Impact... · Executive summary 1. This report presents the findings and recommendations of ecological surveys carried out at Land east of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex. The surveys

Ecological Impact Assessment

Land east of Ashingdon Road Rochford

On Behalf of: Bloor Homes Limited

December 2019

© SES 2019 www.ses-eco.co.uk

Author Sarah Wiltshire BSc (Hons) MSc

Technical Review Sean Crossland BSc BCA MCIEEM

Report Status Final Rev E

Date of Issue 10.12.2019

http://www.ses-eco.co.uk/

http://www.ses-eco.co.uk/

Executive summary

1. This report presents the findings and recommendations of ecological surveys carried out at Land east

of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex. The surveys were carried out to inform the planning application

for residential-led development of the site.

2. The study area covered approximately 30 ha and was dominated by arable fields with boundary

habitats including hedgerows, dry ditches, improved and semi-improved grassland, scrub, tall ruderals

and a pond. The application boundary comprises approximately 26 ha within the study area. Rochford

centre and the River Roach lie to the south of the site, with the wider landscape to the south and west

being more developed, and the landscape to the east predominantly set to agricultural use.

3. A preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) was carried out in March 2019 to identify any ecological

constraints and opportunities in connection with the proposed development. The survey also

identified the need for any additional surveys to determine the presence or likely absence of protected

species and habitats, specifically: hedgerow survey, badger monitoring survey, reptile

presence/absence survey, great crested newt presence/absence survey and population size class

assessment, bat activity and emergence/re-entry surveys.

4. This report provides a summary of the baseline ecological conditions and outlines the importance of

features recorded at the site. Detailed results and maps are provided in Appendices.

5. The report also outlines the impacts, mitigation and enhancement measures to ensure biodiversity is

protected during course of the development and, where possible, enhanced following occupation.

Through implementing the recommended mitigation, it is considered that all significant negative

impacts from the proposed development upon protected and notable habitats and species would be

mitigated in line with relevant wildlife legislation and national and local planning policy related to

biodiversity.

Contents 1.0 Introduction and Aims .............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Methods ................................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Baseline Ecological Conditions ............................................................................................................... 10

4.0 Impacts, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures ................................................................................. 31

5.0 Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 49

6.0 References .............................................................................................................................................. 52

Appendices

Appendix 1: Site Location & Development Proposal Plans ................................................................................ 55

Appendix 2: Legislation & Policy Context ........................................................................................................... 57

Appendix 3: Detailed Survey Methods ............................................................................................................... 66

Appendix 4: CIEEM EcIA Methods ...................................................................................................................... 74

Appendix 5: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 78

Appendix 6: Hedgerow Survey Plan ................................................................................................................... 84

Appendix 7: Badger Survey Results .................................................................................................................... 85

Appendix 8: Bat Survey Results .......................................................................................................................... 91

Appendix 9: Breeding Bird Survey Results ......................................................................................................... 93

Appendix 10: Great Crested Newt Survey Results ........................................................................................... 103

Appendix 11: Reptile Survey Results ................................................................................................................ 104

Appendix 12: Plant Species of Known Benefit to Bats ..................................................................................... 109

Appendix 13: Plants Offering a Value to Wildlife ............................................................................................. 112

1

1.0 Introduction and Aims

1.1 Southern Ecological Solutions Ltd. (SES) was commissioned by Bloor Homes Limited to undertake a suite

of ecological surveys and produce an ecological impact assessment report for land east of Ashingdon

Road, Rochford, Essex (Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TQ873916) (the site). A plan showing the

approximate application site boundary and the wider study area is provided in Appendix 1.

1.2 This report has been produced to inform an outline planning application for the demolition of numbers

148 and 150 Ashingdon Road and the development of 665 residential dwellings (C3), a community

facility (D1), open space and associated infrastructure including flood storage and surface water

drainage attenuation, with all matters unreserved for 233 residential dwellings comprising Phase 1 of

the proposals, and all other matters reserved except for Access and Layout. The proposed land use and

access parameter plan is provided in Appendix 1.

1.3 A preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) was undertaken in March 2019 by SES. This survey aimed to:

• Map the main ecological features within the site and compile a plant species list for each

habitat type;

• Make an initial assessment of the presence or likely absence of species of conservation

concern

• Identify any legal and planning policy constraints relevant to nature conservation which may

affect the development (see Appendix 2);

• Determine any potential further ecological issues;

• Determine the need for further surveys and mitigation; and

• Make recommendations for minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in

biodiversity where possible in accordance with Chapter 15: Conserving and Enhancing the

Natural Environment, of the National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, 2019), and

relevant nature conservation policies within the adopted Rochford Local Development

Framework Core Strategy (2011).

1.4 The following surveys were recommended and subsequently carried out between March and

September 2019:

• Bats (preliminary ground level tree assessment; activity surveys; emergence/re-entry surveys);

• Badger (Meles meles) sett scoping and monitoring surveys;

• Birds (breeding bird surveys);

• Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) (GCN) (Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) surveys; presence

/ absence surveys; population size class assessment);

• Hedgerow survey;

• Reptile presence / absence surveys, and;

• Notable mammal species assessment.

1.5 This report sets out the results of the above surveys. All features are then evaluated using the evidence

from the desk study, field surveys, previous reports and relevant literature. The proposals for

development are then set out and the impacts on features are assessed. Mitigation options are then

outlined in relation to legal and planning policy obligations and residual effects assessed.

2

Site Description

1.6 The site is located to the east of Ashingdon Road, Rochford. It is bounded by existing development to

the north, west and south and arable cropland to the east. To the south of the site is the centre of

Rochford, the River Roach and Southend Airport. The wider landscape to the east is predominantly

arable, with the landscape to the west and south being more developed.

1.7 The application site is approximately 26ha in extent and is predominantly set to agricultural use, forming

part of Doggett’s Farm. The site comprises two adjacent fields, separated by a partly defunct hedgerow

and ditch running northwest to southeast through the site. The easternmost section of the field to the

north is not included within the application site boundary, though forms part of the total study area,

comprising approximately 30ha, for the ecological assessments reported herein.

3

2.0 Methods

2.1 The approach taken follows guidance and methods as prescribed by the Chartered Institute for Ecology

and Environmental Management (CIEEM), specifically the Guidelines for Ecological Appraisal 2nd edition

(2017) and the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (2018). Following these methods, a baseline

of rare and/or noted ecological receptors (species and habitats) was established and valued. Predicted

significant impacts upon these receptors have been identified and constraints and opportunities

identified. This step-wise assessment process has informed likely mitigation and enhancement

measures. Phase 2 ecological surveys have been implemented to fully inform the predicted impacts of

the scheme in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG, 2019), local

planning policy and relevant wildlife legislation.

