Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Biodiversity and Waterfront DevelopmentLeeds Local Development Framework
Supplementary Planning DocumentDecember 2006
Contents
Background 2
Aims and Objectives 3
Status 4
Waterways in Leeds 5
Policy Background 6
An Asset for the Future 8
Guidelines 9
References and Further Reading 20
Appendix 1Leeds Waterfront StrategyFindings of the Ecological Survey 21- Introduction 22 - Survey Methodology 23 - Findings 33 - Evaluation 34 - Recommendations 37 - Table 1 - Established Survey 38 Methodologies Reviewed for Application - Table 2 - Description of Habitat 39 Categories and Examples (not exhaustive) of Representative Flora and Fauna
Contacts 43
1
The River Aire, the Leeds and Liverpoolcanal and the Aire and CalderNavigation form a major habitatcorridor running through the urbanarea of Leeds. Water quality,particularly in the river, has improvedsignificantly in recent years. A majorissue now for the river corridor andother watercourses through the urbanarea is improving the habitat resourceto maintain and increase the range ofspecies present.
The river Wharfe flows along the northern boundary of the district. It is the least polluted and most natural major river in West Yorkshire so it is important that any development along the river maintains and enhances this valuable natural feature.
Waterside development provides an opportunity to achieve some of thesegoals through sympathetic design, implementation and management.
Background
The Leeds Waterfront Strategy, published in 2002, provides guidance on waterfront design. The Waterfront Strategy acknowledges the need for additional research to address the ecological value of the river Aire corridor through central Leeds and this work forms part of these guidelines. The importance of all waterway corridors for wildlife should not be underestimated and one of the aims of these guidelines is to provide advice on how development can retain and enhance wildlife habitats along all waterways in the Leeds district.
A natural river system would include a variety of inchannel and bankside habitats. However, withinurban areas many of these habitats are lost ormodified and the channel straightened and oftenreinforced with hard edges. This simplified habitatprovides fewer opportunities for wildlife species tofind food, shelter and breeding places.
There are a number of rivers, canals and becks in the Leeds district as illustrated on page 5.
2 3
Leeds Waterfront Strategy Engineered bank in Leeds city centre
Aims andObjectives
Aim
<to provide a framework to inform, guide and assess new development at waterfront locations throughout the Leeds district to ensure that biodiversity issues are fully considered and addressed.
Objectives
<to identify and safeguard existing habitats;<to provide guidance on the ecological design of developments within waterway corridors;
<to provide guidance on the conservation of protected and important species;
<to identify opportunities for habitat enhancement, creation and restoration;
<to encourage appropriate long term habitat management.
2 3
4 5
The ecological survey (Appendix 1)focuses on the Leeds WaterfrontStrategy area as this is currently thezone of greatest developmentpressure. However, the guidelines inthis document are applicable todevelopment proposals adjacent to allwatercourses within the district. Theguidelines will apply to alldevelopments (except individualhouseholder applications) adjacent torivers, becks or canals within the Leedsdistrict.
Relationship with otherDocuments
The guidelines should be read inconjunction with the Leeds WaterfrontStrategy (supplementary guidance 21).
This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been preparedby a number of partnerorganisations with an interest inwaterway ecology. The partners areLeeds City Council, EYE on the Aire(now part of Leeds Voice), Natural England, British Waterways, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency.
Status
Crow
n Co
pyri
ght.
All
righ
ts re
serv
ed. L
eeds
Cit
y Co
unci
l O.S
. Lic
ence
No.
10
00
1956
7
4 5
Waterways in Leeds
Key
Main rivers
Ordinary watercourses
This SPD expands the following policies in the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review (2006).
GP7Where development would not otherwise be acceptable and a condition would not be effective, aplanning obligation will be necessary before planning permission is granted. This obligation should cover those matters which would otherwise result in permission being withheld and if possible should enhance the overall quality of the development.
Its requirements should be necessary, relevant to planning, directly related to the proposed development, fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects.
N8The strategic network of urban green corridors linksthe main urban area with the countryside. Thesecorridors provide or have potential to provide forinformal recreation and also contribute to visualamenity and nature conservation. Within thesecorridors development proposals should ensurethat:
i. any existing corridor function of the land is retained, enhanced or replaced; andii. where there is potential to create a link between existing green spaces provision is made for one or more corridor function.
N9All development proposals should respect andwhere possible enhance the intrinsic value of land infulfilling a corridor function in terms of access,recreation, nature conservation and visual amenity.
N39Culverting or canalisation of watercourses within orrelated to development sites will not normally bepermitted, unless there are public safetyconsiderations or development could not beachieved in any other way. The City Council willpromote actively re-opening culverts andrestoration of canalised watercourses to a morenatural state.
N49Development will not normally be permitted whichthreatens significant net depletion orimpoverishment of the district’s wildlife or habitatresources, geological features or landforms. Designof new development, including landscaping, shouldminimise its potential adverse impact.
PolicyBackground
6 7
6 7
N50Development will not be permitted which wouldseriously harm, either directly or indirectly, throughany means, a SSSI, LNR, SEGI or LNA.
In considering development proposals for any of theabove nature sites the needs of the developmentand the requirements of nature conservation will beexamined. In particular account will be taken of:
i. The extent and significance of potential damage to nature conservation interest;ii. The extent to which that damage could be reduced by imposing conditions on a planning permission;iii. The importance of the proposed development to the local, regional or national interest;iv. In the case of a LNA, whether a replacement site of equivalent nature conservation interest can be provided within the same locality.
N51The design of new development, includinglandscaping, should wherever possible enhanceexisting wildlife habitats and provide new areas forwildlife as opportunities arise. Where newdevelopment is proposed adjacent to any area ofexisting nature conservation interest, a buffer zonewill be required.
LT6BThe City Council will seek where appropriate tosecure footpath access and public rights of wayalong both banks of the River Aire and its majortributaries, and also along the Leeds canal system,having regard to public safety and natureconservation interests.
CC1Where city centre development proposals would nototherwise be acceptable and a condition would notbe effective, a planning obligation will be necessaryfor planning permission to be granted. Where itwould be relevant to the development proposed the City Council will seek to conclude a planning obligation to:
i. achieve or contribute towards specific elements of the transport strategy, environmental improvements or community facilities, including provision of an acceptable balance of uses in mixed use developments, orii. make proportionate financial contribution through commuted payments, to be used by the City Council to secure elements of the transport strategy, environmental improvements or community facilities.
Any obligations must comply with thetests set out in the final sentence ofpolicy GP7.
LD1Any landscape scheme shouldnormally: ...
v. Protect existing vegetation, including shrubs, hedges and trees. Sufficient space is to be allowed around buildings to enable existing trees to be retained in a healthy condition and both existing and new trees to grow to maturity without significant adverse effect on the amenity or structural stability of buildings;vi. Complement existing beneficial landscape, ecological or architectural features and help to integrate them as part of the development.
National Planning Policy
National policies of particularrelevance to this supplementaryplanning document are set out inPlanning Policy Statement 1 DeliveringSustainable Development, PlanningPolicy Statement 9 Biodiversity andGeological Conservation and Planning Policy Statement 25 Development and Flood Risk.
The waterfront area represents amajor asset for the city of Leeds andthe main river and beck corridorsprovide an essential resource forwildlife and a focus for recreation.For many years the city centreturned its back to the river but thepotential of this area and otherwaterside locations is now beingrealised as an attractive backdropfor both residential and commercialdevelopment.
An attractive waterfront location can addsignificant value to a development.
The river and canal corridor provides valuable linearopen space for people living and working in the citycentre. Access to quality open spaces and everydaycontact with nature makes an important contribution to quality of life, particularly for people living in urban areas.
