES/GRASSES (60%) AND HERBACEOUS (40%)

AREA : 3000m² (10% OF THE AREA 300m² TO BE AUGMENTED)

DENSITY : 8/m²

SEDGES : CAREX OTRUBAE, ELEOCHARIS PALUSTRIS, JUNCUS ARTICULATS,

JUNCUS CONGLOMERATUS.

HERBACEOUS : AGRIMONIA EUPATORIA, GERANIUM DISSECTUM,

LATHYRUS NISSIOLA, LATHYRUS PRATENSIS, LOTUS CORNICULATUS,

MEDICAGO LUPULINA, POTENTILLA REPTANS, PULICARIA DYSENTERICA,

TRIFOLIUM DUBIUM, VICIA SATIVA

4 NO. ACER CAMPESTRE 5%

6 NO. ALNUS GLUTINOSA 7.5%

4 NO. BETULA PUBESCENS 5%

6 NO. CARPINUS BETULUS 7.5%


4 NO. FRAXINUS EXCELSIOR 5%

4 NO. ILEX AQUIFOLIUM 5%

4 NO. POPULUS TREMULA 5%

23 NO. QUERCUS ROBUR 30%

10 NO. SALIX ALBA 12.5%

10 NO. SALIX FRAGILIS 12.5%

NOTES:

1. ALL AREAS THAT ARE NOT OCCUPIED BY HARD STANDING

WITHIN MOTT MACDONALD'S SITE BOUNDARY TO BE SEEDED

WITH GRASS MIX 1 AND MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

GAL SAFEGUARDING TO ACHIEVE CLOSE TRIMMED SWORD.

2. FLOWERING LAWN MIX TO BE ESTABLISHED AND MANAGED

ON THE LARKINS ROAD BUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAL

SAFEGUARDING'S REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL GRASS

MANAGEMENT.

3. NO LANDSCAPE SOFT WORKS TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE

HARVEST MOUSE AND GRASS SNAKE RELOCATION SITES AS

CONFIRMED BY THE CLIENT TEAM.

MIX OF SEDGES / GRASSES AND HERBACEOUS

SPECIFICATION DENSITY AREA

SEDGES : CAREX OTRUBAE, ELEOCHARIS

PALUSTRIS, JUNCUS ARTICULATS,

JUNCUS CONGLOMERATUS.

8/m² 300m²

HERBACEOUS : AGRIMONIA EUPATORIA,

GERANIUM DISSECTUM,

LATHYRUS NISSIOLA, LATHYRUS

PRATENSIS, LOTUS CORNICULATUS,

MEDICAGO LUPULINA, POTENTILLA

REPTANS, PULICARIA DYSENTERICA,

TRIFOLIUM DUBIUM, VICIA SATIVA

EMORSGATE FLOWERING LAWN MIX EL1

SPECIES % OF MIX

LADY'S BEDSTRAW 3%

ROUGH HAWKBIT 0.5%

OXEYE DAISY 1%

BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL 3%

COWSLIP 1.5%

SELFHEAL 5%

MEADOW BUTTERCUP 3%

COMMOM SORREL 2%

WILD RED CLOVER 1%

COMMON BENT 8%

CRESTED DOGSTAIL 40%

SLENDER-CREEPING RED FESCUE 28%

SMALLER CAT'S-TAIL 2%

GRASS MIX 1 - APPROVED GATWICK AIRSIDE

MIX (R406A)

