Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Biodiversity Survey
of
Land to the south west
of Hullbridge
on behalf of
Southern and Regional Developments Ltd
August 2012
REVISION B- October 2014
© James Blake Associates 2012
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 2 August 2012/ April 2014
Revision Purpose Originated Checked Authorised Date
MD OR OR 08/2012
A
Updated
following
2014
walkover
ER PA MD 04/2014
B
Client
Comments ER/MD - MD 10/2014
Job Number:
JBA 10/252
Title: Biodiversity Survey of land to the south
west of Hullbridge
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 3 August 2012/ April 2014
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5
2. METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7
Desk study ........................................................................................................................... 7
Phase 1 Habitat Survey ...................................................................................................... 7
3. RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 9
4. PROTECTED SPECIES – RESULTS AND EVALUATION ......................................... 21
5. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 27
6. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 27
7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 28
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 29
9. APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 31
Appendix A: Phase 1 habitat map ..................................................................................... 31
Appendix B: Plant species list ........................................................................................... 32
Appendix C: Relevant protected species legislation .......................................................... 34
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 4 August 2012/ April 2014
Executive Summary
A Biodiversity Survey for a parcel of land to the south west of Hullbridge, Essex,
was undertaken on the 15th June 2012.
A walkover survey was carried out on 14th April 2014 to update the biodiversity
survey, assess whether there were any changes to habitats or protected species
issues and make recommendations.
The site was a number of grassland fields, some of which were grazed by horses
and a number of farm/ stable building, and residential properties.
Further surveys are recommended for reptiles and great crested newts. Further
surveys for bats may be required, depending on the scope of the development.
Tree, hedgerow and grassland clearance or building demolition should be carried
out outside the main bird breeding season (March until September) or following a
survey for active bird nests.
It was considered that following further surveys appropriate precautionary
measures, compensation of habitats or mitigation could be designed to allow the
development to proceed with minimal risk of harm to protected, BAP or rare
species or to local nature conservation.
By following some, or all, of the additional recommendations, outlined in the
report, the site could be enhanced for local wildlife in the long term.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 5 August 2012/ April 2014
1. Introduction
Background
1.1 James Blake Associates were commissioned by Southern and Regional
Developments Ltd to undertake a Biodiversity Survey of land to the south west of
Hullbridge in Essex. Grid ref: TQ 806 946 (taken from the centre of the site).
1.2 The assessment was required to accompany a planning application to develop the
site: Development proposals are not yet finalised, and the ecology survey will help to
inform the proposed layout.
1.3 For the purposes of this report, protected species are taken to be those which are
protected under European Legislation (Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010) and UK legislation (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; Protection
of Badgers Act 1992); and other priority species and habitats which are a
consideration under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2012.
1.4 A walkover survey was carried out in 2014 by JBA Consultancy Services Ltd
(previously James Blake Associates) to update the biodiversity survey.
Site Description
1.5 The site was located to the west of Hullbridge in Essex. The River Crouch estuary
was approximately 500m to the north. The surrounding landscape was dominated by
arable land with boundary hedgerows and scattered trees. Hannover Golf and
Country Club was approximately 300m to the south east of the site and there were
numerous ponds associated with the golf course (see Figure 1 below).
1.6 The site itself was horse grazed pasture. The fields surrounded a small farm and a
number of residential properties.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 6 August 2012/ April 2014
Figure 1: Site location:
Reproduced from Ordnance Survey map data by permission of Ordnance Survey,
© Crown copyright.
Aims and objectives
1.7 The aim of the survey was to:
Identify the presence, or potential presence, of any protected or notable
species or habitats on, or adjacent to, the site;
assess the potential impact of the proposed works on any protected or
notable species and/or habitats present including nature conservation sites
on, or adjacent to, the site;
make recommendations for further surveys and/or mitigation following the
survey (if necessary) and provide suggestions to enhance the wildlife value
of the site post-development.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 7 August 2012/ April 2014
2. Methods
Desk study
2.1 A 2km radius search for statutory designated sites, either on the proposed
development site or in the surrounding area, was conducted using “MAGIC”, the
Multi-Agency Geographic Information system for the Countryside.
2.2 The Essex Field Club was consulted for records of non statutory sites and protected
and rare species within a 2km search radius.
2.3 The site is covered by the Local BAP for Essex (http://www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk/)
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
2.4 The survey in 2012 was undertaken by Mary Davies BSc (Hons) MSc MIEEM
(Licensed by Natural England to survey for great crested newts and bats) on the 15th
of June. During the survey, the temperature was 15°C, there was a gentle to
moderate breeze (Beaufort scale 3-4), 85% cloud cover and good visibility.