The river corridor provides important amenity space Mute swans with cygnets in Leeds city centre
An Asset for the Future
Natural areas along the waterfrontprovide an attractive contrast to theheavily managed parks and formalgardens that provide ‘open greenspace’ in much of the city and the smallenclosed planted borders withinresidents’ own gardens. The banksidevegetation and over-hanging treesbring a sense of the countryside intothe very heart of the city as their‘wildness’ helps to break up theuniformity of straight lines and hardsurfaces, adding natural shapes,colours and depth. These guidelinesseek to build on this strength and torealise the full potential of watersidedevelopments for both people andwildlife.
The River Aire brings a taste of the countryside to Leeds city centre
8 9
Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Leeds City Council O.S. Licence No. 100019567
Guidelines
Ecological Assessment
1. An ecological assessment will be required to accompany the submission of all planning applications for major development on sites with a river, beck or canal frontage.
Major development is defined in Circular 15/92 andcovers the following categories of development:
Extract from Waterfront Ecological Survey
<The erection of 10 or more dwellings, or if this is not known, where the site is 0.5 hectares or more;<In other cases, where the floorspace to be created is 1000 sq metres or the site area is 1 hectare or more;<The winning and working of minerals or the use of land for mineral working deposits;<All waste developments, meaning any development designed to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of treating, storing, processing or disposing of refuse or waste materials.
The City Council will also require anecological assessment for smallerdevelopments where sensitive habitats, protected species or the function of waterways as a continuing wildlife corridor may be affected.
Woodland and marginal vegetation along the River Aire
8 9
Where there is a delay betweenplanning permission being granted andthe commencement of developmentfollow up surveys, particularly forprotected species, may be required.The survey data presented in Appendix 1should be used as a guide to existinghabitats and features present within theWaterfront Strategy area at the time ofthe survey. However, ecologicalassessments for individual developmentsites will be necessary to provide adetailed description of the habitats,features and species present and toidentify key issues for consideration. The assessment should include all landaffected by the development,particularly where habitats may havedeveloped on previously developed orunused land.
Surveys within the Waterfront Strategyarea should be based on themethodology outlined in Appendix 1rather than more traditional surveymethodologies, such as Phase 1 habitatsurvey and National VegetationClassification, and the habitatassessment should take account of theurban context.
All assessments should includeconsultation with the local biologicalrecord centre - West Yorkshire Ecology- to obtain any existing records for the site.
Developers should recognise thatmeaningful surveys can often only becarried out at certain times of year. For
example, vegetation surveys are most effectiveduring the summer months and bat surveys aregenerally best carried out during the period May toSeptember when bats are most active. Developersare advised to appoint ecological consultants at anearly stage to reduce the likelihood of wildlife issuescausing a delay later in the development process.The submitted report should include an assessmentof the likely impact of the proposed development;recommendations for impact avoidance andmitigation; and proposals to maintain and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity interests.
Retention of Existing Habitats and otherValuable Structures/Features
2. Existing waterside habitats and features of value for wildlife should be retained.
Remaining areas of soft vegetated bank and areasof (often vegetated) silt adjacent to engineeredbanks provide a valuable habitat within thewaterfront area. Other features such as vegetatedwalls, ledges, bridges and floating platforms mayalso be of value for wildlife.
In assessing development proposals adjacent torivers, becks and canals the City Council will haveregard to the survey data included in Appendix 1(where the development is within the WaterfrontStrategy area) and the results of individualecological assessments.
Where existing habitats and features of value arepresent, provision should be made for theirretention as part of the site layout. This will requireconsideration at an early stage in the design process.
Marginal vegetation next to Leeds Bridge
10 11
Stone walls provide opportunities for plants to colonise
Native planting introduced to canal side(photo: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust)
3. New bridge crossings should be designed and located to avoid the loss of or disturbance to existing habitats or to protected species.
New footbridges should be designed to avoiddamaging habitats on the river and canal banks.The design should take account of the additionalarea required for construction.
4. Where loss of habitat is unavoidable, mitigation will be required in the form of alternative habitat provision.
It is anticipated that existing bankside habitats willbe lost only in exceptional circumstances, such as toenable construction of a bridge link to avoidproviding public access to undisturbed sections ofbank. Other habitats may be lost as vacant andunderused land is redeveloped. In thesecircumstances alternative habitat provision orenhancement will be required. This may be providedon site or through a contribution to off site works.
Where bankside habitats are affected itis anticipated that the habitats onnearby sections will be enhanced. Forexample, this could involve providing ameans by which vegetation cancolonise engineered banks or theprovision of vegetated platforms.
Replacement habitat within adevelopment site could beaccommodated on a green roof (seeguideline 12 on page 16), throughsustainable drainage features and aspart of the landscape scheme for thesite.
New bridge crossing
10 11
This floating platform provides a haul-out site for otters
(Photos: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust)
5. New sections of engineered bank will generally not be acceptable unless essential for flood defence or safety purposes.
Any works in, over, under or within 8 metres of the bank top of a main river will require the prior formal consent of the Environment Agency under theterms of the Water Resources Act 1991. Main rivers in Leeds are the rivers Aire and Wharfe, Collingham Beck, Oulton Beck and Kirkstall Goit and parts of thefollowing: Cock Beck, Meanwood Beck, Wyke Beck, Wortley Beck, Farnley Wood Beck, Red Beck, Bagley Beck, Holbeck (Otley) and Kelbeck.
The Environment Agency is, in general, opposed to the removal of natural embankments and their replacement with ‘hard’ engineered structures because of the adverse ecological and morphological effects that are likely to arise.
The Environment Agency will therefore only approve an application to remove or replace a natural embankment where the replacement is a fundamental part of a flood alleviation scheme, there is no reasonably practicable alternative or if the detrimental effect of the replacement would be so minor that they would not justify a more costlyalternative. In all cases where it is appropriate to do so adequate mitigation and compensation must be provided for damage caused.
Under the terms of the Council’s Land Drainage Byelaws, no person should erect any building or structure (permanent or temporary), or trees and shrubs, within 9 metres of an ordinary watercourse without the prior consent of the Council. This includes engineered banks and similar considerations will apply as in the case of “main rivers”.
Any works to culvert or cover over a watercourse (of any kind) require the prior approval of the Council under the terms of the Public Health Act 1936 and the Environment Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
The Environment Agency will resist culverting on conservation and other grounds and consent for such work will not normally be granted except for access crossings.
Where new engineered banks are installed these should be designed to incorporate vegetation or to allow vegetation to colonise.
6. Existing habitats and features of value for wildlife should be protected during construction.
Where important habitats or other features are present on or adjacent to a site, measures will be required to ensure that these are not damagedduring construction. This may involve the use of protective fencing or other measures such as controlling run off or other pollution from the site to the water environment. These issues will normally be dealt with by a planning condition.
Vegetation introduced to sheet piling along the Huddersfield Canal
12 13
Scrub can provide a useful habitat for nesting birds - in this case developing on a vacant brownfield site
Protected Species
7. Provision should be made for the conservation of protected and important species.
A number of species receive protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and European legislation, which makes it an offence tocarry out certain activities without a licence from the relevant authority. Developers are advised to consult Natural England’s website www.naturalengland.org.uk for an up to date list of protected species and details on how to apply for a licence.
Typical protected species that have beenrecorded along waterways in the Leedsdistrict and are quite likely to be encountered by developers include otters,bats, water vole, white clawed crayfish, kingfisher and other breeding birds.