SPECIES % OF MIX

GRANDE - TALL FESCUE 25%

SCORPIONES - TALL FESCUE 25%

GREENFAIR - PERENNIAL RYEGRASS 25%

GREENWAY - PERENNIAL RYEGRASS 25%

DIRTY SIDE

BALANCING POND M

CLEAN SIDE

CONNECT TO EXISTING AIRSIDE ROAD

EX

IS

TIN

G L

AR

KIN

S R

OA

D

EMORSGATE EL1 SEED MIX

AREA : 1075 SQ m

DENSITY : 4g/m²

37 NO. ACER CAMPESTRE 7.5%


37 NO. POPULUS TREMULA 7.5%

147 NO. SALIX CAPREA 30%

147 NO. SALIX CINEREA 30%

98 NO. SALIX VIMINALIS 20%

NOTE

TREES AND LIGHT STANDARDS OF SAME SPECIES TO BE PLANTED IN GROUPS OF MIN 3-4 NUMBERS WITHIN THE PLANTING MIX

* CORYLUS AVELLANA TO BE SPREAD EVENLY ALONG FRONT EDGE OF THE PLANTING

**PUPOLUS TREMULA PLANTED IN FRONT TO AVOID BEING IN SHADE

EMORSGATE SEED MIX

SPECIFICATION DENSITY AREA

EL1 - EMORSGATE FLOWERING LAWN MIX 4/m² 1075m²

PLANTING IN THIS AREA TO BE

AGREED ON SITE TO MEET THE

SIGHT LINE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS

LAND BETWEEN LARKINS

ROAD AND BOEING

PERIMETER ROAD NOT

DESCRIBED ELSEWHERE

SHALL BE SEEDED WITH

EMORSGATE EL1 SEED MIX

GRASS MIX 1 (R406A)

BY BOEING

GRASS MIX 1 (R406A)

BY BOEING

GRASS MIX 1 (R406A)

BY BOEING

75

Metres - 1:1250

1500

TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE

TREES

NUMBER SPECIES SPECIFICATION HEIGHT GIRTH DENSITY

52 NO. ACER CAMPESTRE LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

22 NO. ALNUS GLUTINOSA LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

15 NO. BETULA PUBESCENS LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

22 NO. CARPINUS BETULUS LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

* 40 NO. CORYLUS AVELLANA LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

15 NO. FRAXINUS EXCELSIOR LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

15 NO. ILEX AQUIFOLIUM LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

** 52 NO. POPULUS TREMULA LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

86 NO. QUERCUS ROBUR LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

37 NO. SALIX ALBA LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

37 NO. SALIX FRAGILIS LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

147 NO. SALIX CAPREA LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

147 NO. SALIX CINEREA LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

98 NO. SALIX VIMINALIS LIGHT STANDARD: BR: STAGGERED 2.5 - 3.0m 6.0 - 8.0m 4 CTR

ISO A1 Landscapezz12_V8_0_lgw-a1l-s

AppChkRev DrnRevision DescriptionDate

Key Plan

Project Name

Title

YO UR LON D ON AIRPORT

Document Uncontrolled when printed

Status

Common Language System

Revision

Originator's Job No.

GAL Project No.Common Language Series

Approved By

Checked By

Drawing Originator

Approval Date

Checked Date

Scale

Drawn By

Drawn Date

Location-Level-Discipline-Systems/Series-DOC Type-Unique Number

Reason for Issue

08

L

08

R

26

L

26

R

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

A

B

C

D

E

F

F

GG

BOEING HANGAR DESIGN

40925

70029306

WSP/PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

OS Copyright Acknowledgement.

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown

Copyright and database right.

This drawing may contain some Ordnance Survey Landline and Raster data

Do not scale from this drawing. Use figured dimensions only.

This drawing has been compiled from a variety of data sources based on

information initially provided by GAL AMC (including as-built and survey

information). Reasonable care has been taken during the compilation of this

drawing to omit errors. If any discrepancy is identified it shall be clarified in writing

with the Project Manager and or Contract Administrator in accordance with the

agreed project procedure and such clarification circulated to all relevant parties in

a timely manner

Intent and dimensions are to be verified on site by the contractor and any

discrepancies shall be clarified in writing with the Project Manager and or

Contract Administrator in accordance with the agreed project procedure and such

clarification circulated to all relevant parties in a timely manner.

This drawing must be read in-conjunction with all other relevant project

documentation. Any discrepancies between this document and any other relevant

project document shall be clarified in writing with the Contract Administrator in

accordance with the agreed project procedure and such clarification circulated to

all relevant parties in a timely manner.