2.5 The 2014 walkover survey was undertaken by Ellie Rickman BSc (Hons) MSc
GradCIEEM (dormouse class licence WML-CL10A, great crested newt licence WML-
CL08) on 14th April. During the survey the temperature was 16°c, there was a gentle
breeze (Beaufort 3), 40% cloud cover and good visibility.
2.6 The survey methodology followed JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee)
Guidelines (JNCC, 2007) and included mapping habitat types and identifying all plant
species observed on the site, including Wildlife and Countryside Act Schedule 9
invasive plant species, such as Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and giant
hogweed Heracleum mantegazzianum,
2.7 The site was also assessed for signs and evidence of protected, BAP and rare
species in accordance with Natural England approved guidelines, as follows:
2.8 Amphibians: Ponds within 500m of the site boundary were not accessible at the
time of survey. Assessment is based on terrestrial habitat suitability and data search
results. There were no ponds within the site boundary.
2.9 Bats: Mature trees within the site boundary, and adjacent to the site boundary, were
surveyed externally, from the ground, for their potential to support roosting bats,
under the following criteria.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 8 August 2012/ April 2014
Table 1: Bat Survey Protocol for Trees: (potential bat roosting features were
identified in order to categorise trees, as below):
Bat Roost Potential Field signs
Roost Confirmed Confirmed bat roost in tree: Field evidence of the past or
current presence of bats, e.g. droppings, staining.
High roost potential
Splits or cracks in major limbs which develop upwards,
smooth surface around entry point, dense ivy-covering,
woodpecker/rot holes, significant lifting bark, artificial bird
or bat boxes. Ancient or over mature trees where the
canopy cannot be fully inspected from the ground.
Medium roost potential Splits in branches, dense ivy-covering, small cavities,
dense epicormic growth, flies around entry point.
Low roost potential
Splits in minor branches, sparse ivy, limited loose bark.
Young, healthy tree with good visibility to the top of the
canopy.
No roost potential
Trees with a negligible potential to support bat roosts
(not supporting any of the above features)
Bat Survey Protocol for buildings: Farm buildings and residential properties within
the site were externally assessed for signs or evidence of past or present usage by
roosting bats. Binoculars were used to check for entry points such as cracks or
holes, plus evidence of bat activity such as staining, droppings, feeding remains
(such as butterfly or moth wings) that could indicate past presence of bats. There
was no internal access.
2.10 Dormice: A visual survey for the presence of suitable habitat (woodland/suitable
hedges with good under-storey/shrub layer and a range of food plant species, such
as hazel, bramble and honeysuckle) was carried out, to assess if dormice were likely
to be present.
2.11 Reptiles: A visual survey for the presence of suitable habitat was carried out
according to the criteria given in the Froglife Advice Sheet 1999.
2.12 Invertebrates: The site was scoped for significant rotting deadwood, and high quality
aquatic or other habitats which could be used by significant assemblages of
invertebrates, or by any of the invertebrates highlighted in the data search.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 9 August 2012/ April 2014
2.13 Flora and habitats: All habitats and plant species which were identifiable at the time
of the survey were recorded.
2.14 Badgers: A visual survey for setts, hair, latrines, prints, snuffle marks or other signs
of badgers was undertaken within the site boundary.
2.15 Birds: A visual survey of bird activity and suitable nesting habitat was carried out, to
determine if any areas would be suitable for WCA Schedule 1 birds, Birds of
Conservation Concern or other common and widespread nesting birds.
2.16 Adjacent Habitat: Habitats close to the site were identified, using aerial maps and
field observation, so that the ecological impact of the proposed works on the wider
landscape could be assessed.
2.17 There was a river 30m south of the site boundary, however, this lay south of Watery
Lane and was not assessed during this survey as it is unlikely to be impacted by the
proposed development.