Developers should check with the local record centre, West Yorkshire Ecology, for known records of protected species at an early stage (allow 20 working days for data requests). A survey will be required where protected species are known or suspected to be present on or adjacent to a site. The results of the survey should be submitted as part of the planning application. Surveys for many species can only be carried out at certain times of the year, so early discussion with West Yorkshire Ecology can help to prevent avoidable delays.
Water Vole (Photo: Environment Agency)Otters (Photo: Environment Agency)
Where protected species are present a detailedimpact avoidance and mitigation scheme will berequired.
It is an offence to disturb, injure or kill a number ofspecies or to damage or disturb their habitatwithout first obtaining a licence from the relevantauthority. The granting of planning permissionusually does not over-ride the requirement toobtain a licence. Developments can often bedelayed considerably where developers have notconfirmed the absence of protected species at anearly stage in their plans or formulated appropriate mitigation proposals to deal with any which have been recorded.
A number of species have been identified as beingof principal importance for the conservation ofbiodiversity in England (a list is available on theDepartment of Environment Food and Rural Affairswebsite - www.defra.gov.uk). Where these speciesare present on or adjacent to a development sitemeasures will be required to protect them from theadverse effects of development.
12 13
14 15
Habitat Management and Enhancement
8. Biodiversity enhancements will be sought as part of waterside
developments.
Where a watercourse lies within or forms any part of the boundary to a development site, biodiversity enhancements (in addition to any mitigation required under guideline 4) will be sought as part of that development.
The type and scale of enhancement required will vary depending on the size of the development and the habitat and features present within or immediately adjacent to the site. Examples of enhancements include:
<re-opening of culverted watercourses;< introduction of vegetation to engineered banks;<creation of meanders along canalised sections of watercourse;<provision of vegetated aquatic ledges;<removal of weirs or provision of fish passes to weirs (see below);<provision of otter holts or other lying up sites for otters;<habitat improvements for other aquatic or riparian species, such as water vole and white clawed crayfish;<management or planting of bankside trees, shrubs and other vegetation;<control of invasive species (see guideline 16).
Weirs can act as significant barriers to fish movement upstream in rivers. The River Aire Fish Pass Action Plan 2005, published by the Environment Agency, identifies priorities for the next five years for the river Aire but fish passes will also be sought where necessary on other weirs.
Fish pass on weir (Photo: Environment Agency)
The City Council anticipates that biodiversity enhancements will be secured largely through planning conditions. However, where on site enhancements cannot be secured contributions will be sought for off site enhancements. Given the variety of watercourses and habitats present in the Leeds district it is not practical to identify all possible enhancements in this document. The need for off site enhancements will be identified at the pre-application stage, wherever possible, and contributions will always be related in scale to the proposed development.
Contributions may be towards projects administered by the City Council or by other organisations such as British Waterways, the Environment Agency or Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.
Assessing each proposal or development in relation to the storage and conveyance of water is vital. Consent is required from the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1981 wherever anyone intends to carry out work on, over, under or within 8m of a designated main river. On other watercourses, known as non-main river, a Land Drainage consent will be required from the Environment Agency where works obstruct the flow of the watercourse such as a culvert, weir or flow control structure. The Environment Agency will consider each proposal individually however, there are measures that may be less likely to conflict with flood defence priorities than others. Applicants are encouraged to consult with the Environment Agency at the pre-application stage.
9. Provision should be made for the management/maintenance of existing and new waterside habitats.
As with all on-site landscape, planting and openspace proposals there will be a requirement for amaintenance scheme for existing and new habitatfeatures. Where these are retained or created either on or off site as part of a development. Management may be as simple as regular removal of litter or other debris or it may involve more intervention, such as periodic cutting of bankside vegetation to control scrub encroachment.
It is likely that details and responsibilities formanagement will be required through a planningcondition or legal agreement.
Under the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Act 1991 both the Environment Agency and local authorities have permissive powers to maintain watercourses. Their jurisdiction depends on the watercouse designation as ‘main river’ or ‘ordinary watercourse.’ However responsibility for general maintenance of watercourses and their banks rests with riparian owners.
10. Development should be set back from the banks of rivers, becks and canals to provide/maintain an open corridor and to allow for the retention or creation of soft edge treatments.
The Waterfront Strategy proposes a public zone between new development and the river or canal. The width and character of this zone will vary according to the location with more formal treatments being
accepted within zone 2. Public access will not always be required or appropriate within this zone (see guideline 15 on page 18). The treatment of this zone should reflect existing habitats and species and provide opportunities for enhancement through sympathetic design. The requirement for an undevelopedbuffer will also apply to watersidedevelopments outside the WaterfrontStrategy area but it will not applywhere an existing building or structureabutting the water is to be retained.
A buffer strip is also generally required for flood defence purposes (to provide access for future maintenance of the watercourse).
Consent from the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures within 8m of a main river of any flood defence maintained by the Environment Agency.
11. Landscape schemes should incorporate locally appropriate species to complement existing habitats and features on the site and to provide additional habitats for wildlife.
In general native species of local provenance will be encouraged as these tend to support a greater variety of wildlife than ornamental species.
There will be no requirements for a buffer where existingbuildings are retained
Native planting in this pond provides avaluable habitat in the city centre
14 15
Landscape schemes should seek to create links between habitat areas, extend existing habitats and create new habitats. West Yorkshire Ecologycan provide information on native species that are found locally along the waterfront so that appropriate planting can take place.
Where new tree planting is proposed it should be designed to avoid creating dense shade along continuous stretches of waterway bank.
Forward planning for larger schemes is stronglyadvised because if large quantities of localprovenance plants are required they may need tobe specially sourced and grown on. If trees andshrubs are needed the lead-in time may be quitelengthy to ensure that they are grown on to therequired size before planting out.
New Structures and Features forWildlife
12. ‘Green’ roofs will be encouraged for waterside developments.
Green roofs can be used on flat or gently slopingroofs. In addition to providing habitat these roofscan reduce maintenance by providing protection toroof structures, help to reduce surface water runoffand can provide an attractive and interestingroofscape.
Green roof at Ecology Building Society offices, Silsden
16 17
(Photo: Yorkshire Wildlife Trust)
There are a number of options for green roofs ranging from formal roof gardens, where even trees can be accommodated, to low maintenance sedum roofs. Selection will depend on such factors as cost, load bearing of roof structures, visual amenity andrequirement for habitat creation.
Green roofs can also utilise demolition waste or other material from a site to provide a substrate for natural colonisation of vegetation. The idea is to replicate the conditions found on many brownfield sites which often provide habitat for a range ofspecialist plants, insects and birds.
13. Waterside developments should be designed to incorporate features of value for wildlife.
New development at waterside locations can make a positive contribution to biodiversity byincorporating new features or structures for wildlife. Within the channel this could include the provision of floating vegetated pontoons or other features such as those on page 11. Within the development this may include the provision of suitably sited bird and bat nesting/roosting sites.
Incorporating Features of Value for WildlifeExample of Provision for Nesting SwiftsCopyright Edward Mayer/London Swifts
16 17
Swift Boxes - Copyright Graham Roberts/Sussex Swift Project
This wooded bank provides an excellentrefuge area in the city centre
This undisturbed bank of the Leeds Liverpool Canalprovides a mallard nesting site
Sustainable Drainage
14. Waterside developments should incorporate sustainable drainage features.
Developers should refer to SustainableDrainage in Leeds: supplementaryguidance 22 where possiblesustainable drainage features should be designed to provide wildlife habitats.
Public Access and Wildlife
15. Careful consideration should be given to proposals for public access to waterside areas, taking into account the impact on sensitive species and habitats.
Species need places to breed, sleep, feed and avoidpredation. Areas free from public access provide animportant refuge for wildlife and such areas arevital in supporting a range of species whichcontribute to biodiversity within waterway corridors.
