mytholme house, waterfoot â€“ extended phase 1 survey

Planning, Environment & Design

Mytholme House, Waterfoot – Extended Phase 1 Survey, Building Inspection for Bats & Birds & CSH Assessment

Together Housing

June 2013

Mytholme House, Waterfoot March 2013

Quality Management

Quality Management

Job No CS/064886-01

Project Mytholme House, Waterfoot

Location Waterfoot, Rossendale, Lancashire

Title Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey & Code for Sustainable Homes Assessment

Document Ref Extended Phase 1 Habitat

Survey & Initial CSH

Assessment

Issue / Revision 01

File reference C:\Users\tabatha.boniface.ADCSL\Documents\Mytholme House Waterfoot Phase1

Habitat Report 3Jun13.docx

Date June 2013

Prepared by 1 Tabatha Boniface CEnv

MCIEEM

Principal Ecologist

Signature (for file)

Prepared by 2 Signature (for file)

Prepared by 3 Signature (for file)

Checked by Janette Gazzard MCIEEM

Senior Consultant


Checked by 1 Signature (for file)

Authorised by Tabatha Boniface CEnv

MCIEEM

Associate


Revision Status / History

Rev Date Issue / Purpose/ Comment Prepared Checked Authorised

Mytholme House, Waterfoot June 2013

Contents

i

Contents 1. Summary 1

2. Introduction 3

2.1 Background 3

2.2 Survey Site 3

2.3 Legislation and Planning Policy 4

3. Methods 6

3.1 Survey and Report Objectives 6

3.2 Desk-Based Study 6

3.3 Field Survey 7

3.4 Evaluation Methods 8

3.5 Survey Constraints 9

4. Site Description 10

4.1 The Site 10

4.2 Site Context 10

4.3 Project Description 11

5. Results 12

5.1 Desk Study 12

5.2 Field Survey 12

6. Interpretation and Advice 18

6.1 Overall Conclusion of Site Ecological Value 18

6.2 Protected Sites 18

6.3 Habitats 19

6.4 Protected Species 23

6.5 Non-Native Invasive species 26

7. References 27

Figures No table of figures entries found.

Appendices Appendix A Wildlife Legislation

Appendix B Phase 1 Habitat Plan

Appendix C Code for Sustainable Homes – Ecology Assessment

1/ Summary

1

1. Summary Capita Symonds Ecologists were commissioned by Together Housing in May 2013 to carry out

an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Mytholme House site in Waterfoot in East

Lancashire and carry out an initial assessment of credits achievable under the Code for

Sustainable Homes Scheme for Ecology.

The survey site is located in Waterfoot town centre in Rossendale, East Lancashire adjacent to

Burnley Road East with a playground and car parking to the north east. It is a small site

consisting of former apartment housing, amenity grassland and a small section of broadleaved

woodland alongside the Whitewell Brook.

The site comprises the following features that are of value to biodiversity:

• One UK Habitat of Principal Importance: Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland

• Two Lancashire BAP Priority Habitats: Broadleaved and Mixed Woodland and the Urban

Habitat: Amenity Grassland & Sports Fields

• Potential bat roosting features associated with external features of the building

• Foraging and sheltering habitat for bats, a European Protected Species

• Habitats that support nesting birds, a protected species under the Wildlife & Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended)

• Habitats that have potential to support UK BAP species such as soprano pipistrelle or

brown long eared bats, song thrush, starling or house sparrow

• Habitats that have potential to support of Lancashire BAP species such as bats, song

thrush.

Japanese knotweed, montbretia and rhododendron which are an invasive non-native species is

also present on the site and is a negative impact to biodiversity and development.

Recommendations are included in this report that if adopted would either conserve existing

biodiversity or offset negative impacts to biodiversity that could result from re-development of

the site. A summary is listed below:

• Retain the woodland and trees on the development site wherever possible.

• Where trees or shrubs are to be lost these should be replaced with native species.

1/ Summary

2

• Compensate for loss of woodland, trees or shrubs by planting a new hedgerow around the

perimeter of the site, linked to the woodland habitat, comprising at least five woody species

from the list included in the report. This would create a new Habitat of Principal Importance

and contribute to national and local conservation targets.

• Enhance the existing woodland habitat through removal of garden species such as Spanish

bluebell, Solomon’s seal and replace with native wildflower species using locally

characteristic native species.

• Retain or re-create grassland habitats.

• Enhance existing or re-created grassland habitats to increase species diversity.

• Carry out an emergence survey for bats as there is some low potential for bat roosts to be

present associated with the hanging tiles on the exterior of the building.

• Avoid disturbance to nesting birds (usually present between March-August) by planning

disturbing works outside the nesting season.

Alternatively ensure checks by a suitably experienced person are carried to ascertain if any

nesting birds are present before commencing work and, if so, ensuring measures are taken

to avoid disturbing nesting birds until they have finished nesting and the young have

fledged.

• The above measures in relation to woodland and the planting of a hedgerow will also

benefit local bat and bird populations.

• In addition measures including installation of bat roosting features, limiting light spill and

planting additional habitats are recommended to enhance the site for bats.

• Implement a treatment plan to eradicate Japanese knotweed on site in line with

Environment Agency Code of Practice. Measures such as chemical treatment or

encapsulation are the usual preferred methods.

2/ Introduction

3

2. Introduction

2.1 Background

Capita Symonds Ecologists, Blackburn were commissioned in May 2013 by Together Housing

to undertake an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Mytholme House site in Waterfoot,

Rossendale, Lancashire to inform a planning submission for demolition and redevelopment of

the site.