Desk Study

2.2 SES commissioned a data search for records of protected and notable species from Essex Field Club (EFC)

in March 2019. The data search encompassed the study area, and up to 2km from the boundary. This

data was received on 19 March 2019.

2.3 Hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius records were also sought from the National Biodiversity

Network (NBN) Atlas www.nbnatlas.org, which holds data from the People’s Trust for Endangered

Species (PTES). As dormouse are particularly under-recorded, the data search for this species

encompassed an area of up to 10km from the site boundary.

2.4 A web-based search for statutory designated sites via the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the

Countryside (MAGIC) spatial data resource www.magic.gov.uk was undertaken on 24 September 2019

for the following designations: European (up to 22km from the site boundary, as per the maximal Zone

of Influence (ZoI) for Essex coastal internationally designated sites, see 2.5); and national (5km from the

site boundary).

2.5 The Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) Habitats

Regulations Assessment Strategy document for 2018-2038 (Place Services, 2019) was referred to in

order to determine the Zone of Influence (ZoI) for coastal European Designated sites and hence the

requirement for off-site mitigation (Table 1).

Table 1: Zones of Influence of Essex Coast European Designated Sites (Place Services, 2019)

European designated site Underpinning SSSIs* ZoIs (km)

Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Ramsar Orwell Estuary SSSI Stour Estuary SSSI Cattawade Marshes SSSI

13

Hamford Water SPA and Ramsar Hamford Water SSSI 8

Colne Estuary SPA and Ramsar Colne Estuary SSSI 9.7

Blackwater Estuary SPA and Ramsar Blackwater Estuary SSSI 22

Dengie SPA and Ramsar Dengie SSSI 20.8

Crouch and Roach Estuaries Ramsar and SPA Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI 4.5

Foulness Estuary SPA and Ramsar Foulness SSSI 13

Essex Estuaries SAC

Blackwater Estuary SSSI Colne Estuary SSSI Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI Dengie SSSI Foulness SSSI

-**

http://www.magic.gov.uk/

4

European designated site Underpinning SSSIs* ZoIs (km)

Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA and Ramsar

Benfleet and Southend Marshes SSSI 4.3

Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar Mucking Flats and Marshes SSSI 8.1

*Underpinning SSSIs are listed for Essex sites as these are what the Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) are aligned to. **The Essex Estuaries SAC comprises the Colne Estuary, Blackwater Estuary, Dengie, Crouch and Roach Estuaries and Foulness Estuary and so follow the respective ZoIs throughout.

SPA = Special Protection Area; SSSI = Site of Special Scientific Interest; SAC = Special Conservation Area

2.6 SES also requested details of non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site boundary from Essex

Wildlife Trust (EWT). This data was received on 25 March 2019.

2.7 Maps of the area of assessment and wider area, using the MAGIC online spatial data resource and aerial

photographs on Google Earth (Google Inc., 2011), were examined to determine the possible habitats

present on, and adjacent to the area of assessment, and their context in the surrounding landscape,

searching in particular for waterbodies, watercourses and other landscape features that may be of

ecological significance to protected species, notably great crested newt and mobile species such as bats

and birds.

2.8 A series of previous ecological surveys of the site were carried out by Lockhart Garett on behalf of Aber

Ltd. in 2016. The 2017 reports for these surveys were reviewed in order to support the current

assessment:

• Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report (Lockhart Garratt ref: 16-0341, 2016)

• Badger Activity Survey Report (Lockhart Garratt reference 16-1967, 2016)

• Bat Activity Survey Report (Lockhart Garratt ref: 16-1855, 2016)

• Great Crested Newt Survey Report (Lockhart Garratt ref: 16-0342, 2016)

• Reptile Survey Report (Lockhart Garratt ref: 16-1853, 2016)

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

2.9 A previous Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site was carried out in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017),

however with three years having elapsed since this survey, the information was considered out of date.

A new extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site was therefore carried out on 22 March 2019 to

update the previous survey information. The survey was carried out by suitably qualified ecologist Sarah

Wiltshire BSc (Hons) MSc in fair weather conditions.

2.10 Phase 1 Habitat Survey is a standard technique for obtaining baseline ecological information for areas

of land, including proposed development sites. Phase 1 Habitat Survey methods are set out in the

Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010). Habitat mapping

was undertaken using the standard classification to indicate habitat types. Features of ecological

interest and value were highlighted using target notes.

2.11 The dominant and readily identifiable higher plant species identified in each of the various habitat

parcels were recorded and their abundances assessed on the DAFOR scale:

• D - Dominant

• A - Abundant

• F - Frequent

5

• O - Occasional

• R - Rare

2.12 These scores represent the abundance within the defined area only and do not reflect national or

regional abundances. Plant species nomenclature follows Stace (2010).

Hedgerow Survey

2.13 All hedgerows within and surrounding the site were assessed by Sven Wair of SES on 21 May 2019, to

determine whether they qualify as ‘Important Hedgerows’ under The Hedgerow Regulations (1997).

Detailed survey methods are provided in Appendix 3.

Badgers Preliminary Assessment

2.14 An initial assessment was undertaken during the extended Phase 1 survey, to identify areas that might

be used by badger Meles meles for foraging, commuting and sett creation, and to look for signs of

badgers such as paths, hairs, latrines and setts on site.

Sett Monitoring Survey

2.15 A previous badger survey was carried in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017); this confirmed the presence

of badger setts on site. With three years having elapsed since the previous survey, this information was

considered out of date. Therefore, a new sett monitoring survey was undertaken over six visits between

29 April and 28 May 2019 by Sarah Wiltshire BSc (Hons) MSc to update the previous assessment. Surveys

were undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines (Harris et al. 1989; Scottish Badgers, 2018).

Detailed methods are provided in Appendix 3.

Bats Preliminary Assessment

2.16 The site was initially assessed for its suitability to support roosting, foraging and commuting bats during

the extended Phase 1 Survey.