The information shown on this drawing is given without obligation or warranty, the

accuracy thereof cannot be guaranteed.

Do not scale from the drawing. Use figured dimensions only.

It is assumed that all works will be carried out by a competent contractor working,

where appropriate, to an approved method statement

In addition to the hazards/risks normally associated with the

types of work detailed on this drawing, note the following :

SAFETY, HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

DECOMMISSIONING/DEMOLITION

MAINTENANCE/CLEANING

CONSTRUCTION

Project Name / Contract Description Document Number:

Revision Number:

Code Assignment:

Code 1

Code 2

Code 3

Code 4

Work may proceed

Revise and resubmit. Work may proceed subject to incorporation of comments indicated

Revise and resubmit. Work may NOT proceed

Revise and resubmit. Work may proceed

Permission to proceed does not constitute acceptance or approval of design details, calculations

analyses, test methods, or materials developed or selected by the contractor/supplier, and does not

relieve contractors/supplier from full compliance with contractual obligations or release any "holds"

placed on the contract.

GAL Development Team Action Person:

Signature:

Alternative Reference:

Date Signed:

Project Name

www.wspgroup.com

Tel: +44 (0)1483 582 400 Fax: +44 (0)1483 582 989

Westbrook Mills, Borough Road, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 2AZ

This drawing is not to be used in whole or part other than for the intended purpose

and project, refer to the contract for full terms and conditions.

C 17.05.17 Tree planting details adjusted KM LJ NM

PLANTING PLANS

AREAS 1 AND 2

P

o

n

d

Drain

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

P

o

n

d

D

r

a

i

n

D

r

a

in

5

8

.

2

m

H

O

R

L

E

Y

R

O

A

D

S

t

e

p

p

i

n

g

S

t

o

n

e

s

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

B

o

r

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

B

a

l

a

n

c

i

n

g

P

o

n

d

Note:

Trees/ whips/ seedlings of same species to be planted in groups of min 3-4

numbers within the planting mix.

* Corylus avellana to be spread evenly along the front edge of the planting

** Populus tremula planted in front to avoid being planted in shade

37 No. Acer campestre 7.5%

25 No. Corylus avellana 5%

37 No. Populus tremula 7.5%

147 No. Salix caprea 30%

147 No. Salix cinerea 30%

98 No. Salix viminalis 20%

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredSalix viminalis98 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredSalix cinerea147 No.

4Ctr4-6cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredSalix caprea147 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredPopulus tremula37 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredCorylus avellana25 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredAcer campestre37 No.

DensityGirthHeightSpecificationSpeciesNumber

Trees

PLANTING SCHEDULE

**

*

EX

IS

TIN

G T

AX

ILA

NE

U

NIF

OR

M

M

a

n

s

B

r

o

o

k

B

r

o

c

k

le

y

W

o

o

d

R

e

e

d

s

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

D

r

a

in

Drain

FB

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

in

River Mole

Drain

FB

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

B

r

o

o

k

F

a

r

m

F

o

r

d

P

o

n

d

Drain

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

P

o

n

d

M

a

r

le

s

D

r

a

in

Dr

ain

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

i

n

5

8

.2

m

5

8

.5

m

H

O

R

L

E

Y

R

O

A

D

Stockwell

Niton

Dar-as-Salaam

58.8m

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

i

n

D

r

a

in

R

iv

e

r

M

o

l

e

Taxiway

M

a

n

s

B

r

o

o

k

Drain

T

a

n

k

Car Park

S

t

e

p

p

in

g

S

t

o

n

e

s

L Twr

L Twr

L Twr

L Twr

L

A

R

K

I

N

S

R

O

A

D

E

l

S

u

b

S

t

a

El Sub Sta

Blast Screen

L Twr

L

T

w

r

R

H

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

RH

U

n

d

B

o

r

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

R

H

U

n

d

El Sub Sta

P

o

n

d

s

Drain

Drain

T

a

n

k

Conveyor

T

r

a

c

k

Pa

th

(u

m)

Tanks

T

r

a

c

k

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

FBs

F

B

FB

B

a

la

n

c

in

g

P

o

n

d

LA

RK

IN

S R

OA

D

AIR

SID

E R

OA

D

This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances

other than those for which it was prepared and for which Chris

Blandford Associates was commissioned. Chris Blandford Associates

accepts no responsibility for this document to any other party other

than the person by whom it was commissioned.