2.2 Survey Site

The survey site is located in Waterfoot, East Lancashire adjacent to Burnley Road East. It is a

small site comprising now derelict residential housing, small lawned areas and broadleaved

woodland alongside Whitewell Brook to the north. The site is bordered to the east and south by

hardstanding in the form of a playground and car parking.

Figure 1: Plan showing site boundary in red and proposed development area hatched in

green

2/ Introduction

4

2.3 Legislation and Planning Policy

2.3.1 Legislation Certain habitats and species are subject to protection, as laid out in the Wildlife & Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended) and/or the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as

amended). The following list the legislation that would apply to the habitats and species present

or are reasonably likely to be present at the Mytholme House site. For a more detailed

summary of the offences relevant under each Act refer to Appendix A of this report.

• The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended):

o Bats

o Nesting birds.

• Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010:

o Bats.

• Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006:

o Section 40 of NERC Act places a statutory duty on public bodies, such as local

authorities, that “every public body must, in exercising its functions have regard, so

far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of

conserving biodiversity”.

o Section 41 of the NERC Act requires the Secretary of State to draw up a list of

Habitats and Species of Principal Importance which should be used to guide

decision-makers (which include local authorities) in implementing their duty under

Section 40.

These clauses will apply to Rossendale Borough Council in carrying out their functions in

determining planning applications.

2.3.2 Planning Policy

In March 2012 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and replaces

the previous detailed Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) although the guidance document

“Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice” ODPM

06/2005 has not been replaced by the Framework.

The NPPF promotes plan-making and decision-taking with a presumption in favour of

sustainable development. Sustainable development is achieved where developments are

designed to address the mutually dependent threads of sustainability: economic, social and

environmental needs.

2/ Introduction

5

In terms of biodiversity, sustainable development should not only achieve no net loss of

biodiversity but incorporate proposals that achieve net gains for nature alongside the

other social and economic needs of society.

Protected sites and species are a material consideration in determining planning applications,

therefore all information relating to protected sites and species must be submitted with planning

submissions for determination of the whole application. The NPPF promotes the approval of

plans where applications can demonstrate that they are in accordance with up-to-date Local

Plans and have addressed material considerations.

In accordance with the Rossendale Borough Council Core Strategy the following local planning

policies are relevant to the site associated with the Mytholme House site in Waterfoot:

• Policy 17 – Rossendale’s Green Infrastructure

• Policy 18 - Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Landscape Conservation.

2.3.3 Biodiversity Policy

The NERC Act 2006 list of Habitats of Principal Importance or Species of Principal Importance

are those highlighted as requiring conservation action in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

and is used as a guide to decision makers such as pubic bodies (including planning authorities)

to implement their duty of having regard to biodiversity when carrying out their functions. In

relation to developments planning authorities may look to the implementation of biodiversity

conservation and enhancement through proposals contained within planning applications for

developments to demonstrate the sustainability of the scheme.

Local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) have also been written and adopted to develop plans for

species of nature conservation importance at regional and local levels. The Lancashire Local

Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) covers the Rossendale area in which the survey site is located.

3/ Methods

6

3. Methods

3.1 Survey and Report Objectives

1. To undertake a desk-based study of the proposed development area in order to establish

whether there were records of protected species or habitats of importance (on a local,

regional, national or international scale).

2. To review existing information detailing habitats, including flora and fauna, of the existing

site, with particular attention given to those that have the potential to support protected or

otherwise notable species.

3. To undertake a field survey of the site to detail existing habitats and to assess whether

the habitats on site have the potential to support protected or otherwise notable species.

4. To evaluate the ecological value of the survey site and identify opportunities for

enhancement.

5. To provide advice and guidance in respect of the need for further appropriate surveys,

mitigation and enhancement proposals that will enable the development to proceed in full

compliance with relevant wildlife and nature conservation legislation.

3.2 Desk-Based Study

Due to the timings of the commission and deadline set by the client a data search of local

records centres was not conducted. However, a desk-based study was undertaken in order to

support the field survey and to establish any records of the presence of protected species or

habitats of importance on and within a 1 km radius of the site.

Natural England’s Nature on the Map and MAGIC online resources were accessed for

information on UK and European protected sites and important sites including:

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

• Special Protected Areas (SPA)

• Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

• Ramsar sites

• National Nature Reserves (NNR)

• Local Nature Reserves (LNR)

• Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

• Ancient Semi-natural Woodland (ASNW)

• Mapped Biodiversity Priority Habitats

3/ Methods

7

The following sources were also reviewed:

• Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan

• Rossendale Core Strategy

The above resources and Ordnance Survey maps were studied to locate any ponds or water

bodies within 500m of the site.

3.3 Field Survey

3.3.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was carried out by Tabatha Boniface CEnv MCIEEM on

31 May 2013. The survey involved undertaking a detailed walkover across the site marked by

the red line boundary at Appendix B. Observations of flora and fauna along with location and

extent of habitats were noted. The site and its habitats were also assessed for their potential to

support protected species.

The Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted in accordance with the guidelines set out

in the Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC. 2010). The extent of each habitat was

noted and is mapped at Appendix B. Photographs are included in this report to illustrate the

habitats descriptions.

3.3.2 Building Inspection for Bats

Mytholme House was inspected externally and internally for field evidence of bats including

droppings, urine staining, feeding remains, potential roosting/access points and individual bats

(live or dead).