2.17 A further preliminary inspection of two bungalows to be demolished under the development proposals

(148-150 Ashingdon Road) and one oak tree proposed to be felled to facilitate access (located on

Ashingdon Road adjacent to Holt Farm School at OS grid reference TQ 87030 91445) was carried out on

26 July 2019 by Sarah Wiltshire BSc (Hons) MSc and Jim Silverstone of SES.

2.18 All existing habitats were assessed for suitability for bats using guidelines issued by the Bat Conservation

Trust (Collins, 2016). Detailed methodology is provided in Appendix 3.

Internal Building Inspection

2.19 An internal inspection of the interior loft spaces of two bungalows to be demolished under the

development proposals was carried out by Sarah Wiltshire BSc (Hons) MSc and Jim Silverstone of SES

on 26 July 2019.

6

2.20 The loft spaces were searched for evidence of roosting bats using high powered torches. Evidence of

bat occupation sought included the physical presence of bats, droppings, urine staining and mammalian

oil staining. The inspection was carried out in accordance with guidelines issued by the Bat Conservation

Trust (Collins, 2016). Detailed methodology is provided in Appendix 3.

Emergence/re-entry Surveys

2.21 The two existing bungalows to be demolished under the development proposals were identified as

having a ‘low’ suitability for roosting bats and hence further survey was recommended. In accordance

with current guidance for low suitability structures, survey effort comprised one dusk emergence

survey, carried out on 15 August 2019. Detailed methodology is provided in Appendix 3.

Activity Surveys

2.22 The site was assessed as having low suitability for foraging and commuting bats, therefore further

activity surveys including three activity transects and three accompanying five night static bat detector

deployments (two locations per transect) were carried out between May to September 2019. A previous

series of surveys was carried out in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017), however with three years having

elapsed, this information was considered out of date. In addition, the previous surveys did not obtain

coverage across the bat active season (Spring, Summer, Autumn). Therefore, new surveys were

undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines (Collins, 2016). Detailed methods are provided

in Appendix 3.

Birds Preliminary Assessment

2.23 An initial assessment was undertaken during the extended Phase 1 survey of the site’s potential to

support breeding birds. Suitable habitat generally includes scrub, trees and ruderal vegetation but can

also include buildings, open grassland and piles of debris. The site was also assessed at this time for its

potential to support significant wintering and/or migratory bird populations.

Breeding Bird Survey

2.24 A breeding bird survey was then subsequently undertaken using a cut-down version of the standard

Common Bird Census (CBC) methods, devised by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) (Marchant,

1983; Bibby et al.,1992). This comprised three visits between April to June 2019, undertaken by Darren

Denmead BSc (Hons). Detailed methods are provided in Appendix 3.

Great Crested Newts Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Survey

2.25 A survey to determine the suitability of accessible ponds within 500m of the study area for great crested

newt Triturus cristatus was undertaken on 22 March 2019 by Sarah Wiltshire BSc (Hons) MSc, in

accordance with best practice guidelines (Oldham et al. 2000). Detailed methods are provided in

Appendix 3.

7

Terrestrial Habitat Assessment

2.26 Terrestrial habitats on site were assessed for their suitability for great crested newt during the extended

Phase 1 survey. Suitable terrestrial habitat generally includes rough grassland and woodland where they

can forage and hibernate, with good links to the ponds where they breed.

Presence / Absence Pond Surveys

2.27 Surveys were undertaken between mid-March and mid-June 2019 to determine the presence or likely

absence of GCN in accessible ponds within 500m of the study area.

2.28 Presence / absence pond surveys were previously carried in 2016 and did not detect the presence of

great crested newts in any ponds surveyed (Lockhart Garett, July 2017). However, with three years

having elapsed since, this information was considered out of date. In addition, some of the closest and

most suitable ponds within the nearby Doggetts Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) were not accessed for the

previous surveys. Therefore a new set of surveys were undertaken in accordance with best practice

guidelines (Langton et al. 2001). Detailed methods are provided in Appendix 3.

Population Size Class Estimation

2.29 Surveys were undertaken between mid-March and mid-June 2019 to determine the population size

class of GCN in ponds where GCN were recorded during presence / absence surveys. Surveys were

undertaken in accordance with best practice guidelines (Langton et al. 2001). Detailed methods are

provided in Appendix 3.

Hazel Dormouse

2.30 Habitats were assessed for their general suitability for hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius during

the extended Phase 1 survey. This species generally uses areas of dense woody vegetation and are more

likely to be found where there is a wide diversity of woody species contributing to a three-dimensional

habitat structure, a number of food sources, plants suitable as nest-building materials and good habitat

connectivity.

Invertebrates

2.31 The site was assessed for its potential to support rare or notable invertebrate species as part of the

extended Phase 1 survey. Factors considered included the presence of uncommon habitats, particular

food plant species, presence of deadwood, and the complexity and density of micro-habitats available.

Otter and Water Vole

2.32 The site was assessed for its potential to support otter Lutra lutra and water vole Arvicola amphibious

during the extended Phase 1 Survey. Otters have been recorded exploiting virtually all types of

waterbodies and waterways in the UK and are found on still waters (canals, lakes, ponds) as well as

rivers and streams of all sizes. Water voles will inhabit most open water and wetland habitats including

streams, canals, wet ditches and ponds.

8

Reptiles Preliminary Assessment

2.33 The site was initially assessed during the extended Phase 1 Survey for its suitability for the four

widespread reptile species; common lizard Zootoca vivipara, slow-worm Anguis fragilis, grass snake

Natrix natrix and adder Vipera berus. Specific habitat requirements vary between species. Common

lizard favour rough grassland, however they can be found in a variety of habitats ranging from woodland

glades to walls and pastures. Slow-worms use similar habitats to common lizards and are often found in

gardens and derelict land. Grass snake have similar habitat requirements to common lizards but have a

greater reliance on ponds and wetlands where they hunt amphibians. Adders occupy areas of rough,

open countryside and are often associated with woodland edge habitats.

Presence / Likely Absence Survey

2.34 A previous reptile survey was carried out on site in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017); this confirmed the

presence of reptiles on site. With three years having elapsed since the previous survey, this information

was considered out of date. Therefore, a new seven-visit presence/likely absence survey was carried

out by Leigh-Ann Barren of SES to update this assessment. The survey was carried out in accordance

with published guidelines (Froglife, 1999; Gent & Gibson, 2003; HGBI, 1998). Detailed survey methods,

including dates and information regarding weather, are provided in Appendix 3.

Other Notable Species

2.35 The site was assessed during the extended Phase 1 Survey for its potential to support Natural

Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 species of principal importance which are likely

to occur in the local area, including hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus, brown hare Lepus europaeus,

harvest mouse Micromys minutus, polecat Mustela putorius and common toad Bufo bufo.