DateRev Drw Revision or reason for Issue

Drawing number

Project Title

Revision

Scale @ A1

Drawing Series and Title

Drawing Status

Scale

0 10m 20m

1:500

N

S:\projects\11125001 Gal NWZ Hanger 2016 Project\4 CAD\11125001-PL-001.dwg

Drawn

Approved

Date

/ North Point

Client

CHRIS BLANDFORD ASSOCIATES

landscape | environment | heritagecba

W o o l y a r d , 5 2 B e r m o n d s e y S t r e e t , L o n d o n S E 1 3 U D

T 020 7089 6480 E [email protected] W www.cbastudios.com

GATWICK AIRPORT LIMITED

BOEING HANGER DESIGN

4000 SERIES

PLANTING PLAN - AREA 1

PLANNING

-

BW

APRIL 2017PK

- 04-05-17 PK ISSUED FOR PLANNING

BH-CBA-1-GF-M2-L-4001

PART 1

M

a

n

s

B

r

o

o

k

B

r

o

c

k

l

e

y

W

o

o

d

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

in

F

B

D

r

a

i

n

T

r

a

c

k

T

a

n

k

s

T

r

a

c

k

F

B

Mix of Sedges/Grasses (60%) and Herbaceous (40%)

Area : 3000 m² (10% of the area 300 m² to be augmented)

Density : 8/m²

Sedges : Carex otrubae, Eleocharis palustris, Juncus articulats,

Juncus conglomeratus.

Herbaceous : Agrimonia eupatoria, Geranium dissectum,

Lathyrus nissiola, Lathyrus pratensis, Lotus corniculatus,

Medicago lupulina, Potentilla reptans, Pulicaria dysenterica,

Trifolium dubium, Vicia sativa.

Emorsgate EL1 seed mix

Area : 1075 sq m

Density : 4g/m²

Mix of Sedges/Grasses and Herbaceous

Specification Density Area

Sedges : Carex otrubae, Eleocharis palustris, Juncus

articulats, Juncus conglomeratus.

300 m²8/m²Herbaceous : Agrimonia eupatoria, Geranium

dissectum, Lathyrus nissiola, Lathyrus pratensis, Lotus

corniculatus, Medicago lupulina, Potentilla reptans,

Pulicaria dysenterica, Trifolium dubium, Vicia sativa.

Emorsgate seed mix

Specification Density Area

EL1 – Emorsgate Flowering lawn mixture1075 m²

4g/m²

Note:

Trees/ whips/ seedlings of same species to be planted in groups of min 3-4

numbers within the planting mix.

* Corylus avellana to be spread evenly along the front edge of the planting

** Populus tremula planted in front to avoid being planted in shade

4 No. Acer campestre 5%

6 No. Alnus glutinosa 7.5%

4 No. Betula pubescens 5%

6 No. Carpinus betulus 7.5%


4 No. Fraxinus excelsior 5%

4 No. Ilex aquifolium 5%

4 No. Populus tremula 5%

23 No. Quercus robur 30%

10 No. Salix alba 12.5%

10 No. Salix fragilis 12.5%

11 No. Acer campestre 5%

16 No. Alnus glutinosa 7.5%

11 No. Betula pubescens 5%

16 No. Carpinus betulus 7.5%


11 No. Fraxinus excelsior 5%

11 No. Ilex aquifolium 5%

11 No. Populus tremula 5%

63 No. Quercus robur 30%

27 No. Salix alba 12.5%

27 No. Salix fragilis 12.5%

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredSalix fragilis37 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredSalix alba37 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredQuercus robur86 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredPopulus tremula15 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredIlex aquifolium15 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredFraxinus excelsior15 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredCorylus avellana15 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredCarpinus betulus22 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredBetula pubescens15 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredAlnus glutinosa22 No.