3. Results
Desk Study
Statutory Nature Conservation Sites
3.1 There were three statutory designated sites within 2km of the site: Two Local Nature
Reserves (LNR): Kendall Park and Fenn Washland and the Crouch and Roach
Estuaries which are designated as RAMSAR sites, Special Protection Area (SPA),
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
No other RAMSAR, SPA or SAC sites were present within 5km of the site. These are
detailed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 10 August 2012/ April 2014
Table 2: Statutory conservation sites within 2km of the site
Site Name Designation Distance from Site
Description
Kendall Park LNR 400m north No Information
Fenn Washland LNR 1.3km north No Information
Crouch and Roach Estuaries
(Essex Estuaries)
RAMSAR, SPA, SAC, SSSI
(forms part of the Essex Estuaries
European Marine Site)
470m north
This is a large estuarine site in south-east England, and is a typical, undeveloped,
coastal plain estuarine system with associated open coast mudflats and sandbanks. The site
is of importance for wintering waterbirds, especially Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta b. bernicla. The Crouch and Roach Estuary is an integral component of the phased Mid-Essex
Coast SPA.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 11 August 2012/ April 2014
Figure 2: Statutory conservation sites within 2km of the site
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 12 August 2012/ April 2014
Non-Statutory Nature Conservation Sites
3.2 There were two non-statutory conservation sites (Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)) within
2km of the site: Blounts Wood and Hullbridge Road Meadow These are listed in
Table 3 and shown in Figure 3.
Table 3: Non-statutory conservation sites within 2km of the site
Site Name Designation Distance from Site
Description
Blounts Wood LWS 1.6km south
east
The site comprises ancient and some secondary woodland. Much of the ancient part is characterised by old ash and hazel coppice
with oak standards.
Hullbridge Road Meadow
LWS 400m south This horse grazed meadow has green winged orchid recorded in amongst the ground flora
Habitat Types within 2km
3.3 Habitat types within the area included a number of woodlands, floodplain grazing
meadows and mudflats. Traditional orchards were also present in the surrounding
area. The nearest woodland lies approximately 1.5km to the east of the site;
traditional orchards were present to 700m east and 1.1km south west. The nearest
grazing marsh was 350m west and mudflat associated with the River Crouch were
450m to the north.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 13 August 2012/ April 2014
Figure 3: Non-statutory sites within 2km
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 14 August 2012/ April 2014
Figure 4: Habitat types within 2km
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 15 August 2012/ April 2014
Protected, BAP and Rare Species
3.4 The Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) are split into three criteria. The red list is
the highest conservation priority (species needing urgent action). The amber list is
the next most critical group, followed by green. Red listed species are those that are
globally threatened according to IUCN criteria, species with populations or ranges
that have declined rapidly in recent years, and those that have declined historically
and have not shown a substantial recent recovery.
3.5 Species records held by the Essex Field Club included numerous protected, BAP
and notable flora and fauna within 2km of the site.
3.6 Full lists of UK BAP and protected amphibians, reptiles, terrestrial mammals and
flora are shown below. A reduced list of UK BAP and protected invertebrates is
shown (39 records of moths were provided which have not been included in the data
search). No bird records were provided.
Plants British Red Data List
Category
Approximate
distance from site
Year of
Record
Broad leaved spurge
Euphorbia platyphyllos Least concern 2km south west 2004
Black poplar
Populus nigra Least concern 2km south west 2004
Loose silky bent
Apera spica-venti Near threatened 2km south east 2004
Field gromwell
Lithospermum arvense Endangered 2km south west 2004
Mammals Protection Approximate
distance from site
Year of
Record
Serotine European protected 260m north 1985
Hedgehog UK BAP 600m west 2010
1.5km east 2011
Badger Badger Protection Act 1998 160m south 2007
Common pipistrelle European protected 300m west 1996
Brown long eared bat European protected & UK
BAP 1.6km south east 1994
Harvest mouse UK BAP 1km west 1999
Brown hare UK & LBAP 1.5km north east 1996
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 16 August 2012/ April 2014
Invertebrates Protection Approximate
distance from site
Year of
Record
Brown-banded Carder
Bee UK BAP 2km north east 2007
Shrill Carder Bee UK & LBAP 2km south 2011
Amphibians Protection Approximate distance
from site
Year of
Record
Great crested newt European protected, UK &
LBAP 410m south east 2006
WCA = Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended; UK BAP = UK Biodiversity Action Plan;
LBAP = Local Biodiversity Action Plan; BoCC = Birds of Conservation Concern
Phase 1 Habitat Survey
3.7 Appendix A shows a Phase 1 habitat map of the site, with Target Notes. A list of
plant species identified on the site is included in Appendix B.
Limitations and Assumptions
3.8 The baseline conditions reported and assessed in this document represent those
identified at the time of the survey on the 15th June 2012 and 14th April 2014.