A balance will be required between the objective ofimproving public access along waterways and theneed to retain and provide wildlife refuge areas orcorridors. These issues will be considered on a sitespecific basis as development proposals comeforward. The ecological assessment for the siteshould include consideration of the impact of publicaccess proposals.
New bridges may be required to maintainfootpath/cycleway links whilst bypassing wildliferefuge areas.
Planning obligations will be used to secure contributions for new bridges where these are required as part of the development.
18 19
Management of Invasive Alien Plant Species
16. Measures to control the spread of invasive alien species will be required where these are present on development sites.
A number of introduced species are causingconsiderable damage to habitats within the UK.Species of particular concern which are present along waterways in Leeds are Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed and Himalayan Balsam. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to plant Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed or to cause them to grow in the wild. At present Himalayan Balsam is not covered by this legislation.
The ecological assessment should identify thelocation of any invasive alien species within thedevelopment site. A method statement for thecontrol of these species will normally be requiredunder a planning condition. A control programme may take several years. Where invasive speciesare removed from the river bank the method statement should also include proposals for the establishment of replacement native vegetation. Management plans should include provision for the control of invasive species.
Consent is required from theEnvironment Agency for the use ofherbicides near a watercourse.
Whilst control on individual sites is auseful starting point a successful longterm strategy for dealing with invasivespecies is likely to require a corridorwide approach.
The City Council will encourage thedevelopment of corridor wide invasivespecies control plans.
Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed growing along the River Aire
Himalayan Balsam - (Photo: EnvironmentAgency)
18 19
References and Further Reading
AUTHOR DATE TITLE PUBLISHER
Anon. 1994 Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan. HMSOAnon. 1995 Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report HMSO Vol. 1: Meeting the Rio Challenge
Anon. 1995 Biodiversity: the UK Steering Group Report HMSO Vol. 2: Action Plans
Briggs, J 1996 Canals-wildlife value and restoration issues British Wildlife British Wildlife 7(6): 365-377 Publishing
Department of Environment, 2002 Working with the Grain of Nature: DEFRA Food and Rural Affairs a biodiversity strategy for England
De Waal, L.C, Child, L.E and 1994 Ecology and management of invasive Wiley, ChichesterWade, P.M riverside plants
English Nature Research Report No. 256. A framework for the English Nature future : green networks with multiple uses in and around towns and cities
English Nature 2003 Research Report No. 498. Green Roofs: English Nature their existing status and potential for conserving biodiversity in urban areas
Environment Agency 2003 Guidance for the control of invasive weeds Environment Agency in or near fresh water
Environment Agency 2005 Help Protect Bats - guidance for works Environment Agency affecting watercourses
Environment Agency 2005 The River Aire Fish Pass Action Plan Environment Agency
Environment Agency 2006 The Knotweed Code of Practice Environment Agency
Gilbert, O.L 1989 The Ecology of Urban Habitats Clapham and Hall, London
Gilbert, O.L 1992 The ecology of an urban river. British Wildlife British Wildlife 3 (3): 129-136 Publishing
Gilbert, O.L & Pearman, M.C 1988 The Ecology of the Urban River Don University of Sheffield
Leeds City Council 1998 Sustainable Development Design Guide LCC Supplementary Guidance 10
Leeds City Council 2000 City Centre Urban Design Strategy LCC
Leeds City Council 2001 Biodiversity Action Plan LCC
Leeds City Council 2002 Biodiversity and Development LCC
Leeds City Council 2004 Sustainable Drainage in Leeds LCC Supplementary Guidance 22
Leeds City Council 2006 Unitary Development Plan Review. LCCThe Leeds Initiative 2006 Leeds Waterfront Strategy Partial Review Leeds Initiative (July 2006)
Oxford, M. J. 2000 Developing Naturally: A Handbook for Association of Incorporating Natural Environments into Local Government Planning and Development Ecologists (ALGE)
River Restoration Centre River Restoration Manual www.therrc.co.uk
RSPB, NRA, RSNC 2001 The New Rivers and Wildlife Handbook RSPB
20 21
20 21
Appendix 1
Leeds Waterfront StrategyFindings of the Ecological SurveySummer 2003
Jonathan Hart-Woods (British Waterways)Morgan Barnard (Yorkshire Wildlife Trust)Rosie Hinks (Environment Agency)Louise Rutherford (York University)
Appendix 1
Leeds Waterfront StrategyFindings of the Ecological SurveySummer 2003
Jonathan Hart-Woods (British Waterways)Morgan Barnard (Yorkshire Wildlife Trust)Rosie Hinks (Environment Agency)Louise Rutherford (York University)
A summary of the results of both surveys are presented in thisdocument. The initial British Waterways survey was jointly funded and resourced by British Waterways and English Nature. The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust’s time was funded by the SEED programme of the New Opportunities Fund.
Appendix 1
22 23
Survey Area
The survey focuses on the most urban stretch of the River Aire corridor which passes through the heart of the city of Leeds. The western end of the studybegins at Armley Mills and continues to Thwaite Mills, a distance of approximately 6.5km. The land alongthe river and canal corridor is extremely built up and its use is predominantly commercial and industrial with some residential areas. The channel morphology is highly engineered and bank types range fromman-made structures, such as stone masonry and sheet piling, to silt earth and bedrock.
Recreational use is mainly in the form of walking, running, dog-walking, cycling and angling.
Aims
The primary aim of the ecological survey was to determine the variety, quality and extent of habitats on the River Aire, the Aire and Calder Navigation and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, between Thwaite Mills and Armley Mills. This geographical area corresponds to that of the Leeds Waterfront Strategy. The initial survey of this area was carried out by British Waterways using a survey method devised to collect a broad spectrum of habitat data. A subsequent survey of the same area was carried out by the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust looking more specifically at man-made and habitat structures rather than flora.
Introduction
Recording of Data
A Geographical Information System (GIS) basedmethodology was designed in order to produce amap-based survey which would highlight habitats ofvalue throughout the corridor at a scale wheredetailed information could be incorporated. A formatfor data collection was devised which allowed thesurveyors freedom to record a full range of urbanecological data.
Each distinct area of habitat was drawn (in the fieldusing a palmtop computer) onto a base map. Foreach of these areas the following categories of datawere collected.
Unique habitat area (polygon) reference identifyingextent and location on a map.Habitat category (see below for definitions)A digital photo of the site.Unique photo reference.List of flora identified on the site.List of fauna identified on the site.Bank type and slopeInitial Management RecommendationsWaterway type e.g. river or canalWeather conditionsDateName of Surveyor
(This complete data set is recorded in Arcmap GISheld by British Waterways).
The survey was carried out on foot between 16thJuly and 30th July 2003, during daylight hours only,with three recorders in the field at all times. Themethodology was repeatable on each day ensuringthat results were consistent across the duration ofthe survey.
Preliminary Survey
During a preliminary survey a number of establishedsurvey methodologies were considered forapplication to the Leeds Waterfront Study area asshown in Table 1 (see page 38). These methodologies included National Vegetation Classification, River Landscape Assessment, River Habitat Survey, and River Corridor Survey. All these methodologies were rejected when field tested. They were not suitable for application to this specific urban environment for one or more of the following reasons; inappropriate scale, lacked floral or faunal detail, or were designed for natural channel environments and therefore inapplicable to this urban setting.
The habitats along the corridor were found to befragmented and sometimes small in size. Thereforeit was decided to devise habitat categories thatcould be defined by the survey team and wereparticularly significant within this survey area, suchas Wall vegetation. This approach would thensupply more detailed information specific to theLeeds waterway corridor rather than conforming togeneral classifications of vegetation based onnational classification systems such as the JNCCPhase 1 Survey.