4Ctr6-8cm2.5 - 3.0mLight Standard :BR :StaggeredAcer campestre15 No.

DensityGirthHeightSpecificationSpeciesNumber

Trees

PLANTING SCHEDULE

**

*

EX

IS

TIN

G T

AX

ILA

NE

U

NIF

OR

M

Mans Brook

B

r

o

c

k

le

y

W

o

o

d

R

e

e

d

s

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

D

r

a

in

Drain

FB

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

in

River Mole

Drain

FB

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

B

r

o

o

k

F

a

r

m

F

o

r

d

Pond

Drain

R

i

v

e

r

M

o

l

e

Pond

M

a

r

le

s

D

r

a

in

Dr

ain

Dr

ain

D

r

a

i

n

5

8

.2

m

5

8

.5

m

H

O

R

L

E

Y

R

O

A

D

Stockwell

Niton

Dar-as-Salaam

58.8m

D

r

a

in

D

r

a

i

n

D

r

a

in

R

iv

e

r

M

o

l

e

Taxiway

M

a

n

s

B

r

o

o

k

Drain

T

a

n

k

Car Park

Stepping Stones

L Twr

L Twr

L Twr

L Twr

L

A

R

K

I

N

S

R

O

A

D

El Sub Sta

E

l

S

u

b

S

t

a

Blast Screen

L Twr

L Twr

R

H

C

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

RH

U

n

d

B

o

r

o

C

o

n

s

t

B

d

y

R

H

U

n

d

E

l

S

u

b

S

t

a

P

o

n

d

s

Drain

Drain

T

a

n

k

Conveyor

T

r

a

c

k

Pat

h (um)

Tanks

T

r

a

c

k

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

P

a

t

h

(

u

m

)

FBs

FB

FB

B

a

la

n

c

in

g

P

o

n

d

LA

RK

IN

S R

OA

D

AIR

SID

E R

OA

D

This document should not be relied on or used in circumstances

other than those for which it was prepared and for which Chris

Blandford Associates was commissioned. Chris Blandford Associates

accepts no responsibility for this document to any other party other

than the person by whom it was commissioned.

DateRev Drw Revision or reason for Issue

Drawing number

Project Title

Revision

Scale @ A1

Drawing Series and Title

Drawing Status

Scale

0 10m 20m

1:500

N

S:\projects\11125001 Gal NWZ Hanger 2016 Project\4 CAD\11125001-PL-001.dwg

Drawn

Approved

Date

/ North Point

Client

CHRIS BLANDFORD ASSOCIATES

landscape | environment | heritagecba

W o o l y a r d , 5 2 B e r m o n d s e y S t r e e t , L o n d o n S E 1 3 U D

T 020 7089 6480 E [email protected] W www.cbastudios.com

GATWICK AIRPORT LIMITED

BOEING HANGER DESIGN

4000 SERIES

PLANTING PLAN -

AREA 2,3,4 and 5

PLANNING

-

BW

APRIL 2017PK

- 04-05-17 PK ISSUED FOR PLANNING

BH-CBA-1-GF-M2-L-4002

PART 2,3,4 &5

APPENDIX 1

Design specification for temporary reptile fencing

(taken from DMRB Volume 10 Section 4 Part 7)

South East Studio The Old Crown High Street Blackboys Uckfield East Sussex TN22 5JR T 01825 891071 F 01825 891075 E [email protected] W www.cbastudios.com

London Studio Woolyard 52 Bermondsey Street London SE1 3UD T 020 7089 6480

Directors C J Blandford BA DipLD MLA FLI • M E Antonia BSc EnvSci RSA DipPA • D Watkins BSc MSc MRTPI Chris Blandford Associates is the trading name of Chris Blandford Associates Ltd Registered in England No 3741865. Registered Office: The Old Crown High Street Blackboys East Sussex TN22 5JR

gatwick airport ltd - · pdf filegatwick airport ltd nw zone hangar project ... operational...

Documents