Although a reasonable assessment of habitats present can be made during a single
walkover survey, seasonal variations are not observed. The full plant species list
(Appendix B) was based on the current site visit. The surveys were conducted within
the optimal time for botanical surveys. All areas of the site were accessible on the
day of the survey; however no internal inspection of the buildings was carried out.
The desk study used available records and historical data from the local area.
However, this does not provide a reliable indication of species present since records
depend entirely on survey effort in the area, which is highly variable. The data are
useful as a general guide to supplement the site visit, but absence of records does
not reflect absence of species.
Reptiles Protection Approximate distance
from site
Year of
Record
Adder
Partially protected under the WCA Schedule 5 & UK
BAP
1.8km south 2005
Common lizard 1.8km south 2005
Slow worm 300m east 2005
Grass snake 2km south 2005
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 17 August 2012/ April 2014
Target Notes
Target note 1
Semi-improved grassland with an average
sward height of 50-75cm. Grasses dominated
the sward: Perennial ryegrass (Loilum
perenne), cocks foot (Dactylis glomerata) and
false oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius).
Frequent forbs included scentless mayweed
(Tripleurospermum inodorum), white clover
(Trifolium repens), spotted medick (Medicago
arabica) and common vetch (Vicia sativa).
Target note 2
Improved grassland, grazed by horses, with an
average sward height of 5cm. Grasses
dominated the sward: perennial ryegrass, cocks
foot and annual meadow grass (Poa annua).
Occasional forb species included, daisy (Bellis
perennis), meadow buttercup (Ranunculus
acris) and greater plantain (Plantago major).
Target note 3
The majority of hedgerows within and
surrounding the site were approximately 0.5 to
1.5m tall and well managed. Species present
included blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), elm
(Ulmus sp.), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna)
and field maple (Acer campestre).
A mature oak at Target Note 3 was considered to
have low-moderate bat roost potential from cracks
in limbs and deadwood.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 18 August 2012/ April 2014
Target note 4
Unmanaged hedgerow to the north western
boundary approximately 4m tall and 2m wide.
Species included hawthorn, elder (Sambucus
nigra) and elm.
Target note 5
Mature oak (Quercus robur) tree with high bat
roost potential. Dense ivy cladding covered
potential cracks and crevices. Aerial deadwood
provided potential roosting opportunities.
Target note 6
Mature willow (Salix sp.) with a rot hole
providing potential bat roosting opportunities.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 19 August 2012/ April 2014
Target note 7
Modern barn of single sheet material
construction with metal supports. Numerous
bird nests (swallows and pigeons) were
recorded inside. The barn was used as a
hay/straw store.
Target note 8
Livestock barns of block and corrugated
asbestos sheet construction with pitched
asbestos type roofs. Horse stables were of
timber and corrugated metal construction. Bird
nests were recorded within the animal barns.
One of the buildings at Target note 8, currently
being used as stables, had a
disused hayloft and brickwork with potential
crevices that could be used by roosting bats.
Target note 9
Bungalow with a pitched, hipped, tiled roof.
Externally, the walls were pebble dash
rendered making them very well sealed.
Windows and door frames were uPVC and
were well sealed into the surrounding walls.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 20 August 2012/ April 2014
Target note 10
Modern bungalow with a pitched, hipped, tiled
roof which was well sealed. Brick walls were
well sealed. uPVC and wooden windows and
doors were well sealed into the surrounding
brickwork. Lead flashing associated with the
roof structure was well sealed
Target note 11
Part single storey, part two-storey building
externally rendered and very well sealed. The
pitched tiled roof had numerous gaps
associated with the tiles providing potential
access for bats. uPVC and wooden window and
door frames were well sealed into the
surrounding walls. A flat roofed outbuilding had
a well sealed felt roof and well sealed uPVC
windows and door frames.
Target note 12
Wooden horse stables with pitched corrugated
metal/ ondulene type roofs. Roofs were not
internally lined.
Target Note 13
Numerous lorry containers and porta-cabins
were located around the farm buildings. Some
had low bat roost potential due to crevices.
Target Note 14
A small area of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia
japonica) was recorded in April 2014 behind one
of the stable blocks.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 21 August 2012/ April 2014
4. Protected Species – Results and Evaluation
Flora and habitats
4.1 The majority of the site was improved and semi-improved grassland fields, some of
which were grazed by horses. Forb species were frequent within the sward, however
species recorded were generally common and wide spread.