An example of this is the mooring platforms orpontoons which would not be classified undernormal survey conditions but play a significant rolefor some wildlife species along this section of theRiver Aire corridor.
SurveyMethodology
22 23
Appendix 1
24 25
stone wash walls. The planting does not provide alink either physically or ecologically to the river bank.
PontoonThese large wooden structures usually 12 metres by2 metres in size provide mooring opportunities fornarrow boats on the navigable sections of the RiverAire between Centenary Bridge and Crown PointBridge. The pontoons are often linked in twos or
threes to provide asubstantial shelfbetween the steepriver bank and thewater’s edge.
The location of thepontoons provides arefuge for some aquatic plant species that require slow flowing water conditions betweenthe bank and thestructure such asPotomagetons spp.and Callitriche spp.
They also provide valuable sites for otters to climb out of the river to rest, feed and mark territory.
Tree-lined bankThis category describes the thin linear bands oftrees that often separate buildings from the rivercorridor. Significant tree lines exist on the northernbank of the river from Thwaite Mills to CentenaryBridge and on both banks intermittently fromWellington Road Bridge to Armley Mills Bridge. Thetrees, which may only be two or three deep in somelocations, usually comprise the same species: Alder(Alnus glutinosa) Crack willow (Salix fragilis) Whitewillow (Salix alba) Goat willow (Salix caprea) Elder(Sambucus nigra) and Sycamore (Acer psuedoplatanus).
A supplementary field survey of the same area wascarried out by Yorkshire Wildlife Trust using themaps and recording methods as defined by theprevious survey carried out by British Waterways.This survey was carried out by two recorders inSeptember and October 2003 during daylight hoursonly.
The data collected through the ecological survey was augmented by data collected via desktop research. Records were obtained from West Yorkshire Ecology and other recognised local sources, such as Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.
Habitat Categories Devised
For the purposes of this survey the most commonlyfound habitats along the waterfront corridor wereidentified by the survey team as the following:Amenity planting, Pontoon, Tree-lined bank, Scrub,Rank grassland, Improved grassland, Aquaticvegetation and Wall vegetation. Table 2 (see page 39) provides a summary of the survey results.
When these categories are used it can be assumedthat key species will always be present.
Amenity plantingThese areas were most commonly located in themore recently developed sections of the rivercorridor between Crown Point Bridge and VictoriaBridge. They consist of formally planted beds ofornamental shrub species such as Cotoneaster,Berberis, Lonicera and Pyracantha. Occasionalornamental tree species such as Betula and Sorbushave been planted in amongst the shrubs. Theplanting is often set back from the waters edgebetween recent building developments and the
24 25
This habitat type occurs where mowing takes placeonce or twice per year and the clippings are left inplace. Areas between the Trans Pennine Trail andthe waters edge running from Knostrop Flood Lockto Thwaite Mills was the largest open area of thishabitat type noted. Annual mowing even at lowfrequency prevents the establishment of woodyspecies associated with Scrub development alreadydescribed and creates another distinct habitat typealong the river corridor.
Improved grasslandThis habitat type describes the dominant vegetationfound in the mown areas of the River Aire corridor.The margins of the Trans Pennine Trail and the canaltowpaths managed by British Waterways are mownbetween 4 and 6 times per year. This managementprevents encroachment of the surfaces of the pathby Scrub species and maintains long thin strips ofshort grass. The clippings are often left in placeafter mowing and nutrient enrichments occur whenthe clippings decompose. Plant species able toexploit these nutrient rich conditions and colonisethis distinct linear zone were: Perennial ryegrass(Lolium perenne) Annual meadow-grass (Poaannua) species of clover (Trifolium spp.), Ribwortplantain (Plantago lanceolata) and Yarrow (Achilleamillefolium). As with scrub these areas weregenerally found to be narrow and linear.
Wall VegetationBetween Crown Point Bridge and Victoria Bridge,apart from occasional silt banks, there is little natural river bank vegetation in evidence. However,substantial vegetation can be seen, particularly onthe south wash wall of the river, growing out of themortar of the wall. This vegetation includes species
ScrubFor the purposes of this survey scrub describestransitional grasslands in the first stages ofcolonisation by pioneer trees, brambles and nettle.Along the corridor this habitat was seento be located in areas where regular mowing endsand no management occurs. Either side ofthe Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) and the canal towpathwere noted as being locations for this type ofhabitat. For this reason scrub exists largely as longthin linear strips between buildings and footpathsand not in large open areas of scrub dominatedvegetation. Typical species present would beHawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) Sycamore (Acerpsuedoplatanus) Bramble (Rubus fruticosus) Wildraspberry (Rubus idaeus ) Nettle (Urtica dioica) andRose-bay willowherb (Chaemerion angustifolium).
Rank grasslandsThis habitat type refers to nutrient rich grasslandsdominated by coarse grasses such as Cocksfoot(Dactlyis glomerata) Yorkshire fog (Holcuslanatus) and False-oat grass (Arrhenatherumelatius) with some species of Dock (Rumex Spp.)and Ragwort (Senecio jacobea) also present.
expected in these locations such as Wall rue(Asplenium ruta-muraria) Male fern (Dryopteris filixmas) and Harts-tongue fern (Aspleniumscolopendrium) Ivy-leaved toadflax (Cymbalariamuralis) as well as woody vegetation such as Alderand Sycamore and species such as Ragwort andRose-bay willowherb.
Aquatic VegetationThe aquatic vegetation recorded during this studyrefers generally to the dominant plant specieslocated in the shallow margins at the base of theriver-bank and the water’s edge. Along the RiverAire corridor this margin was dominated by Reed-canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Reed-sweet grass (Glyceria maxima) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera).
Large stands of these plants were in evidence onthe north bank of the river between the Dark Archesand Wellington Road Bridge. Another significantstand of this type can be seen from Crown PointBridge at the base of the wash wall of the lockisland and the weir at Fearns Wharf. In other areasthis vegetation persists as long narrow linear bandsin areas of shallow water where silt hasaccumulated at the base of wash walls. The longeststretch of this aquatic vegetation was recordedalong the base of the northern bank wash wall ofthe river between Leeds Bridge and Victoria Bridge.Small pockets of this vegetation type could also befound at intervals throughout the corridor at thebase of banks in shallow silty areas. The vegetationexists sometimes in bands of less than 0.5 metreand can sometimes consists of single plants only.These conditions also favour emergent aquaticspecies such as Arrowhead (Saggitaria saggitaria)
Broad-leaved pondweeds (Potamogeton Spp.)Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis) andDuckweeds (Lemna Spp.) as well as Gipsywort(Lycopus europaeus) and species of Sedge (CarexSpp.) and Rush (Juncus Spp.).
It should also be noted that small stands of othermarginal aquatic plants were recorded within thedominant plants of this habitat type. However theywere never recorded consistently enough to beincluded in the dominant plant category. Speciessuch as Bur-reed (Sparganium Spp.) Yellow iris (Irispsuedoacorus) and Reed-mace (Typha latifolia) alloccur at intervals throughout the study area eitheras a component of larger aquatic communities or assmall individual stands.
26 27
Appendix 1
26 27
Crow
n Co
pyri
ght.
All
righ
ts re
serv
ed. L
eeds
Cit
y Co
unci
l O.S
. Lic
ence
No.
10
00
1956
7
28 29
Crow
n Co
pyri
ght.
All
righ
ts re
serv
ed. L
eeds
Cit
y Co
unci
l O.S
. Lic
ence
No.
10
00
1956
7
28 29
Crow
n Co
pyri
ght.
All
righ
ts re
serv
ed. L
eeds
Cit
y Co
unci
l O.S
. Lic
ence
No.