2.36 In combination with the above surveys, incidental sightings of other notable species were also recorded.

Assessment of Nature Conservation Value

2.37 CIEEM guidelines for Ecological Assessment in the United Kingdom (2018) have been utilised to assess

the impacts upon habitats within the zone of influence of the site. CIEEM suggests that it is best to use

the geographical scale (i.e. international, national, regional etc.) at which a feature (i.e. a habitat, species

or other ecological resource) may or may not be important as the appropriate measure of value. As

such, data from the data search, extended Phase 1 Habitat survey and subsequent species-specific

surveys has been reviewed and the likely occurrence of protected and notable species/species groups

assessed. This has allowed predictions of impacts to be made along with recommendations for

mitigation, compensation and enhancement. Further detail on the assessment methods utilised in this

report is provided in Appendix 4.

2.38 The following geographical scale categories are considered appropriate:

• International;

• National (i.e. England);

• Regional (South East);

• County (Essex);

9

• District (Rochford District);

• Local or Parish (Rochford); and

• Within Site or zone of influence only

Constraints Bat Surveys

2.39 The bat surveys were completed with the assistance of bat detectors. Surveys using bat detectors have

an advantage over other methodologies (such as radio tracking or trapping) in that they are ‘non-

intrusive’ and will therefore not have an adverse effect on the conservation status or welfare of bats.

However, all survey techniques for bats are subject to bias and bat detector surveys may under record

species with weak echolocation calls, such as brown long-eared bats. Bats from the Myotis genus can

be difficult to identify to species from call structure alone (Russ, 2012).

2.40 The results of static detector surveys are based on bat activity recorded at the location immediate to

each static detector, and therefore only describe localised activity at the site. However, detectors were

moved around the site each season to sample different areas therefore this constraint is not considered

to be significant.

2.41 During the summer transect survey part of the northern boundary could not be accessed due to the

dense growth of boundary vegetation and the arable crop. Given the low numbers of bats recorded

across the site during this and other surveys, this constraint is not considered significant.

Great Crested Newt Surveys

2.42 Three ponds within 500m of the northern boundary of the site were identified via aerial maps but could

not be accessed for HSI survey to determine their likely suitability for great crested newts. These ponds

were also not included in the presence/absence pond surveys conducted (P1 was accessed for HSI

survey, but not for subsequent pond surveys).

2.43 This is not considered a significant constraint on the survey information obtained as the nearest of these

ponds is approximately 460m from the wider study area via connecting ecological features (woodland,

hedgerows) and 760m from the application site boundary. Studies suggest a routine migratory range of

up to 250m for great crested newts (Cresswell & Whitworth, 2004), though Jehle (2000) determined a

smaller terrestrial radius of 63m within which 95% of summer refuges were located. Therefore, it is

considered unlikely that any great crested newts associated with these ponds would utilise the habitats

on site.

2.44 In addition P11 (on site pond) was subject to only one visit for the pond presence/absence surveys, as

it subsequently dried out preventing further survey. Given that this pond was previously surveyed over

four visits in 2016 (Lockhart Garrett, July 2017) and no great crested newt were found, and taking into

account the ‘below average’ suitability of the pond, it is considered unlikely that this represents a

significant constraint on the survey information.

10

3.0 Baseline Ecological Conditions

Local Planning Policy

3.1 Part of the site (23.5ha) is allocated for residential development of at least 500 units (including at least

175 affordable units) under Policy SER8 of the Rochford Local Development Framework Allocations Plan

(2014).

3.2 Further details regarding the planning policies which may apply to this site are provided in Appendix 2.

Designated Sites

3.3 Details of designated sites within influencing distance of the proposed development are provided in

Table 2 below.

3.4 The site falls within the ZoI of three Essex coastal European designated sites that are considered to be

of international importance. All three sites form part of the Essex Estuaries SAC and are underpinned

by national SSSI designations. The nearest of these sites at 1.9km southeast is The Crouch and Roach

Estuary SPA & Ramsar.

3.5 One additional SSSI not associated with the above coastal sites was identified within 5km; Hockley

Woods SSSI. This site is considered to be of national importance. The proposed development site does

not fall within the Natural England SSSI Impact Risk Zone that relates to residential development for this

designated site.

3.6 There is one statutory designated Local Nature Reserve (Magnolia Fields LNR) and seven non-statutory

designated LoWS within 2km; these sites are considered to be of local importance. The closest of these

sites is Doggetts Pond LoWS, approximately 100m east of the site.

Table 2. European Designated Sites within up to 22km, Nationally Designated Sites within 5km and Statutory and Non-Statutory Locally Designated sites within 2km of the site.

Site Name Distance &

Direction Size (ha) Description & Reason for Designation

Statutory Designated Sites

Crouch & Roach Estuaries SPA &

Ramsar

Underpinned by Crouch & Roach

Estuaries SSSI

1.9km southeast

1847.8

The River Crouch occupies a shallow valley between two ridges of London Clay, whilst the River Roach is set predominantly between areas of brick earth and loams with patches of sand and gravel. The intertidal zone along the Rivers Crouch and Roach is 'squeezed' between the sea walls along both banks and the river channel. Unlike more extensive estuaries elsewhere in Essex, this leaves a relatively narrow strip of tidal mud which, nonetheless, is used by significant numbers of birds. The site is of importance for wintering waterbirds, especially Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta b. bernicla.

11



Foulness Estuary SPA &

Ramsar

Underpinned by Foulness

SSSI

6.8km east

10942

Foulness SPA lies on the north shore of the Thames Estuary between Southend in the south and the Rivers Roach and Crouch in the north. It is made up of extensive intertidal sand silt flats, saltmarsh, beaches, grazing marshes, rough grass and scrubland. The site is of international importance for six species and national importance for three species of wintering wildfowl, with the islands, creeks and grazing land forming an integral part of the sheltered feeding and roosting sites. The shell banks support nationally important breeding colonies of little terns Sterna albifrons, common terns Sterna hirundo and sandwich terns Thallaseus sandivcensus. Avocets Recurvirostra avosetta also breed on this site in nationally important numbers.

Blackwater Estuary SPA &

Ramsar

Underpinned by Blackwater

Estuary SSSI

10.4km north

4403

The habitats present include saltmarsh, mudflats, shingle and shell banks. The site is designated a SPA for supporting populations of importance of numerous bird species listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive, including breeding little tern Sterna, winter populations of avocet and hen harrier Circus cyaneus, and passage ringer plover Charadrius hiaticula. The assemblage at the site qualifies the SPA as a wetland of international importance.