Observations were made from ground level using close focusing binoculars (Opticron Discovery

8 x 32) to inspect external features of buildings where access was not possible.

A 1 million candlepower torch LED Lenser X21 torch was used to aid visibility.

3.3.3 Tree Inspection

All trees were inspected from ground level using close focusing binoculars for features with the

potential to support bat roosts (or bird’s nests) (extendable ladders were not used for health &

safety risks where the trees occur on a slope).

A1 million candle power torch and binoculars were also used to aid inspection of crevices and

cavities.

Trees were assessed for the presence of suitable roosting features including holes in the trunk

and lifted bark and signs of bat presence including staining and scratch marks.

3/ Methods

8

3.4 Evaluation Methods

The ecological value of the site is evaluated against the following criteria:

• Presence of statutory and non statutory protected sites on or adjacent to the site

• Presence or likely presence of protected species on or adjacent to the site

• Presence of Species or Habitats of Principal Importance and UK and Local

Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats and Species on or adjacent to the site

• Habitat quality and condition

• Habitat and landscape connectivity, and

• Presence of non-native and invasive species.

The potential impacts of land use change on the nature conservation value of the site are

assessed using these criteria together with an ecological judgement of the likely impacts on

habitats and species of ecological value identified through desk-based study and field survey.

3.5 Personnel & Quality Assurance

All ecologists employed by Capita Symonds are members of, or are under application for,

membership of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) and

follow the Institute’s code of professional conduct when undertaking ecological work.

All fieldwork is carried out in accordance with current best practice guidelines and under the

supervision of senior staff and appropriately licensed ecologists.

The surveys were carried out by Tabatha Boniface who is a Chartered Environmentalist and

Full Member of MCIEEM. Tabatha has been working in the conservation field for 11 years and

specialises in habitat surveys and condition monitoring and bat surveying. She holds a current

Level 2 Class Licence WML-CL18 to survey bats of all species for scientific (including research)

and/or educational purposes for all counties of England. Under the Code for Sustainable

Homes scheme Tabatha is a Suitably Qualified Ecologist.

3/ Methods

9

3.6 Survey Constraints

The optimum survey period for Extended Phase 1 Habitat surveys is April-August (inclusive).

Although surveys can be conducted throughout the year, due to hibernation and dormancy,

some animal and plant species may not be evident during surveys undertaken outside of this

survey period.

The survey of the Mytholme House site was undertaken in May 2013 at a time when the

majority of species would be visible to make a realistic assessment of the habitats resent and

their quality.

Evidence of bat roosts can be lost over time due to weathering if associated with external

features.

Bats species such as pipistrelles and brown long eared bats can roost in crevices well hidden

from view and not be evident through non-invasive surveys.

4/ Site Description

10

4. Site Description

4.1 The Site

The Mytholme House site lies to the east of Burnley Road East in Waterfoot town centre in

Rossendale, Lancashire.

The site itself comprises a derelict residential housing block of apartments with small areas of

lawn, ornamental planting and broadleaved woodland to the north of the site alongside

Whitewell Brook.

Figure 2 Mytholme House Survey Site

4.2 Site Context

To the south of the site lies Waterfoot town centre and to the north is more traditional style

residential housing. Whitewell Brook runs along the northern boundary flowing west and this is

surrounded by a fragment of broadleaved woodland.

The survey site lies near the urban centre of Waterfoot which largely comprises traditional

buildings and shop fronts. The town itself lies on the fringes of the uplands of East Lancashire

which is dominated by upland hill farming and moorland around the town.

4/ Site Description

11

Figure 3 Wider landscape around Mytholme House survey site

4.3 Project Description

The current proposals for the site are the demolition of the existing building and the construction

of new housing and a car park within the site boundary as shown below:

The project impacts will result in the loss of amenity grassland and the loss of several trees

where the new building footprint extends into the woodland.

5/ Results

12

5. Results

5.1 Desk Study

5.1.1 Protected Sites

There are no statutory or non-statutory protected sites on or adjacent to the survey site.

However, the woodland at Hareholme is designated a locally designated Important Wildlife Site

(IWS).

5.1.2 Ancient Woodlands

There are no ancient woodlands on or adjacent to the survey site although woodland

approximately 135 metres west of site is mapped on the National Inventory of Woodland and

Trees, part of which is a locally designated Important Wildlife Site.

5.1.3 Wildlife Corridors/Landscape Connections

There are no formally designated corridors on or adjacent to the survey site. However,

Whitewell Brook and the woodland associated with it act as a stepping stone in a built up

environment enabling a range of biodiversity to move through the landscape.

5.1.4 Waterbodies

There no ponds on or adjacent to the survey site.

5.2 Field Survey

5.2.1 Habitats

5.2.1.1 AMENITY GRASSLAND

Amenity grassland is present in several locations around the buildings. This is similar in

species composition around the site and is regularly mown to maintain a short sward.

Figure 4 Amenity grassland

5/ Results

13

The sward is dominated by perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne along with less dominant grass

species common bent Agrostis capillaris, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, and annual meadow

grass Poa annua. Flowering species include creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, cuckoo

flower Cardamine pratensis, dandelion Taraxacum agg, white clover Trifolium repens, meadow

buttercup Ranunculus acris, daisy Bellis perennis, common sorrel Rumex acetosa and

broadleaved dock. This is a relatively species-poor sward typical of those managed as amenity

grassland but it does have some variety that is largely influenced by the regular mowing regime.