10
00
1956
7
30 31
Crow
n Co
pyri
ght.
All
righ
ts re
serv
ed. L
eeds
Cit
y Co
unci
l O.S
. Lic
ence
No.
10
00
1956
7
30 31
Crow
n Co
pyri
ght.
All
righ
ts re
serv
ed. L
eeds
Cit
y Co
unci
l O.S
. Lic
ence
No.
10
00
1956
7
Crow
n Co
pyri
ght.
All
righ
ts re
serv
ed. L
eeds
Cit
y Co
unci
l O.S
. Lic
ence
No.
10
00
1956
7
32 33
32 33
Appendix 1
below the weir at Fearns Wharf. The pontoons are also used by Otter (Lutra lutra) as haul out and feeding points in an area with few undisturbed and accessible refuges.
The tree line provides a continuous corridor forbirds that utilise the upper canopy to move up anddown the river corridor such as Great tit (Parusmajor) Blue tit (Parus caerulus) and Long-tailed tit(Aegithalus cordauta) as well as a number ofspecies of Warbler (Sylviidae Spp.) The tree linealso provides nesting cover for species such asMagpie (Pica pica), Carrion crow (Corvus corona),Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), Mistle thrush andBlackbird (Turdus merula). Kingfisher (Alcedoathis), regularly seen between Fearns Wharf andThwaite Mills, requires branches overhanging theriver as fishing perches. Evidence of Otters usingthe tree line for haul out points and foxes (Vulpesvulpes) for foraging areas were recorded by theYorkshire Wildlife Trust survey team in 2003.
Scrub areas, although transitional, provide nestingand roosting habitat for birds such as Bullfinch(Pyrrhula pyrrhula), Long-tailed tit, Dunnock andRobin. Scrub areas also provide food and cover forsmall mammals and feeding areas for largerpredators such as foxes and predatory birds such
Wildlife Value of Habitat Categories
Throughout the study area habitat loss, particularlyin the city centre, means that the remainingidentified areas of habitat are now of paramountimportance for local wildlife. Gaps that are foundbetween mapped areas of habitat (Figure 1) shouldbe viewed as zones for ecological improvement andopportunities for habitat creation, not as areas withno ecological value.
As Table 2 (page 39) shows, although habitats werefragmented and often seemingly insignificant, eachhabitat category had a rich floral diversity, which inturn supported a rich faunal diversity. Habitatimportance should also be judged on the structuralvalue for wildlife (i.e. shelter and freedom fromdisturbance) rather than just plant species rarity.
Amenity planting is often set back from the water’sedge between recent building developments and thestone wash walls. This planting is not withoutecological value and provides roosting and nestingcover for small birds such as Dunnock (Prunellamodularis) Robin (Erethicus rubicula) and Wren(Trogolodytes trogolodytes). If suitable species areselected this planting can also provide winter food in the form of berries for birds such as Mistle thrush(Turdus viscivorus),Song thrush (Turdus philomelos)and Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus)
The mooring pontoons provide preening and roosting locations for gulls and ducks which feed
Evaluation
34 35
34 35
vegetation also provides breeding habitat, sunningpoints and resting places for damsel anddragonflies.
It must also be noted that this study was carried outduring low flow and during a particularly drysummer. It would be worthy of further study to resurvey during the winter to determine how many of these communities survive once the flow in the river increases.
Although the woody species of Wall Vegetation arecoppiced on an infrequent basis this vegetationremains relatively undisturbed and provides foraging and feeding areas for birds like Blue tit and Wren and food sources for butterflies. This vegetation also provides resting points for damsel and dragonflies.
The lack of other areas of natural vegetationthrough this section makes the wall vegetation animportant element of the biodiversity of the rivercorridor.
Recreation and Amenity Value
Whilst the predominant aim of this survey was toestablish the ecological value of habitats for localwildlife, it should also be noted that the canal andriver corridor are of significant value to the peoplein the local community. Access to these greenspaces makes an important contribution to qualityof life. Access to green spaces is also important foreducation and appreciation of wildlife in futuregenerations (English Nature Research Report No.256).
as Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nicus). Butterflies such as Red admiral(Vanessa atalanta), Common tortoiseshell (Aglaisurticae) and Peacock (Nymphalis io) also feed onplants found in scrub habitat. Scrub near waterprovides useful foraging areas for insect feedingspecies including bats and dragonflies.
During the survey Rank Grassland was seen to beused by the commoner butterflies Meadow brown(Maniola jurtina), Peacock, Red admiral and Smalltortoiseshell and was also used by a kestrel huntingfor small rodents. The remains of a colony ofground nesting bees was found dug up and eaten,probably by fox.
Improved grassland found in the mown areas of theRiver Aire corridor, the margins of the TransPennine Trail and the canal towpaths managed byBritish Waterways are mown between 4 and 6 timesper year. This management prevents encroachmentof the surfaces of the path by Scrub species andmaintains long thin strips of short grass favouredfor feeding by Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) andsome duck and thrush species.
The Aquatic Vegetation along the banks andshallow silty areas were used by a number of birdsfor feeding and preening. Mallard and Moorhencould be seen foraging even on very small areas ascould Grey wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) and PiedWagtails (Motacilla alba yarrelii). The tracks ofMink (Mustela vison) and Brown rat (Rattusnorvegicus) were also noted in the soft mud insome locations. A Water vole (Arvicola terrestris)was recorded feeding in one of these areas close toKnostrop Fall Lock in September 2003. This
Appendix 1
Invasive Alien Plant Species
Invasive alien species are found throughout thestudy area: Himalayan Balsam (Impatiensglandulifera), Giant Hogweed (Heracleummantegazzianum) and Japanese Knotweed (Fallopiajaponica). These plants are problematic as theyform dense swathes reducing biodiversity by out- competing native plants. Water acts as the maindispersal agent, hence their dominance in theriparian environment. Disturbance by flooding orduring development and construction, in particularthe clearance of bank-side vegetation to bare soil,facilitates their spread, hence this area issignificantly affected (de Waal, 1994).
The canal and river habitats surveyed are markedlydifferent. The controlled levels and slow flows of thecanal habitat replicate that of a linear series ofponds and provide a refuge for pond species (seeBriggs, 1996). However vegetation adjoining thecanals is more ‘managed’ in character than riverbank vegetation with generally a greater extent ofimproved grasslands along their length. BritishWaterways has limited the spread of alien species inthe canal environment through mechanical andchemical management. However, the closeproximity of river located stands of these speciesand the disturbance caused by developmentupstream means they still pose a threat to canalvegetation.
36 37
36 37
The data should be transferred to the localbiological record centre - West Yorkshire Ecology.
This document should link to a wider corridoroutside the Waterfront Area.
The data set should be kept updated as the area ischanging rapidly.
Ecological surveys relating to development shouldbe compatible with the methodology described inthis report.
Recommendations
Table 1Es
tabl
ishe
d Su
rvey
Met
hodo
log
ies
Rev
iew
ed fo
rA
pplic
atio
n to
this
Stu
dy
N
ame
of T
echn
ique
A
cron
ym
Focu
s
Rea
son
for
Rej
ecti
on
Nat
iona
l Veg
etat
ion
Clas
sific
atio
n
NVC
Cl
assi
ficat
ion
syst
em b
ased
on
To
o ge
nera
l. W
ould
not
hig
hlig
ht th
e re
al v
alue
of r
emai
ning
do
min
ant v
eget
atio
n ty
pes
R
iver
cor
ridor
hab
itat,
in p
artic
ular
the
loca
l im
port
ance
.
foun
d th
roug
hout
Brit
ain
R
iver
Lan
dsca
pe A
sses
smen
t R
LA
Broa
d la
ndsc
ape
eval
uatio
n
Lack
of fl
oral
and
faun
al d
etai
l, m
eani
ng th
e m
etho
dolo
gy is
of
rive
r cor
ridor
to
o br
oad
for t
his
stud
y.