Essex Estuaries SAC

1.9km southeast

46111

The site is designated for the extensive areas of habitat present that are listed under Annex I of the Habitats Directive. These habitats include estuaries, mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, and Atlantic salt meadows, which are of European importance. The SAC forms the wider habitat matrix within which the Blackwater Estuary SPA/Ramsar and Croach and Roach Estuaries SPA/Ramsar are located.

Hockley Woods SSSI

3km west

92.1

Hockley Woods are a contiguous group of ancient coppice woods incorporating Great Bull wood, Great Hawkwell Wood, Beeches Wood and Parson's Snipe. They lie on the crest and slopes of a ridge of pre-glacial gravels and clay north-west of Southend-on-Sea. They form one of the most extensive areas of ancient woodland in South Essex, the dominant stand types comprising the Sweet chestnut variants of Pedunculate oak-hornbeam - birch-hazel variant and acid Sessile oak-hornbeam. The population of Sessile Oak Quercus petraea is probably the largest in eastern England.

Magnolia Fields LNR

Part of

Magnolia Fields LoWS

0.8km northwest

9.7 (LNR)

29.2

(LoWS)

This site comprises grazed pastures, rough unmanaged grassland, scrub and maturing woodland. Much of the site is managed by Hawkwell Parish Council as a nature reserve. The three pastures to the northwest are closely cropped and display a species rich flora that includes pale flax Linum bienne, blue fleabane Erigeron acer and meadow barley Hordeum secalinum amongst a sward of common bent Agrostis capillaris and crested dog's-tail Cynosurus cristatus. A large population of great crested newts is present on the site, considered to be the largest in Essex. The site also supports populations of slow worm, common lizard and grass snake.

12



Non-Statutory Designated Sites

Doggetts Pond LoWS

0.1km east

7

These former gravel pits have developed a good general wildlife interest. The site comprises a large pond with associated beds of bulrush Typha latifolia and common reed Phragmites australis. Patches of scattered and dense hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, willow Salix sp. and bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. are found around the peripheral areas of the site. These attract numerous birds and insect species. Birds of interest include reed Acrocephalus scirpaceus and sedge warblers Acrocephalus schoenobaenus, lesser whitethroat Sylvia curruca and breeding little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis. Both water vole and great crested newt have been recorded from this site.

Wood Sloppy LoWS

0.8km northeast

2.2 A small wood with a canopy of pendunculate oak Quercus robur and ash Fraxinus excelsior over hawthorn Crataegus monogyna.

River Roach at Rochford LoWS

1.2km south

8.1 UK BAP Priority Habitats: Coastal Saltmarsh, Intertidal Mudflats

Hyde Wood LoWS

1.8km north

2.9 UK BAP Priority Habitats: Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland

Sutton Ford Bridge Pasture

LoWS

1.9km southeast

2 UK BAP Priority Habitats: Coastal and floodplain Grazing Marsh

Potash Wood LoWS

2km southwest

13.8 UK BAP Priority Habitats: Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland

Protected and Notable Species Records

3.7 Details of records of protected and notable species records within 2km of the site are provided in Table

3 below:

Table 3. Summary of protected and notable species records within 2km of the site.

Species/Group No#

Records Closest Record

(km) Most Recent

Record

European Protected Species

Great crested newt 56 0.3 2016

A bat species 3 0.9 2015

Pipistrelle species 18 1.1 2012

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 22 0.6 2012

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 12 1 2016

Noctule Nyctalus noctula 15 0.7 2012

Serotine Eptesicus serotinus 8 2.2 2012

Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus 6 2 2016

Daubenton's bat Myotis daubentonii 2 1 2003

Otter 1 1.6 1959

UK Protected Species

Slow-worm 62 0.7 2013

Common lizard 59 0.7 2018

Grass snake 20 0.9 2012

Adder 4 0.7 2012

13

Species/Group No#

Records Closest Record

(km) Most Recent

Record

Badger 18 1.1 2017

Water vole 16 0.4 2015

Schedule I Birds* 259 1 2017

Red list BoCC^ 600 0 2017

NERC Act 2006 Notable Species

Common toad 14 0.6 2014

Harvest mouse 3 0.9 2001

Western hedgehog 15 0.6 2016

Protected Plants

Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta 1 2.2 2016

Bee orchid Ophrys apifera 1 2.2 1995

Red List Invertebrates

White-letter hairstreak Satyrium w-album 6 0.7 2012

Small heath Coenonympha pamphilus 76 0 2017

Wall butterfly Lasiommata megera 8 0.4 2015

* including barn owl Tyto abla, brambling Fringilla montifringilla, fieldfare Turdus pilaris, peregrine Falco peregrinus, red kite Milvus milvus

^including starling Sturnus vulgaris, tree pipit Anthus trivialis, turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella, linnet Linaria cannabina, mistle thrush Turdus viscivorus, redwing Turdus iliacus, skylark

Alauda arvensis, song thrush (closest record) Turdus philomelos, corn bunting Emberiza calandra, cuckoo Cuculus canorus, house sparrow Passer domesticus

3.8 While no records were obtained for hazel dormouse within 2km of the site, the extended search using

NBN Atlas identified 112 records within 10km, the nearest originating from Hockley Woods, 3km west

of the site, and recorded in 2014.

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.9 The Phase 1 Habitat plan of the site and adjacent habitats and the plant species recorded in each habitat

type are tabled in Appendix 5. Photographs of habitat features are also provided in Appendix 5.

3.10 There were 11 different Phase 1 Habitat types found within the study area and on the boundaries:

• Amenity grassland;

• Arable;

• Buildings and hardstanding;

• Dense/scattered scrub;

• Dry ditches;

• Hedgerows;

• Improved grassland;

• Semi-improved grassland;

• Scattered trees;

• Standing water and;

• Tall ruderal.

14

Amenity grassland

3.11 To the west of the site were two semi-detached bungalows. The rear gardens associated with these

properties were set to lawn, dominated by perennial rye grass Lolium perenne. The lawns had not been

recently maintained and a tall sward containing interspersed ruderals, in particular common nettle

Urtica dioica, was present at the time of survey. This habitat showed very little floristic diversity and is

common locally, with the northern, western and southern boundaries of the site all abutting residential

gardens. Therefore this habitat is considered of site importance only.