5.2.1.2 SEMI-NATURAL BROADLEAVED WOODLAND

Broadleaved woodland is present on the northern boundary of the site, alongside Whitewell

Brook. This is likely to be a remnant of a much larger woodland that once covered the area and

where a large block of woodland to the west of the site still remains.

Figure 5 Broadleaved woodland

The woodland has a good structure with canopy trees comprising sycamore Acer

pseudoplatanus and ash Fraxinus excelsior and an understorey comprising hawthorn

Crataegus monogyna, elder Sambucus nigra, wych elm Ulmus glabra, ash regeneration and

holly Ilex aquifolium. The ground flora varies from areas where it is relatively bare due to

trampling and the shading from the canopy above to areas with a good mix of ground flora

species including enchanter’s nightshade Circaea lutetiana, lesser celandine Ficaria verna,

meadow buttercup, wood avens Geum urbanum, rough stalked meadow-grass Poa trivialis,

broad buckler fern Dryopteris dilatata, male fern Athyrium filix-mas, dandelion and nettle Urtica

dioica.

5/ Results

14

Although this list of ground flora species are good indicators of semi-natural woodlands, there is

a proportion of species present indicative or garden or ornamental planting schemes that have

naturalised in the woodland. These species comprise non-native species such as Solomon’s

seal Polygonatum sp, Spanish bluebell Hyacinthoides hispanica, and pink purslane Montia

sibirica.

5.2.1.3 INTRODUCED SHRUB

Along the path into the site and around the back of the building bordering patches of amenity

grassland are areas of ornamental planting comprising non-native garden plants. Alongside the

path into the site this comprises privet Ligustrum ovalifolium, horse chestnut Aesculus

hippocastanum, rhododendron Rhododendron sp, and elder. This planting grades into the

broadleaved woodland to the north.

Figure 6 The introduced shrub/ornamental planting at the front of the building

A young shoot of the non-native invasive species, Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica, was

observed on the corner of the ornamental planting at the front of the building.

Figure 7 Japanese knotweed amongst the introduced shrub at the front of the building

5/ Results

15

5.2.1.4 BUILDING

Figure 8 Mytholme House

There is one building on site, a former residential building comprising several apartments on

two floors. This is now boarded up and in a poor state of repair with evidence of vandalism to

both the interior and exterior of the building and water seeping into the interior.

The building is of brick construction with a concrete slab roof overlain with covered in felt.

There are no enclosed roof voids. The windows and doors are all boarded up. On all sides of

the building there are panels of hanging tiles (as seen above) which in some cases have

slipped or been damaged creating gaps through which birds or bats could gain access. A

welted drip edge and wooden fascia boards run around the building which are generally well

sealed.

Figure 9 Concrete slab roof exposed internally

5/ Results

16

Blue tits were observed foraging around the building picking insects off moss growing on the

window sills.

5.2.1.5 WALLS AND HARDSTANDING

The southern boundary of the site is marked by a concrete block wall and hardstanding

pathways run around the site. These are both devoid of vegetation.

5.2.2 Biodiversity Habitats of Principal Importance

Table 1 lists the habitats found within or adjacent to the site boundary and whether these

habitats are listed as Habitats of Principal Importance in England and as Priority Habitats under

the Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan.

Table 1. Summary of local and national importance of habitats found on site

Broad Habitat Habitat of Principal

Importance

Lancashire BAP

Woodland a Lowland Mixed Deciduous

Woodland

a

Grassland x a Amenity Grassland &

Sports Fields

Introduced shrub x x

Buildings x x

Walls and

hardstanding

x x

aListed as national/local Habitats of Principal Importance/BAP species

x Not listed as Habitats of Principal Importance/BAP species x.

5.2.3 Protected Species

Based on a judgement of the local distribution of species and the habitats on and adjacent to

the survey site, there is potential for the site to support bats and birds.

5.2.3.1 BATS

The structure of the building internally and the water ingress has resulted in there being few

cavities suitable for bats to roost. However, externally the hanging tiles on wooden battens do

offer some limited opportunities for bats to establish roosts although the disturbance these

features may receive through vandalism could reduce this likelihood.

From ground level inspection it would appear the majority of the trees do not have features that

have the potential to support bat roosts. However, two rot holes were observed on mature trees

which could have potential to support bat roosts and closer inspection would be required if

these trees are likely to be affected by development proposals.

The trees and woodland on site are likely to provide local bat populations with foraging

resources.

5/ Results

17

5.2.3.2 NESTING BIRDS

No bird’s nests or nesting birds were observed on the site but the trees or buildings do offer

opportunities for birds to establish nests. The rot holes in trees and gaps behind hanging tiles

provide the best opportunities for nesting birds. Blue tits and long tailed tits were observed on

the site during the survey foraging for insects in the trees on site and around the building itself.

5.2.4 Non-Native Invasive Species

The following non-native invasive species, as listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside

Act (as amended), are present on the survey site:

• Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica

• Montbretia Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora

• Rhododendron Rhododendron sp (only certain species are listed on Schedule 9).

It is an offence under the Act to cause the spread of these species into the wild.

5.2.5 Biodiversity Species of Principal Importance

Table 2 details the species of local and national importance which have the potential to occur

on or adjacent to the site and that are listed as Species of Principal Importance in England or as

Priority Species under the Lancashire Biodiversity Action Plan.