La
ndsc
ape
focu
s ra
ther
than
eco
logi
cal d
ata.
R
iver
Hab
itat S
urve
y
RH
S
Riv
er C
hann
el a
nd
Not
sui
tabl
e fo
r can
al h
abita
ts. T
oo fo
cuss
ed o
n na
tura
l cha
nnel
s
adja
cent
hab
itat
rath
er th
an e
ngin
eere
d ch
anne
ls. L
ack
of fl
oris
tic a
nd fa
unal
det
ail
Sc
ale
too
broa
d (5
00
m)
R
iver
Cor
ridor
Sur
vey
R
CS
Riv
er C
hann
el a
nd
Lack
of fl
oris
tic a
nd fa
unal
det
ail.
Too
time
cons
umin
g fo
r
adja
cent
hab
itat
appl
icat
ion
to th
e wh
ole
stud
y ar
ea.
38 39
38 39
Des
crip
tion
of H
abit
at C
ateg
orie
s an
d Ex
ampl
es(n
ot-e
xhau
stiv
e) o
f Rep
rese
ntat
ive
Flor
a an
d Fa
una
Table 2
H
abit
at C
ateg
ory
D
escr
ipti
on
Rec
orde
d Fl
ora
R
ecor
ded
Faun
a
Expe
cted
Ass
ocia
ted
Faun
a
Im
prov
ed g
rass
land
M
own
gras
slan
ds,
Pere
nnia
l rye
gras
s, A
nnua
l G
reen
finch
, Mag
pie,
Shor
t Fa
vour
ed fo
r fee
ding
by
Star
lings
typi
cally
towp
ath
frin
ges
m
eado
w-gr
ass,
Red
/Whi
te
turf
pro
bers
, Son
g th
rush
, an
d so
me
duck
and
thru
sh s
peci
es
Cl
over
, Rib
wort
pla
ntai
n an
d
Star
ling
Ya
rrow
Com
mon
Shr
ew
Inse
cts
incl
udin
g ho
verfl
ies,
sm
all
to
rtoi
sesh
ell
Smal
l mam
mal
hab
itat i
nclu
ding
sh
rews
and
rabb
its
Amen
ity p
lant
ing
In
divi
dual
tree
s an
d
Orn
amen
tal s
hrub
spe
cies
Bl
ackb
ird
Roo
stin
g an
d ne
stin
g co
ver f
or
sh
rubs
pla
nted
as
part
su
ch a
s Co
tone
aste
r, Be
rber
is,
sm
all b
irds
such
as
Dun
nock
, Rob
in
of
an
orna
men
tal s
chem
e
Loni
cera
and
Pyr
acan
thus
.
and
Wre
n
Occ
asio
nal o
rnam
enta
l tre
e
spec
ies
such
as
Betu
la a
nd
Th
e pl
antin
g al
so p
rovi
des
wint
er
Sorb
us
fo
od in
the
form
of b
errie
s fo
r bird
s
such
as
Mis
tle th
rush
, Son
g th
rush
an
d W
axwi
ng
Wal
l veg
etat
ion
Ve
geta
tion
grow
ing
W
all r
ue, M
ale
fern
and
D
amse
lflie
s, d
rago
nflie
s
Gre
y wa
gtai
l, ne
stin
g ar
ea fo
r Wre
n
fr
om m
ason
ry w
alls
H
eart
s-to
ngue
fern
bu
tter
fly (r
ed a
dmira
l)
and
Blue
tit.
Iv
y-le
aved
toad
flax
an
d wa
sp a
ctiv
ity
wood
y ve
geta
tion
such
as
Ald
er a
nd S
ycam
ore
and
G
rey
wagt
ail,
Wre
n, M
oorh
en,
Wal
l cav
ities
sui
tabl
e fo
r ove
r
aggr
essi
ve w
eed
spec
ies
such
M
alla
rd
wint
erin
g bu
tter
fly s
pp
as R
agwo
rt a
nd R
ose-
bay
wi
llowh
erb
Und
er b
ridge
s an
d de
relic
t bui
ldin
gs
etc
suita
ble
for u
se a
s re
fuge
s by
ba
ts, o
tter
, fox
and
min
k
Sc
rub
Lo
w wo
ody
spec
ies,
H
awth
orn,
Syc
amor
e, B
ram
ble,
O
tter
, min
k
Nes
ting
and
roos
ting
habi
tat f
or
yo
ung
sapl
ings
W
ild ra
spbe
rry,
Net
tle a
nd
bi
rds
such
as
Bullfi
nch,
Lon
g-ta
iled
R
ose-
bay
willo
wher
b
Butt
erfli
es in
clud
ing,
tit
, Dun
nock
and
Rob
in.
Red
adm
iral,
Com
mon
tort
oise
shel
l, Pe
acoc
k,
Feed
ing
area
for p
reda
tory
bird
s
Sm
all t
orto
ises
hell,
su
ch a
s Ke
stre
l and
Spa
rrow
hawk
Gre
en-v
eine
d wh
ite.
and
for b
at s
pp.
D
rago
nflie
s, d
amse
lfly,
Fo
od a
nd c
over
for s
mal
l mam
mal
s,
be
es a
nd w
asps
, Dev
il’s
incl
udin
g sh
rew
and
vole
spe
cies
,
co
ach-
hor
se b
eetle
. wo
od m
ouse
and
hed
geho
g. A
lso
pr
ovid
es re
fuge
and
feed
ing
area
s
G
rey
wagt
ail,
Mis
tle th
rush
, fo
r lar
ger p
reda
tors
suc
h as
foxe
s,
Ki
ngfis
her,
Mal
lard
, Wre
n,
min
k an
d ot
ter.
Blac
k-he
aded
gul
l, Co
mm
on
te
rn, S
wift
, Chi
ff-ch
aff,
Ba
ts
W
hite
thro
at, H
ouse
Mar
tin,
Corm
oran
t, Co
ot, S
wallo
w.
Po
ntoo
n
Larg
e wo
oden
Th
e lo
catio
n of
the
pont
oons
Pr
eeni
ng a
nd ro
ostin
g
st
ruct
ures
12 m
etre
s
prov
ides
a re
fuge
for s
ome
lo
catio
ns fo
r gul
ls a
nd d
ucks
.
by
2 m
etre
s pr
ovid
e
aqua
tic p
lant
spe
cies
that
moo
ring
oppo
rtun
ities
re
quire
slo
w flo
wing
wat
er
Ott
er a
s ha
ul o
ut, f
eedi
ng
fo
r nar
row
boat
s
cond
ition
s be
twee
n th
e ba
nk
and
terr
itory
mar
king
site
s.
and
the
stru
ctur
e su
ch a
s
Poto
mag
eton
s sp
p. a
nd
Calli
tric
he s
pp.
40 41
H
abit
at C
ateg
ory
D
escr
ipti
on
Rec
orde
d Fl
ora
R
ecor
ded
Faun
a
Expe
cted
Ass
ocia
ted
Faun
aTable 2
40 41
Table 2
Hab
itat
Cat
egor
y
Des
crip
tion
R
ecor
ded
Flor
a
Rec
orde
d Fa
una
Ex
pect
ed A
ssoc
iate
d Fa
una
Tr
ee-l
ined
ban
ks/
Tr
ee fr
inge
s lin
ing
Al
der,
Crac
k wi
llow,
W
oodm
ice
and
Fiel
d vo
les,
Ott
er
Ref
uge
for f
ox
wood
land
str
ips
wate
rfro
nts.