Arable

3.12 Arable was the dominant habitat on site, comprising two crop fields separated by a hedgerow running

northwest to southeast. During the 2019 survey season an oil-seed rape crop Brassica napus was

present. The crop was very dense with few weeds amongst it, evidencing a likely history of spraying.

However, ruderals such as scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum and common nettle and

scrub (predominantly bramble Rubus fruticosus agg.) frequently intruded and intermixed with the crop

at the margins.

3.13 The field margins to the north, south and west were approximately 2-3m wide and densely vegetated

with a mix of scrub and ruderals. The field margin to the east varied from 2-3m wide up to 10m wide

where a vehicle trackway was present. This boundary contained mixed grasses and ruderals with less

areas of scrub. Finally through the centre of the site and associated with a partially defunct hedgerow

and dry ditch there was an approximately 10m wide strip of improved grassland. In all cases, floristic

diversity of the boundary habitats was very low with just a few common species dominating. There was

no evidence that the boundary habitats were actively managed for wildlife, and hence they were not

considered to qualify as a Habitat of Principle Importance (HoPI) under the NERC Act 2006 (Arable field

margins). However, they nonetheless were considered to have ecological value as connecting habitat

and cover for a variety of fauna likely to use the site. Further details on the species present within these

boundary habitats are provided below.

3.14 Arable cropland is a common habitat locally, with extensive tracts present in the local landscape

particularly to the east of the site. Due to this and the evident intensive nature of current management,

which has driven the low floristic diversity observed in the field boundaries, this habitat is considered of

site importance only.

Buildings and hardstanding

3.15 One building was present to the west of the site. The building comprised two semi-detached bungalows

known as 148-150 Ashingdon Road. The building appeared to date from the post-war era and had a

pitched hip and gable roof, clad in clay tiles, with later flat felt-roofed additions to the rear. The walls

were clad in concrete render. A hardstanding driveway was present to the frontage of both dwellings.

These habitats are considered of negligible ecological importance.

Dense scrub

3.16 Patches of dense and scattered scrub were present along the field boundaries, particularly those

abutting residential gardens to the south, west and north, though none of these patches were notably

extensive. A further patch of scrub was present off-site, adjacent to the southeast corner and covering

a large earth mound. Scrub was dominated by bramble with some blackthorn Prunus spinosa. Due to

15

the limited extent of the scrub patches and dominance of just two common species, this habitat is

considered of site importance only.

Dry ditches

3.17 Two hedgerows on site (H2 and H3) were associated with ditches, which were almost wholly dry at the

time of the initial PEA in March 2019 and remained so throughout the 2019 survey season. The banks

of the ditches were predominantly shaded by the associated hedgerows and so ground flora was absent

throughout most sections. Where more open conditions existed, such as towards the western defunct

section of H3, vegetation comprised mainly dense bramble scrub and common nettle. Due to the limited

flora associated with these ditches they are considered of site importance only.

Hedgerows

3.18 Three hedgerows were present within the study area, with two adjoining/within the application site

boundary (H2 and H3) and one at the eastern boundary of the study area (H1). H2 and H3 comprised

mainly native woody species and in general were dominated by either hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

or blackthorn. Standards were present in H2 and H3, with notable mature oak Quercus robur of

particular interest within H2. Due to the range of native woody species seen in H2 and associated

features (ditch and standard trees), hedgerows on site are considered to be of local importance.

Hedgerows were subject to a detailed survey, see 3.28 for further information.

Improved grassland

3.19 Improved grassland was present as a 10m wide strip at the field boundaries to the east and through the

centre of the site. Perennial ryegrass was dominant with Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus and annual

meadow grass Poa annua also noted. Interspersed forbs included creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens

and daisy Bellis perennis. While floristic diversity was low evidencing the sites history of improvement,

management of the grassland was low-intensity with a tall sward maintained through the summer

season. This drives an assessment of site level importance for this habitat.

Semi-improved grassland

3.20 To the north of the study area, just beyond the application site boundary was a patch of grassland with

a more semi-improved quality, including cock’s foot Dacytlis glomerata and Yorkshire fog and with a

lower proportion of rye grass. A greater diversity of herbs were noted here, including broad leaved dock

Rumex obtusifoloius bristly ox-tongue Helminthotheca echoides doves-foot cranesbill Geranium mole

and milkweed Euphorbia peplus. The limited extent of this habitat (approximately 0.2ha) and still

relatively low floristic diversity drives an assessment of only site level importance for this habitat.

However, with a tall sward, it is considered this feature has ecological value as cover and foraging habitat

for a variety of fauna likely to utilise the site.

Scattered trees

3.21 Trees were incorporated within the hedgerows; these are discussed in further detail in 3.18 and 3.27

onward. In addition trees were present around a pond to the east (see 3.22) and scattered along the

southern, western and northern boundaries of the site, both within and overhanging the site from

adjacent residential gardens. Species included pendunculate oak, ash, cypress Cupresssus lawsonii, elder

Sambucus nigra and cherry plum Prunus cerasifera. The oak trees, predominantly incorporated within

16

H2, were the most notable specimens due to their maturity. However, trees on site were generally

considered to be representative of those widely found across the local landscape, and no ancient or

veteran trees were recorded. As such trees are considered to be of site importance only.

Standing water

3.22 One waterbody was present at the eastern boundary of the study area. This was a small pond less than

10m x 10m in size, which had a depth of approximately 0.5m at the time of the initial PEA survey in

March 2019 and had fully dried out by 2 May 2019. The pond was vegetated with yellow flag iris Iris

pseudacorus, with bramble scrub and pendunculate oak and ash trees lining the banks. The ponds value

was considered to be limited by high levels of shading and relatively poor water quality, both

contributing to a lack of aquatic vegetation diversity. It is considered that this pond would not meet the

criteria to qualify as HoPI under the NERC Act 2006, as poor water quality and sparse vegetation would

be expected to limit the invertebrate assemblage associated with this feature. Nonetheless it is

considered a valuable resource for the fauna utilising the site and as such is considered to be of local

importance.

Tall ruderal

3.23 Tall ruderals were present in patches amidst scrub along the southern, western and northern boundaries

of the site. Common nettle and goosegrass Galium aparine were strongly dominant throughout. The

low level of floristic diversity and ubiquitous nature of species observed in this habitat drives the

assessment of site level importance for this habitat.