Table 2: Summary of local and national importance of species found locally

Species Species of

Principal

Importance

Lancashire

Local BAP

Bats Soprano

pipistrelle,

brown long

eared

a

Song thrush a a Starling a x

House sparrow a x

Listed as national/local BAP species a, not listed as BAP species x.

6/ Interpretation and Advice

18

6. Interpretation and Advice Below is an interpretation of the value of the biodiversity found on site to date and

recommendations in respect of methods of working in order to limit the development’s impacts

on biodiversity. In addition, biodiversity enhancement measures are provided that, if adopted,

would contribute to the sustainability of the development in line with the National Planning

Policy Framework and the conservation of biodiversity locally.

6.1 Overall Conclusion of Site Ecological Value

The site’s biodiversity value is largely attributed to the following which is explained in further

detail in the following sections:

• The presence of one UK Habitat of Principal Importance: Lowland Mixed Deciduous

Woodland and its connections to a wider woodland resource outside the survey site

• The presence of two Lancashire BAP Priority Habitats: Broadleaved and Mixed Woodland

and the Urban Habitat: Amenity Grassland & Sports Fields

• The presence of foraging and sheltering habitat for bats, a European Protected Species

• The potential presence of nesting birds, a protected species under the Wildlife &

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

• The potential presence of UK BAP species such as soprano pipistrelle or brown long eared

bats, song thrush, starling or house sparrow

• The potential presence of Lancashire BAP species such as bats, song thrush

• The presence of the non-native invasive species Japanese knotweed, rhododendron and

montbretia and garden plants in the woodland which reduces the quality of habitats where it

occurs.

6.2 Protected Sites

There are no protected sites present on or adjacent to the survey that require specific protection

or consideration within development proposals.

However, the site comprises an area of greenspace/green infrastructure of woodland and a

small pocket of woodland within urban and residential development which can be important for

landscape connections and greenspace.

Rossendale Borough Council’s policy promotes the protection and enhancement of green

infrastructure for a variety of reasons but that include:


19

• Flood risk management

• Management and enhancement of features such as urban green corridors and

woodlands

• An expectation that new developments will contribute to the provision of recreational

green space, and to incorporate improvements to the quality of, and access to, existing

Green Infrastructure in accordance with local circumstances.

For the reasons above the links of the woodland and this undeveloped greenspace provide

important links to other habitats on and off site. Therefore where possible this should be

conserved and enhanced or any losses should be offset by the inclusion of green infrastructure

within the scheme.

6.3 Habitats

6.3.1 Amenity Grassland The amenity grassland on site is present in small pockets or the main lawned area to the front

of the building. It is managed as a garden features rather than being a habitat of high quality

and it is not recognised as being important to biodiversity conservation nationally. However, the

grassland on the Mytholme House site does support a small range of native plants and the

grassland could be diversified and thereby enhanced through less intensive management. The

grassland is also important as conserving an area of greenspace/green infrastructure.

The need to conserve this type of habitat is recognised in the Lancashire BAP by the Action

Plan Amenity Grassland & Sports Fields which aims “to maintain, enhance and raise awareness

of the biodiversity potential of playing fields, amenity greenspace and sports fields.”

Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) Additional Recommendations:

However, the current proposals show that the large lawned area is likely to be lost as a result of

the creation of an on-site car park. To compensate for this the following recommendations are

made:

• As much grassland should be retained or replanted within the development design as

possible. This could in the form of grasslands in the remaining undeveloped areas

within the development or by creating a softer car parking option by using grass

protection mesh which retains the soils and grass underneath a more hardwearing

mesh. This is unlikely to enhance the grassland habitat, but does provide a more

porous paving solution which may assist in reducing run-off from the site rather than if

a hard surface is installed creating sustainable solution in line with the aims of the

Water Framework Directive and local planning policy.

• Where grassland is retained a less intensive mowing regime should be adopted which

will, over time, increase the diversity of the grassland. For example:

o Two cuts per year in early Spring and late Summer


20

o Remove all arisings from the grassland after approximately one week

• Where grassland is to be re-created a higher species-mix should be included including

species such as those listed below:

o Crested dog’s tail Cynosurus cristatus

o Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus

o Common knapweed Centaurea nigra

o Red clover Trifolium pratensis

o Lesser bird’s foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus

o Rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus

o Tormentil Potentilla erecta

o Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata

o Self heal Prunella vulgaris

o Yarrow Achillea millefolium

o Yellow rattle Rhinanthus minor

If grassland such as this is created it will need to be managed as listed above as more

intensive mowing will limit the ability of these species to flower and set seed which,

over time, reduces the species-diversity within the sward.

6.3.2 Semi-Natural Broadleaved Woodland The woodland on the survey site has the character of semi-natural woodland with good

structure comprising predominantly native species. Species such as enchanter’s nightshade

are often indicative of a well-established, stable woodland habitat. However, sycamore and

several non-native garden species have colonised the woodland which reduce the quality of the

woodland to a small extent.

Semi-natural woodlands are classified as a UK Habitat of Principal Importance: Lowland Mixed

Deciduous Woodland and prior to development of Waterfoot the small fragment of woodland on

the Mytholme House site is likely to have once been part of a much wider woodland resource in

the area. Its connections to the Whitewell Brook and it size and location make it a landscape

stepping stone between this and the larger woodland to the west. It effectively creates a habitat

corridor in the urban part of Waterfoot that provides habitat and important links for biodiversity

such as foraging and commuting bats and birds. Retaining woodland fragments and their

connections to other woodland parcels in the landscape is important in conserving landscape

connections and “stepping stones” that benefit a wide range of biodiversity.