4.2 Little had changed in terms of the management or species composition of the fields
in April 2014. The majority of the grassland was semi-improved grass with relatively
few forbs and varying levels of horse and cattle grazing. Fields to the north west had
been divided into paddocks with electric fencing, with the southern end used for
grazing and the northern section allowed to grow as a hay crop. The large fields to
the south east were also being allowed to grow for hay.
4.3 Managed hedgerows were present along field boundaries. These were dominated by
blackthorn and elm and had numerous gaps along their lengths and are therefore,
unlikely to be classified as ‘important’ under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.
4.4 No rare, or protected plant species were recorded during the survey. The data
search highlighted four rare plants within 2km of the site, which are mostly
associated with disturbed/arable habitats and unlikely to grow within grassland.
4.5 A small area of chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile), listed as vulnerable on the JNCC
Red Data List for vascular plants, was noted in the most easterly field during the
2014 walkover.
4.6 A stand of Japanese knotweed was recorded behind the stables at Target Note 14.
This is a non-native invasive plant listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (1987) as amended. As such it is an offence to allow this species to
spread in the wild. It should be controlled in an appropriate way and disposed of at a
licensed disposal site.
4.7 No further survey is necessary.
Bats
4.8 A mature oak tree at the southern boundary of the site, and a willow tree in the
centre of the site that were considered to have moderate to high bat roost potential.
4.9 Buildings within the site, particularly the residential properties provided low potential
roosting opportunities associated mainly with the roofs. Barns and stables are
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 22 August 2012/ April 2014
unlikely to be used by foraging bats for roosting, but could be used by foraging bats
for shelter while feeding. No signs of bats such as droppings or feeding remains
were found within any of the barns on the site.
4.10 The data search provided records of common pipistrelle, serotine and brown long
eared bats within the surrounding area. All of these species have the potential to use
roosting opportunities at the site.
4.11 Buildings and trees within the site were checked as part of the update walkover
survey in April 2014. Buildings and the trees highlighted were unchanged and most
had low bat roost potential. The stable with a hay loft at Target Note 8 was
considered to have low to moderate bat roost potential, and the numerous porta-
cabins and lorry containers provided low roost potential for individual crevice roosting
species.
4.12 An oak at Target Note 3 was considered to have low to moderate bat roost potential
due to cracks in limbs and aerial dead wood.
4.13 As buildings are scheduled to be demolished to make way for the proposed
development, bat surveys of the buildings are recommended, following BCT best
practice guidelines (2012), to assess the presence or likely absence of roosts. If
trees with bat roost potential are to be impacted by the development, these should
also be assessed.
Reptiles
4.14 The majority of the site provided good quality habitat for reptiles. Improved and semi-
improved grassland fields provide potential foraging areas and hedgerows at the
boundaries of the site provided potential dispersal routes. Areas of hard standing
associated with the farmyard provided potential basking opportunities.
4.15 All four of the widespread protected reptiles were recorded within the surrounding
area in 2005. It was considered that grass snakes and slow worms were the most
likely species to be present, given the habitats present on the site.
4.16 The update walkover survey identified areas of potential reptile habitat within the site
as detailed in the previous survey. Reptile surveys are recommended and are being
undertaken in summer 2014.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 23 August 2012/ April 2014
Birds
4.17 The trees and hedgerows surrounding the site provided potential nesting and
foraging opportunities for birds. The long grassland fields provided potential shelter
and nesting opportunities for ground nesting birds such as skylark and grey
partridge. Swallows and pigeons were recorded nesting in some of the agricultural
barns.
4.18 Bird species observed during the field survey in 2012 included starlings, swallow,
wood pigeon, house sparrow and collard dove. Starlings and house sparrows are
BoCC red listed and species of principle importance in England.
4.19 Habitats within the site (grassland fields surrounded by species poor hedgerows)
were common within the surrounding landscape, therefore, it was considered unlikely
that any BAP or protected birds would be impacted by the proposed development.
4.20 If any trees/ hedgerows are proposed for retention, they should be suitably protected
from harm during the construction works following British Standard: BS5837, 2012.
4.21 Site clearance and works proposed to any buildings, trees or hedges should be
conducted outside the main bird breeding season (which is March until September).
If vegetation removal/ building demolition is necessary between these dates, an
ecologist should survey the site for active bird nests immediately prior to works. If
nests are identified, there may be a delay in the clearance of some vegetation until
all young birds have fledged.