Summary

3.24 The habitats within the study area ranged from those of negligible ecological value (buildings and

hardstanding) to those with higher value (arable boundaries, semi-improved grassland, pond and

hedgerows). A summary is provided in Table 4; habitats at the site are considered to be of importance

up to the local level.

Table 4. Summary of the value of habitats

Habitat Value

Amenity grassland Site

Arable Site

Buildings and hardstanding Negligible

Dense/scattered scrub Site

Dry ditches Site

Hedgerows Local

Improved grassland Site

Semi-improved grassland Site

Scattered trees Site

Standing water Local

Tall ruderal Site

17

Flora Rare flora

3.25 The flora comprised common and widespread species and was considered to be of importance at the

site level.

Invasive plant species

3.26 A stand of Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica, a non-native invasive species listed under Schedule 9

of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), was recorded within the site on the southern

boundary (see Appendix 5, TN12 for location). Stems were also noted in the adjacent residential garden.

It is illegal to plant or otherwise allow this species to grow in the wild.

Hedgerows

3.27 Of three hedgerows identified in the study area, one (H2) was classified as important under The

Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Hedgerow H3 also comprised 80% or more of at least one woody UK native

species, and therefore is considered to qualify as HoPI under the NERC Act 2006. The hedgerow network

within the site is considered to be of importance at a local level.

3.28 A plan of the hedgerows and sections surveyed is provided in Appendix 6. Descriptions of each hedgerow

and associated features are provided below:

Hedgerow 1

3.29 Hedgerow 1 was 540m in length and approximately 4m in height. It was species poor in nature, with an

average of only two native woody species as defined in Schedule 3 of the Hedgerow Regulations

recorded per 30m section surveyed. It was strongly dominated by cherry plum (not a native woody

species listed under Schedule 3), with occasional elder, ash and hawthorn interspersed.

3.30 No woodland ground flora species as defined in Schedule 2 of the Hedgerow Regulations were observed.

Ground flora comprised of common species including cock’s foot, cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris,

ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris, lesser burdock Arctium minus, nipple wort Lapsana communis and hedge

mustard Sisymbrium officinale.

3.31 The hedgerow had one qualifying associated feature: less than 10% gaps. The hedgerow also connected

with two other hedgerows, scoring two points for connections, but not meeting the minimum four

points required to qualify for this associated feature.

3.32 With an average of two woody species and one associated feature, this hedgerow is considered not

important under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

Hedgerow 2

3.33 Hedgerow 2 was 450m in length and between 4-8m in height. It was species rich in nature, with an

average of five native woody species as defined in Schedule 3 of the Hedgerow Regulations recorded

per 30m section surveyed. Blackthorn and hawthorn were the most dominant hedgerow species, with

18

pendunculate oak and ash standards, elder, field maple Acer campestre, dogwood Cornus sanguinea

and hazel Corylus avellana at intervals throughout.


Ground flora comprised of common species including perennial rye grass, cow parsley, common mallow

Malva sylvestris, red campion Silene dioica and creeping thistle Cirsium arvense.

3.35 The hedgerow had four qualifying associated features: ditch along at least half of length, at least one

standard per 50m, less than 10% gaps, and connections to other ecological features (scoring six points

in total), including a pond (two points), a patch of off-site woodland (two points) and two other

hedgerows (two points).

3.36 With an average of five woody species and four qualifying associated features, this hedgerow is

considered important under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

Hedgerow 3

3.37 Hedgerow 3 was 480m in length (inclusive of significant gaps) and approximately 4m in height. It was

species poor in nature, with an average of four native woody species as defined in Schedule 3 of the

Hedgerow Regulations recorded per 30m section surveyed. Blackthorn and hawthorn were the most

dominant hedgerow species, with goat willow Salix caprea dog rose Rosa canina and occasional

pendunculate oak also recorded. This hedgerow was defunct to the west with significant gaps along it’s

total length.


Ground flora comprised of common species including perennial rye grass, cow parsley, meadow

buttercup Ranunculus acris, creeping thistle, and goosegrass.

3.39 The hedgerow had two qualifying associated features: ditch along at least half of length, and at least

one standard per 50m. The hedgerow also scored one point of the four required for connections to

other ecological features (connection to one other hedgerow).

3.40 With an average of four woody species and two qualifying associated features, this hedgerow is

considered not important under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

Badgers Preliminary Assessment

3.41 Suitable foraging, commuting and sett building habitat was identified on site during the extended Phase

1 survey. This took the form of field boundary scrub and ruderal habitats (foraging and connecting

habitat) and ditches associated with the hedgerows (sett building habitat).

3.42 Multiple signs of badger activity were observed throughout the study area, including well-worn paths,

snuffle holes, latrines and setts. Due to the confidential nature of data relating to badgers, further details

on the locations of badger signs and setts are provided in Confidential Appendix 7.

19

Sett Monitoring Survey

3.43 A previous badger survey was carried in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017); this confirmed the presence

of one active main sett and two subsidiary setts on site. The current sett monitoring survey, undertaken

to update the previous assessment, confirmed that all three of the previously recorded setts remain in

active use by badgers. In addition, two new active subsidiary setts, one new active outlier sett and one

further disused outlier sett were identified. Results are summarised below:

Table 5. Summary of badger survey results.

Sett number Total number of holes

Number of active holes

Sett classification Level of use

1 24 18 Main sett Active

2 5 2 Subsidiary sett Active



5 1 1 Outlier sett Active

6 1 1 Outlier sett Disused


3.44 Due to the confidential nature of data relating to badgers, detailed results of the badger monitoring

surveys, including maps of sett locations, are provided in Confidential Appendix 7.

Importance

3.45 Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Due to the high levels of badger

activity and multiple active setts present, the site is considered to be of local importance for badgers.

Bats

Preliminary Assessment & Internal Building Inspection

Roosting Bats: Trees

3.46 Previous surveys carried out in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017) had identified several mature oaks to

the north of the site containing suitable features for roosting bats; however this area is no longer

included in the application site or study area boundary. The great majority of trees on and bordering

the site were observed to be semi to early mature and lacked decay and damage features that could

provide suitable bat roosting habitat. Two trees were identified within the study area that were

considered to have a low to high suitability for roosting bats. Details are provided in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Results of the preliminary inspection of trees.