Rossendale Borough Council’s planning policy also “seeks to avoid any harmful impacts of

development on all aspects of Rossendale’s natural environment with particular reference to

avoiding “any loss of trees, woodland, hedgerows and other types of foliage and flora, and

ensure that where necessary, developments make provision for new and replacement planting.”

In addition, local authorities have a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity particularly of

recognised biodiversity priorities and this can be achieved through permitting developments

where the conservation of Habitats of Principal Importance is contained within the design.


21

Limiting the loss of woodland and increasing its extent through natural regeneration or

supplementary planting using species native to the local area contributes to national biodiversity

conservation targets by conserving the woodland which is a UK Habitat of Principal Importance.

For the reasons above the following recommendations are made to address these issues:

CSH Key Recommendations:

Removal of woodland and trees should be avoided and limited wherever possible.

Where woodland or trees are to be lost these the non-native sycamore should be preferentially

felled.

Where trees or shrubs are to be lost these should be replaced with native species within the

woodland such as ash Fraxinus excelsior, oak Quercus robur or Quercus petraea, silver Betula

pendula or downy birch B pubescens for the canopy; and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, elder

Sambucus nigra, holly Ilex aquifolium, wych elm Ulmus glabra, English elm Ulmus procera or

bird cherry Prunus padus for the understorey.

The woodland and trees should be protected and retained throughout development. Protection

of mature trees and the woodland should adhere to BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design,

demolition and construction.

Ground flora should be protected and retained throughout development wherever possible.

CSH Additional Recommendations

Measures that could be undertaken to offset any negative impacts to the woodland are:

• Enhance the woodland by removing non-native garden species such as Solomon’s seal,

Spanish bluebell, pink purslane and allowing natural regeneration establish a native ground

flora or supplement with an appropriate seed mix containing plants such as:

o Native bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta

o Red campion Silene dioica

o Ramsons Allium usinum

o Wood anemone Anemone nemorosa, or

o Wood sorrel Oxalis acetosella.

• Extending the woodland through natural regeneration of existing trees or planting new

native woodland linked to the existing woodland using species such as:

o Oak Quercus robur or Quercus petraea

o Birch Betula pendula or B pubescens

o Ash Fraxinus excelsior

o Alder Alnus glutinosa

o Rowan Sorbus aucuparia


22

• To compensate for the loss of trees, planting a hedgerow linked to the woodland around the

perimeter of the site comprising native species would create an additional habitat (and a

Biodiversity Habitat of Principal Importance), offset the negative impacts of felling trees

associated with the woodland, and create a stronger network of habitats on site. Species to

be included should be at least five of the following woody species:

o Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

o Elder Sambucus nigra

o Holly Ilex aquifolium

o Wych elm Ulmus glabra

o Guelder rose Viburnum opulus

o Hazel Corylus avellana

o Blackthorn Prunus spinosa

o Dog rose Rosa canina or field rose R arvensis

6.3.3 Introduced Shrub

The ornamental shrubs on site are not recognised as a habitat of importance for biodiversity,

but do support a range of invertebrates and makes a larger connection of trees and shrubs from

the site into the woodland.

The presence of Japanese knotweed, montbretia and Rhododendron within this habitat could

be a negative issue if these species spread, particularly if they spread into the woodland

habitat. The measures in paragraph 6.5 should be undertaken which would enhance the

introduced ornamental shrub habitat where it is retained and reduce the likelihood of negative

impacts to the site in the future.

6.3.4 Building The structure of the building internally, the damage and resulting condition of the building

results in there being few opportunities for bats to establish roosts or birds to nest in the interior

of the building. However, externally there are some limited features suitable for supporting

nesting birds or bat roosts such as the hanging tiles.

The building on site is not of importance to biodiversity but due to a low potential of bat roosts

being present and the need to check for nesting birds, the following measures are

recommended:

CSH Key Recommendations

• Prior to demolition the exterior of the building should be surveyed for the presence of bats.

This could entail detailed inspection of exterior crevices particularly associated with the

hanging tiles. In addition, at least one emergence survey for bats should be undertaken

between May-August to ascertain if bats are observed emerging from any locations around

the building.

• It is not considered to be a high risk that bat roosts will be present due to the small number

of features and the levels of disturbance that the building receives therefore one survey is

considered proportionate to the level of risk at this stage,


23

• If a bat roost is found further advice from a suitably licensed ecologist will be necessary and

a European Protected Species Licence may need to be applied for and in place prior to

demolition.

• If the demolition is likely to take place in the bird nesting season (generally March-August) a

check for active nests or nesting birds associated with the building or the vegetation likely to

be disturbed by the site activities should be undertaken by a suitably experienced person or

ecologist.

• Measures to enhance the site post-development for bats and birds are given under the

relevant headings below.

6.3.5 Walls and Hardstanding The wall and hardstanding are of no importance to biodiversity therefore no recommendations

are made.

6.4 Protected Species

There are limited habitats on the survey site itself to support protected species. However, the

building and trees within the woodland are suitable for supporting nesting birds and roosting or

foraging bats.

6.4.1 Bats

Bats are protected as European Protected Species (EPS) under both the Conservation of

Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

(as amended). This legislation is strict making it an offence to deliberately destroy bat roosts,

kill or injure bats or disturb their places of shelter usually taken to mean their roosts – this

applies at all times whether bats are present or not. To ensure developers do not commit such

offences in the course of their activities a suitably precautionary approach to development must

be undertaken to establish whether bat roosts are present on a site prior development or site

clearance activities commencing.