4.22 Swallow, starling, dunnock and house sparrow were recorded on the site during the
2014 walkover survey. These are BoCC red/amber listed species and species of
principle importance under the NERC Act (2006). It is recommended that nesting
habitat such as hedgerows and trees be retained where possible and nesting sites
provided within any new development.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 24 August 2012/ April 2014
Amphibians
4.23 There were no ponds or waterbodies within the site. Three ponds were known to be
present within 500m of the site boundary. One pond lay approximately 130m west,
and two others were on the opposite side of Watery Lane/ Lower Road between
430m and 450m to the south east. It was considered that Watery lane/ Lower Road
and the adjacent residential properties were a significant barrier to dispersal and that
if newts were present within the ponds to the south east they would not be impacted
by the proposed development. However, the pond to the west was connected to the
site via a hedgerow along the southern boundary. Access to this pond was not
possible on the day of survey.
4.24 The site itself was of moderate quality habitat for amphibians, such as toads and
great crested newts, during their terrestrial phase. Grassland fields provided potential
foraging areas and hedgerows provided dispersal routes.
4.25 There are records of great crested newts approximately 400m to the south east
(presumably from the golf course) from 2006. It is recommended that the pond to the
west of the site is assessed for its suitability to support breeding great crested newts,
to inform the need for further surveys to assess the presence or likely absence of
great crested newts within 500m of the site boundary.
4.26 The pond 130m west of the site was still present at the time of the update walkover
survey. A habitat suitability assessment of this pond was carried out from a distance
as it was not possible to access the site. This showed the pond to be below average
suitability for breeding great crested newts.
Field Score SI Value
Location A 1
Pond Area 160 0.2
Pond Drying Sometimes dries 0.5
Water Quality Moderate 0.67
Shade (%) 0% 1
Waterfowl Waterfowl present, with moderate signs of impact
0.3
Fish Likely 0.3
Number of Ponds 13 1
Terrestrial Habitat Poor-Moderate 0.4
Macrophytes 40% 0.7
HSI Score 0.52
Suitability to support breeding great crested newts
Below Average
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 25 August 2012/ April 2014
4.27 If access to this pond can be arranged, further survey is recommended to ascertain
the presence or likely absence of great crested newts.
Invertebrates
4.28 The grassland fields, hedgerows or trees were likely to support a number of common
and widespread invertebrates.
4.29 The data search highlighted records of the shrill carder bee (UK & LBAP species)
within 2km of the site. This species requires flower rich grasslands to collect pollen,
which were abundant within the site. However, due to the abundance of similar
habitats within the surrounding area, it was not considered that the local
conservation status of invertebrates would be significantly affected by the proposed
development.
4.30 No rare or protected invertebrate species were noted during the update walkover
survey.
4.31 No further survey is necessary.
Hedgehogs and badgers
4.32 No signs of badger or hedgehog activity were recorded on the site. The grassland
fields within the site provided good quality habitat for foraging badgers and
hedgehogs. No evidence of a sett was recorded within the site boundary, and it was
considered unlikely that a sett would be present within 30m of the site boundary due
to the open nature of the habitats to the west and residential properties to the east.
There are records of badgers and hedgehogs within the surrounding area.
4.33 A potential badger latrine was observed just off site at the south western boundary of
the site close to Target Note 3 during the update walkover survey. No further signs of
activity or setts were recorded. It is considered likely that badgers are foraging and
commuting around the boundaries of the site.
4.34 It was considered unlikely that badgers of hedgehogs would be directly impacted by
the development; however, it is recommended that if any trenches or excavations are
left open over night they are covered or have a means of escape for any mammals
that may fall in.
Dormice
4.35 The site was not considered to be suitable for dormice: Managed hedgerows were
species poor and had frequent gaps. Hedgerows within the site were not linked to
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 26 August 2012/ April 2014
any woodland within the wider area, therefore, it was considered unlikely that
dormice would be present within the site or would be impacted by the proposals.
4.36 The update walkover survey did not identify any habitats likely to be used by
dormice.
4.37 There are no records of dormice within 2km of the site. No further survey is
considered necessary.
Other Protected, BAP or Rare Species
4.38 There were no water courses within the site, a stream ran from the west of the site to
the south within approximately 30m of the site boundary. This was present to the
south of Watery Lane/ Lower Road and is unlikely to be impacted by development of
the land. It was considered unlikely that species such as otter and/or water vole
would be impacted by the proposed development.
4.39 Although the site provided potential habitat for brown hare (a UK and local BAP
species), arable and grassland fields dominated the wider countryside and it was
considered unlikely that this species would be significantly impacted. The proposed
development was considered unlikely to impact on any other protected, BAP or rare
species.