Typ
ical
ly
Whi
te w
illow
, Goa
t will
ow,
haul
out
, Gre
y sq
uirr
el, M
ink,
not m
ore
than
10
Elde
r and
Syc
amor
e
Badg
er S
ett.
met
res
in b
read
th
Ki
ngfis
her,
Gre
at ti
t, Bl
ue ti
t, Lo
ngta
iled
tit, W
arbl
ers,
Mag
pie,
Car
rion
crow
, Moo
rhen
, Mis
tle th
rush
,
Bl
ackb
ird, C
orm
oran
t, M
alla
rd, D
ippe
r,
Bl
ack-
head
ed g
ull,
Wre
n, B
lack
cap,
Coal
tit,
Will
ow w
arbl
er, S
ong
thru
sh,
Whi
te th
roat
, San
dpip
er, M
ute
swan
,
H
eron
, Gre
at s
pott
ed w
oodp
ecke
r,
H
ouse
mar
tin, C
hiff-
chaf
f.
Red
adm
iral,
Pain
ted
lady
, Com
mon
blue
, Cab
bage
whi
te, P
eaco
ck,
Bum
bleb
ee, G
reen
-vei
ned
white
Aq
uatic
/ M
argi
nal
Aqua
tic v
eget
atio
n
Ree
d-ca
nary
gra
ss,
Bird
s fe
edin
g an
d pr
eeni
ng in
clud
ing
Ve
geta
tion
wi
thin
cha
nnel
itse
lf
Ree
d-sw
eet g
rass
M
alla
rd a
nd M
oorh
en, G
rey
wagt
ail,
and
mar
gina
l an
d H
imal
ayan
bal
sam
Pi
ed w
agta
ils, B
lack
cap,
Bla
ckbi
rd,
vege
tatio
n gr
owin
g in
Ar
rowh
ead,
Bro
ad-l
eave
d
Com
mon
tern
, Hou
se s
parr
ow,
silty
mar
gina
l are
as
pond
weed
s, C
anad
ian
M
ute
swan
, Hou
sem
artin
wa
terw
eed
and
Duc
kwee
ds
as w
ell a
s G
ipsy
wort
and
sp
ecie
s of
Sed
ge a
nd R
ush
D
rago
nfly,
Dam
selfl
y, P
ond-
skat
er,
Bum
bleb
ees,
Red
Adm
iral,
Smal
l tor
tois
eshe
ll
Fish
fry
Wat
er v
ole
seen
feed
ing
on m
argi
nal
vege
tatio
n in
bac
kwat
er o
n R
iver
Aire
.
Table2
42 43
R
ank
gras
slan
d
Nut
rient
rich
gra
ssla
nd
Cock
sfoo
t, Yo
rksh
ire fo
g
Mea
dow
brow
n, P
eaco
ck,
Prov
ides
hun
ting
area
for
an
d Fa
lse-
oat g
rass
with
R
ed a
dmira
l and
Sm
all
pred
ator
s, in
clud
ing
owl a
nd
som
e sp
ecie
s of
Doc
k
tort
oise
shel
l, Pa
inte
d la
dy,
kest
rel
an
d R
agwo
rt a
lso
pres
ent
Gat
ekee
per,
Com
mon
blu
e,
Ca
bbag
e wh
ite, C
inna
bar m
oth
Ke
y ar
ea fo
r but
terfl
ies
to
feed
and
lay
eggs
Was
p ac
tivity
and
dug
up
nest
,
H
oney
bee,
Bum
bleb
ee,
Goo
d ha
bita
t for
oth
er
inse
cts
incl
udin
g be
es
Br
own
Rat
an
d wa
sps
Gre
y wa
gtai
l, G
reat
tit,
Blue
tit,
Va
luab
le fo
r sm
all m
amm
als
Her
on, W
hite
thro
at, B
lack
bird
, to
bre
ed a
nd li
e-up
in
M
agpi
e, C
omm
on te
rn, M
ute
swan
,
H
ouse
mar
tin, G
rebe
, Bla
ck-h
eade
d
gu
ll, B
ullfi
nch,
Chi
ff-ch
aff
H
abit
at C
ateg
ory
D
escr
ipti
on
Rec
orde
d Fl
ora
R
ecor
ded
Faun
a
Expe
cted
Ass
ocia
ted
Faun
a
42 43
CONTACTS
Sustainable Development UnitLeeds City CouncilDevelopment DepartmentThe Leonardo Building2 Rossington streetLeeds LS2 8HD
Tel. 0113 247 8151Fax. 0113 2476484Email [email protected]
Land Drainage TeamLeeds City CouncilDevelopment Department Ring RoadMiddletonLeeds LS10 4AX
Tel. 0113 247 8790Fax. 0113 2474117
West Yorkshire EcologyRegistry of DeedsNewstead RoadWakefield WF1 2DE
Tel. 01924 306810
Environment AgencyCustomer ContactPhoenix HouseGlobal AvenueLeeds LS11 8PG
Tel. O113 213 4732Email ridings.cc@environment-agency.gov.ukwww.environment-agency.gov.uk
Natural EnglandBullring HouseNorthgateWakefield WF1 3BJ
Tel. 01924 334500
Fax. 01924 201507www.naturalengland.org.uk
British WaterwaysNorth East RegionFearns WharfNeptune StreetLeeds LS9 8PB
Tel. 0113 281 6800Fax. 0113 2816886www.britishwaterways.co.uk
Yorkshire Wildlife TrustWater for Wildlife Project1 St George’s PlaceYork YO24 1GN
Tel. 01904 659570Fax. 01904 613467Email [email protected]
Institute of Ecology and EnvironmentalManagement45 Southgate StreetWinchesterHampshire SO23 9EH
Tel. 01962 868626Fax. 01962 868625www.ieem.org.uk
Full details of the Biodiversity and WaterfrontDevelopment SPD including the SustainabilityAppraisal, Representations Statement and Adoption Statement are available to download in pdf format on the City Council’s website www.leeds.gov.uk/ldf
In line with the Government’s aim to extend accessibility topublic sector services via the internet and E-governmentemphasis has been placed on making the necessarydocuments and maps available electronically. However, itis recognised that this means of access will not beappropriate for everybody. Alternatively you can obtainpaper copies of the documents if you request them from:-
Mr David FeeneyHead of Planning and Economic PolicyDevelopment DepartmentLeeds City Council2 Rossington StreetLeeds LS2 8HD
Telephone: 0113 247 8000(Development Enquiry Centre)Email: [email protected]
Seeking Independent Advice and SupportPlanning Aid provides free, independent andprofessional advice on planning issues to communitygroups and individuals who cannot afford to pay aplanning consultant.
Yorkshire Planning Aid also provides a programme ofcommunity planning, training and education activities.To contact Planning Aid’s national office:-
National Planning Aid Unit,Unit 419, The Custard Factory,Gibb Street, Birmingham, B9 4AA
Telephone/Fax: 0121 693 1201Email: [email protected]: www.rtpi.org.uk
To contact the Yorkshire and Humber office:-Case Worker :Alyson Linnegar(available Tuesday, Wednesday & Friday)
Telephone: 0870 850 9808Email: [email protected]
If you do not speak English and need help inunderstanding this document, please phone:0113 247 8092 and state the name of yourlanguage. We will then put you on hold while wecontact an interpreter. This is a free service and wecan assist with 100+ languages. We can also providethis document in audio or braille on request
44
Supplementary Planning DocumentDecember 2006
Biodiversity and Waterfront DevelopmentLeeds Local Development Framework