The building and trees on the survey have been surveyed for any features that could support

bat roosts. The hanging tiles on the exterior of the building and two rot holes in mature trees

were observed which have some potential for supporting roosting bats.

In addition, bats such as pipistrelle and brown long eared species forage in and around

woodlands, and it is considered highly likely that bats will forage around the woodland habitat

particularly as it is associated with Whitewell Brook – a good source of insects for foraging.

Therefore the recommendations for retention and enhancement of the woodland resource will

also benefit local bat populations.


24


• Prior to demolition the exterior of the building should be surveyed for the presence of bats.

This could entail detailed inspection of exterior crevices particularly associated with the

hanging tiles. In addition, at least one emergence survey for bats should be undertaken

between May-August to ascertain if bats are observed emerging from any locations around

the building. It is not considered to be a high risk that bat roosts will be present due to the

small number of features and the levels of disturbance that the building receives therefore

one survey is considered proportionate to the level of risk at this stage,

• If a bat roost is found further advice from a suitably licensed ecologist will be necessary and

a European Protected Species Licence may need to be applied for and in place prior to

demolition.

CSH Additional Recommendations

Measures that could be adopted within the scheme to benefit bat populations generally are

listed below:

• Potential new bat roosting features could be incorporated within the new build on the site

such as the installation of integrated, self-contained pre-fabricated bat tubes, bat boxes or

bat bricks within buildings or incorporating features such as wooden fascia or barge boards

on buildings with crevices measuring 450 mm wide x 10-20 mm high x100 mm deep.

• Climbing plants should be planted to cover selected buildings to create additional

biodiversity resources for invertebrates and bats. Suitable species are listed below:

o Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum

o Ivy Hedera helix

o Jasmine Jasminium officinale

o Dog rose Rosa canina

o Field rose Rosa arvensis

Climbing plants should be allowed to mature to create a network of thicker stems that will

be potential features for roosting features for bats.

• Any lighting to be incorporated within the development of the site should be designed to

avoid disturbance to bats that are likely to forage across the site and any new features

incorporated within the development for bats as listed below:

o Avoid lighting around habitats retained or created such as screen planting tree or

grassland habitats.

o Low level directional lighting only should be used across the site

o The use of LED lighting or low-pressure sodium lamps with UV filters

o Limiting the height of lighting columns to less than 8 metres


25

o The use of cowls, hoods to increase directionality of light spill to an angle less than 70o

o Limiting the times lighting is used to create dark periods throughout the night

o Screening lighting with vegetation to create dark areas outside areas used by

residents/pedestrians.

6.4.2 Nesting Birds

Nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). As a

result, it is an offence to disturb birds and their nests during the breeding season – usually

March-August.

No active birds’ nests were observed during the site survey. However, there is potential for

nests to become established either in the building or trees and shrubs on site.


Therefore, in order to avoid disturbance to nesting birds the following recommendations are

made:

• If the demolition of the building is likely to take place in the bird nesting season (generally

March-August) a check for active nests or nesting birds associated with the building or the

vegetation likely to be disturbed by the site activities should be undertaken by a suitably

experienced person or ecologist.

• If nesting birds are found works will need to be managed to avoid disturbance to the nesting

birds until they have finished nesting and the young have fledged; i.e. if nesting birds were

found in the buildings demolition could only take place after the nesting has finished.

• If the works on site take place outside the nesting season, i.e. between September-

February there are not likely to be any issues in this respect.

The same measures that could be adopted within the scheme to benefit bat populations above

apply to birds also.

CSH Additional Recommendations In addition a range of bird boxes could be installed on site either associated with the buildings

or trees such as traditional nest boxes to benefit smaller bird species on mature trees or

sparrow boxes, house martin/swallow nests or swift bricks incorporated into the building.


26

6.5 Non-Native Invasive species

Japanese knotweed, montbretia and rhododendron are all present on the Mytholme House site.

All these species are listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (as amended)

making it an offence to “plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild”. Japanese knotweed and

any contaminated soil is classified as ‘controlled waste’ under the Environmental Protection Act

1990 (England, Wales & Scotland), and must be disposed of accordingly.

The presence of non-native invasive species reduces the quality of habitats due to their

competitive nature that displaces native flora. Where these species exist the ecological value of

habitats is reduced, however this can be ameliorated through appropriate eradication of non-

native invasive species and restoration of habitats comprising native species.


Working methods on site will need to be managed to ensure these species are not spread

further, particularly into the woodland, by site clearance or development activities and

preferably eradicated and replaced by native species or new native habitats.

It is important that the small amount of Japanese knotweed is treated prior to any site clearance

as without treatment this could continue to spread and contaminate soils or extend into a wider

area on site which can ultimately affect buildings materials and foundations. The following link

details the current Code of Practice for eradicating Japanese knotweed.

• Japanese Knotweed Code of Practice: http://www.environment-

agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Knotweed_CoP.pdf

In addition to Schedule 9 plants, the non-native plants present in the woodland should be

removed and replaced with native species as listed in paragraph 6.3.2 above.

7/ References

27

7. References

• Bat Conservation Trust (2012). Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation

Trust, London.

• Communities and Local Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework March

2012

• Communities and Local Government (2005) Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation - Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within the Planning System.