4.40 No further changes to habitats or protected species were recorded during the update
walkover survey in April 2014.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 27 August 2012/ April 2014
5. Key Recommendations
5.1 Further surveys for reptiles should be undertaken to assess the likely presence or
absence of these species within the site. The pond to the west of the site should also
be assessed for its suitability to support great crested newts, and to inform the need
for further survey for great crested newts.
5.2 Further surveys may be required for roosting bats depending on the scope of the
development. Bat emergence and return to roost surveys are recommended for the
buildings that are scheduled for demolition to ascertain the presence or likely
absence of bat roosts.
5.3 Precautionary clearance of the site, buildings, grassland, trees and hedgerows will
be necessary, as detailed in Section 4, to avoid infringing legislation which protects
all nesting birds.
5.4 Precautionary measures, as detailed in Section 4, should be undertaken to minimise
the risk of harm to mammals including badgers and hedgehogs.
6. Additional Recommendations
6.1 The following suggestions will enhance the value of the site for wildlife. However, it
should be noted that these suggestions are not legally required for compensation of
habitats or mitigation, but may be revised depending on the outcome of the further
surveys for reptiles, bats and newts. At least a third of these additional
recommendations will need to be implemented to maximize credits under Eco2 of the
Code for Sustainable Homes.
6.2 The addition of twelve bat boxes on retained mature trees within the site would
provide additional roosting opportunities. Schwegler bat boxes are recognised as
being suitable for roosting bats and long lasting. Boxes suitable for species recorded
locally (e.g. Pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat) such as 2F Schwegler boxes would
be suitable. Boxes should ideally be located facing south east to south west and high
up (above 4m), following consultation with a bat licensed ecologist.
6.3 The addition of four house sparrow terraces and six swallow cups on the existing or
proposed buildings will provide additional nesting opportunities for these BoCC red
and amber listed species recorded on site. Another six standard bird boxes with a
variety of shaped and different sized entrance holes will attract a greater diversity of
birds to nest, at least three of these boxes should be suitable for starlings. Boxes
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 28 August 2012/ April 2014
should be located appropriately, out of direct sunlight and close to vegetation.
Swallow cups should be located under eaves.
6.4 It is suggested that the landscaping could incorporate native or wildlife attracting
trees and shrubs as these would likely be of benefit to a variety of wildlife including,
birds, bats and invertebrates. The landscape design could enhance existing wildlife
corridors though creation of buffers along hedgerows.
6.5 The incorporation of reptile hibernacula into the landscape design will enhance the
area for reptiles in the future. Hibernacula can be created by partially burying piles of
wood/rubble and covering with earth.
6.6 The creation of wildflower rich swards could enhance the area for invertebrates
including butterflies and bumble bees. The inclusion of species such as vetches, red
clover, dead-nettles and red bartsia would enhance the site for shrill carder bees (a
UK and LBAP species) which have been recorded in the local area.
6.7 Any gaps in hedgerows to the boundaries of the site could be filled with native
species such as field maple (Acer campstre), guelder rose (Viburnum opulus), elm
(Ulmus sp.), hazel (Corylus avellana) and spindle (Euonymus europaeus). This
would enhance ecological connectivity within the landscape.
7. Conclusion
7.1 Habitats within the site could provide suitable habitat for reptiles, bats and birds. The
site is also suitable for amphibians during their terrestrial phase; however ponds
within 500m of the site could not be assessed for their suitability to support breeding
great crested newts at the time of the survey.
7.2 Further survey is recommended to determine if reptiles are using the site. Further
surveys for bats and great crested newts are also recommended. If any mitigation or
compensation recommended following these further surveys is carried out, and if the
precautionary measures for birds and mammals detailed in this report are followed, it
was considered that the development could proceed with minimal impact on the local
conservation status of any protected, BAP or rare species within the area.
7.3 It is also considered that with a sensitive landscape scheme, and by including some,
or all, of the additional recommendations, that the site could be enhanced for local
wildlife post development.
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 29 August 2012/ April 2014
8. References
Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines 2012. Bat Conservation Trust, London.
Cheffings, C.M. & Farrell, L. (Eds), Dines, T.D., Jones, R.A., Leach, S.J., McKean,
D.R., Pearman, D.A., Preston, C.D., Rumsey, F.J., Taylor, I. 2005. The Vascular Plant
Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 7: 1-116. Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, Peterborough.
English Nature (2004). Guidelines for Developers. English Nature, Peterborough
English Nature (2001) Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature
Essex Field Club Data Search Information provided on the 11th June 2012.
Froglife. 1999. Reptile Survey. An Introduction to Planning, Conduction and Interpreting
Surveys for Snake and Lizard Conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife.
Gent, A.H. and Gibson, S.D., eds. 1998 Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. Peterborough,
Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Gregory, R. D. Wilkinson, N. I. Noble, D. G. Robinson, J. A. Brown A. F. Hughes, J.
Proctor, D .A. Gibbons, D. W. & Galbraith, C.A. (2007). The population status of birds
in the United Kingdom and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation concern 2002-
2007. British Birds 95: 410-450.
HMSO (1981) Wildlife and Countryside Act. HMSO, London.
HMSO (2010) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
HMSO,London.
HMSO (2000) Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act. HMSO, London.
HMSO (1992) Protection of Badgers Act, HMSO London.
HMSO (2006) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act HMSO London.
JNCC (2010). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey: a technique for environmental
audit (revised reprint). JNCC: Peterborough.
Stace, C (2005) Field Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press.
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) NPPF.
Web references
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 30 August 2012/ April 2014
MAGIC: Designated area data downloaded from URL http://www.magic.gov.uk.html
UK BAP www.ukbap.org.uk
Essex Local BAP http://www.essexfieldclub.org.uk/portal/p/Essex+BAP+species
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 31 August 2012/ April 2014
9. Appendices
Appendix A: Phase 1 habitat map
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 32 August 2012/ April 2014
Appendix B: Plant species list
Forbs
Common Name Scientific Name
Daisy Bellis perennis
Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum
Chamomile Matricaria chamomilla
Common chickweed Stellaria media
Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense
Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica
Cleavers Galium aparine
Bloody cranes bill Geranium sanguineum
Cut leaved cranesbill Geranium dissectum
Common mallow Malva sylvestris
Spotted medick Medicago arabica
Bristly oxtongue Picris echiodes
Greater plantain Plantago major
Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris
Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens
Bramble Rubus fruticosus
Curled dock Rumex crispus
Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius
Ragwort Senecio jacobaea
Prickly sow thistle Sonchus asper
Smooth sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus
Greater stitchwort Stellaria holostea
Dandelion Taraxacum agg.
Goats beard Tragopogon pratensis
Lords-and ladies Arum maculatum
Hop trefoil Trifolium campestre
White clover Trifolium repens
Scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum
Nettle Urtica dioica
Common vetch Vicia sativa
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 33 August 2012/ April 2014
Trees and shrubs
Common Name Scientific Name
Field maple Acer campestre
Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna
Ash Fraxinus excelsior
Blackthorn Prunus spinosa
Oak Quercus robur
Dog rose Rosa canina
Bramble Rubus fruticosus
Elder Sambucus nigra
Elm Ulmus sp.
Grasses, sedges, rushes and ferns
Common Name Scientific Name
False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius
Crested dogs tail Cynosurus cristatus
Cocks foot Dactylis glomerata
Couch grass Elytrigia repens
Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus
Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne
Timothy Phleum pratense
Annual meadow-grass Poa annua
Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis
Land at Hullbridge Biodiversity Survey
JBA 10/252 34 August 2012/ April 2014
Appendix C: Relevant protected species legislation
Species Relevant Legislation Level of Protection
Bats
o Full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended
o Classified as European protected species under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
o Also protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
Under the WCA (1981), it is an offence to:
intentionally kill, injure, or take any species of bat
intentionally or recklessly disturb bats
intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts
Birds
o Protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended
Under the WCA (1981), it is an offence to: (with
exceptions for certain species):
Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird
Intentionally take, damage or destroy nests in use or being built (including ground nesting birds)
Intentionally take, damage or destroy eggs
Species listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA or their
dependant young are afforded additional protection
from disturbance whilst nesting
Great
Crested
Newts
o Full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) (1981) (Listed on Schedule 5) - as amended
o Classified as European protected species under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
Under the WCA (1981), it is an offence to:
intentionally kill, injure, or take great crested newts
intentionally or recklessly disturb great crested newts
intentionally or recklessly damage destroy or obstruct access to any place used by the animal for shelter or protection
Reptiles
o Partially protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended.
Under the WCA (1981), it is an offence to:
intentionally kill or injure these animals
sell, offer for sale, advertise for sale, possess or transport for the purposes of selling any live or dead animals or part of these animals