• English Nature (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines

• Fure A (2006) Bats and Lighting The London Naturalist No 85, 2006

• Lancashire Biodiversity Partnership: Lancashire BAP Habitat and Species Action Plans

Available: http://www.lancspartners.org/lbap/biodiversity_action_plans.asp

• Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Interactive Map

Available: www.magic.gov.uk

• Rossendale Borough Council (2011) Core Strategy Development Plan Document:

The Way Forward (2011-2026) Adopted 8th November 2011

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan

Available: www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk/plans/national.asp


Appendix A

1

Appendix A Wildlife Legislation The following has been produced as a guide, to outline possible offences that could occur during

development. For a definitive list of all species of flora and fauna, and a full interpretation you should refer

to relevant Acts listed below.

A.1 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

A.1.1 Schedule 1

Applies to all wild birds where it is an offence:

• to kill, injure or take any wild bird (subject to certain exceptions)

• to take, damage or destroy a nest whilst it is in use or being built

• to take or destroy the egg of any wild bird.

It is also an offence to disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside

Act 1981 (as amended)

• while it is nest building

• at a nest containing eggs or young

• disturbs the dependant young of any such bird.

A.1.2 Schedule 5

For animals fully protected under Schedule 5 which includes, all bats, great crested newts,

otters, water voles, sand lizards, smooth snake and natterjack toad. It is an offence:

• to intentionally kill or injure or take

• to intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place

which a species uses for shelter or protection, at any time even if the animal is not there.

• to intentionally or recklessly disturb whilst it is occupying a place which it uses for shelter or

protection.

• to obstruct access to any structure or place which an animal uses for shelter or protection.

Adder, grass snake, common lizard and slow worm are only protected from being killed or

injured and the white- clawed crayfish is only protected from being taken.

A.1.3 Schedule 8

Specific species of plants listed in Schedule 8 are protected. It is an offence:

• to intentionally pick, uproot or destroy a wild plant listed in Schedule 8.


Appendix A

2

A.1.4 Schedule 9

Invasive non-native species are listed under Schedule 9. It is an offence:

• to plant or otherwise cause to grow in the wild.

If soils are contaminated by invasive non native plant species it becomes classified as ‘controlled waste’ under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (England, Wales & Scotland),

and must be disposed of accordingly.

A.2 The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010

Schedule 2 applies to all European Protected Species (EPS) which included all bat species,

great crested newts, dormice, otters, sand lizards, smooth snake and natterjack toad. The

protection afforded is overlapping but separate from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended)

It is an offence:

• to deliberately capture, injure or kill

• to deliberately disturb

• to damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of an EPS; this applies whether

species are present or not.

In order to permit a development where the above offences to a European Protected Species

are likely to be committed, a European Protected Species Licence can be obtained from Natural

England where appropriate mitigation is offered to offset the negative impacts to local

populations.

A.3 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Under this Act it is an offence inter alia:

• to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a badger sett by:

a) damaging a sett or any part of one

b) destroying a sett

c) obstructing access to any entrance of a sett

d) disturbing a badger when occupying a sett

Where interference with a badger sett cannot be avoided during development, a licence from

Natural England should be applied for.


Appendix B

3

Appendix B Phase 1 Habitat Plan


Appendix C

4

Appendix C Code for Sustainable Homes – Ecology Assessment

Below is a summary of the anticipated credits available for this scheme for the Ecology section of the

Code for Sustainable Homes:

Ecological Value of Site – 1 credit

Aim: To promote development on land that already has a limited value to wildlife, and discourage the

development of ecologically valuable sites.

The land at the Mytholme House site is of ecological value due to the presence of trees over 1m high

with a trunk diameter over 100mm and woodland. Therefore this credit may not be achievable.

However this credit can be achieved if all ecological features are outside the construction zone (i.e. not

within the development boundary or a 3m buffer) and protected and retained throughout development.

Ecological Enhancement – 1 credit

Aim: Where a suitably qualified ecologist has been appointed to recommend appropriate ecological

features that will positively enhance the ecology of the site.

AND

Where the developer adopts all key recommendations and 30% of additional recommendations.

A suitably qualified ecologist has been appointed and carried out an assessment of the site as evidenced

by this report. Tabatha Boniface is a Chartered Environmentalist and Full Member of the Chartered

Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management.

The recommendations are from the SQE are detailed in Section 6 of this report.

The developer will need to confirm which recommendations they will be adopting and demonstrate their

implementation to gain the credit.

Protection of Ecological Features – 1 credit

Aim: To promote the protection of existing ecological features from substantial damage during the

clearing of the site and the completion of construction works.


Appendix C

5

In order to gain this credit the developer needs to provide detailed documentary evidence to demonstrate

the mature trees and woodland habitat have been protected as per BS 5837 Trees in relation to

Construction and retained on site post development or where they had to be removed for health & safety

purposes.

Change in Ecological Value of Site – 4 credits

Aim: To minimise reductions and promote an improvement in ecological value.

The pre-development species list and areas are currently being worked up by the SQE.

To be determined once the final landscaping scheme has been agreed and the calculation can be made

by the assessor.

Building Footprint – 2 credits

Aim: To promote the efficient use of a building’s footprint by ensuring that land and material is optimised

across the development.

The SQE cannot comment on this credit.

Capita Symonds Ltd

Capita Blackburn Business Centre

CastleWay House

17 Preston New Road

Blackburn

BB2 1AU

Tel +44 (0)1254 273000

Fax +44 (0)1254 273559 www.capitasymonds.com