AIA Tree Number*

Species Grid reference Potential roosting features (PRFs) Suitability

N/A Pedunculate oak TQ 87691 91690

Lightning strike, visible from north, creating crevice feature from ground level to crown. Also resulting in small area of lifting bark on decaying leader at approx. 6.5m

High

T4 (Cat B) Pedunculate oak TQ 87650 91638

Small tear out, visible from south at approx. 5m above ground level, close to main stem.

Low

*Tree number as referenced in Sharon Hosegood Associates Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report, October 2019

20

3.47 A plan showing the location of suitable trees and photographs of suitable roost features are provided in

Appendix 8.

3.48 Trees considered to have negligible suitability for roosting bats are not included in the plan. This includes

the tree located on Ashingdon Road adjacent to Holt Farm School at OS grid reference TQ 87030 91445

(Referenced T1 in the AIA), which was determined to be of negligible suitability for roosting bats.

Roosting Bats: Buildings

3.49 During the external inspection of the bungalows at 148-150 Ashingdon Road, potential accesses for bats

were noted around the base of the chimney to the west and east, and under occasional gappy and

missing tiles within the roof structure.

3.50 However, internal inspection of the loft space of 148 revealed the interior of the roof to be entirely

unlined, ruling out the possibility for bats to roost underneath the tiles. Inspection of the loft in 150

revealed the interior to have been insulated with blocks of polystyrene; the area underneath this was

not viewed to determine if any lining was present in this section, however it was considered most likely

that the polystyrene blocks had been installed by a previous occupant in a DIY attempt to overcome

draft / water ingress issues resulting from the lack of lining, as the work did not appear to have been

completed to a professional standard using the correct materials.

3.51 The roof timbers in both lofts were observed to be in a generally good condition, with no crevices at

joints that could potentially provide roosting opportunities. Therefore, it was considered that

opportunities within the lofts were limited to roosting in the open on the beams themselves. It was

further expected that due to lack of lining, any evidence of bats using the loft space of 148 (e.g.

droppings, bats themselves) should be readily observable from the loft interior.

3.52 Two bat droppings were found during the search, one per loft interior. However, both were considered

to be extremely old, crumbling readily to dust. No further evidence of bats was found and it is considered

given the age of the droppings that there is nothing to indicate that the building is an active or recent

roost.

Table 7. Results of the preliminary bat roost inspection of buildings.

Building 148-150 Ashingdon Road

Description

Single storey semi-detached bungalows, dating from post-war era. Pitched hipped roof with two gable sections to east, clad in clay tiles, with later flat felt roofed additions to west. Mixed timber and uPVC fascias, in good order and well sealed. Concrete rendered walls and modern uPVC windows, well fitted to frames. No internal roof lining (148), or clad in polystyrene sheets (150).

Bat roost potential

Missing roof tiles beneath ridge of gable section on 148. Gap on eastern elevation beneath chimney due to hole in concrete flashings. Gap on western elevation beneath chimney due to lifted tile at base. Occasional missing or slipped tiles, and gaps underneath tiles, throughout roof; however no potential to roost between tiles & lining, as no lining present.

Evidence of bats Two historic bat droppings with appearance of pipistrelle species, one per loft. Very old and crumbling to dust. No evidence of recent or current roosting activity.

Suitability Low

21

3.53 In summary, while the roof structure of the building was noted to contain gaps providing potential

access opportunities for bats, internal roosting opportunities were considered to be very limited. Given

this, it was considered highly unlikely that a roost of high conservation status was present. Furthermore,

had e.g. a maternity roost been present, it was expected that evidence of this would have been readily

observable due to the unlined roof interior. Considering the results of the inspection as a whole, it was

considered most likely that the two historic droppings found originated from individual opportunistic

bats, who had at some point found their way into the loft, but finding little opportunity to roost, had

not returned. It was considered that a currently active roost was not present, and that overall the

building had only a low suitability for roosting bats.

Foraging and Commuting Bats

3.54 The boundary habitats on site (hedgerows, scrub, ruderals, scattered trees and pond) were considered

to offer opportunities for foraging and commuting bats. However, the centre and great majority of the

site was considered to offer very limited opportunity, as an arable monoculture subject to conventional

management that is likely to be unfavourable for bats invertebrate prey. In addition, more favourable

bat foraging habitats were noted off-site to the east, with the Doggetts Pond LoWs providing more

extensive scrub and woodland habitats as well as larger waterbodies. It was therefore considered

unlikely that the habitats on site would represent core foraging habitat for the local bat population.

3.55 It was noted that the hedgerows on site do not directly connect to the favourable bat foraging habitats

present at Doggetts Pond LoWs. However, H3 was nonetheless considered to provide some linkage

between residential properties to the west of the application site (which could potentially contain

roosts) and this site. The value of this feature as connecting habitat was considered to be limited by the

defunct, gappy nature of the hedge towards its western end.

3.56 Data from previous bat surveys carried out in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017) was also referred to in

order to inform the preliminary assessment. While previous surveys were constrained by a lack of data

collection during the spring and mid-summer periods, results from these surveys nonetheless indicated

that the foraging and commuting habitats on site were used by low numbers of individuals of common

bat species that are more typically associated with urban edge habitats, such as common Pipistrellus

pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus.

3.57 Taking into account all these factors, the site was valued as being of low suitability for foraging and

commuting bats.


3.58 As the bungalows to be demolished under the development proposals at 148-150 Ashingdon Road were

identified as having a ‘low’ suitability for roosting bats one further dusk emergence survey was carried

out. No bats were observed emerging from the building and bat activity was very low throughout the

survey despite good weather conditions. Only eight bat passes were recorded by the three surveyors

over the course of the survey, and it was considered likely that these originated from four individual

bats. All recordings were of common or soprano pipistrelle. Detailed results and weather conditions are

provided in Appendix 8.

22

3.59 The tree identified as being of high suitability for roosting bats (T1) was not subject to further

emergence/re-entry survey as this was situated outside of the application site boundary and will not be

impacted under the development proposals.

Activity Surveys Transects

3.60 A total of three species were recorded during transect surveys; common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle

and noctule (Nyctalus noctula). Activity levels were low, with intermittent passes being recorded from

a maximum of 3 individuals at any one time. Highest levels of activity were recorded along the northern,

western and southern boundaries, where bats foraged along the field edge and adjoining residential

gardens. Detailed results are provided in Appendix 8.

Table 8. Summary of transect survey results - passes per species per transect.

Season P.pip P.pyg N.nyc Total

Spring 34 1 1 36

Summer 6 3 1 10

Autumn 7 4 0 11

Mean 16 3 1 19

P.pip = common pipistrelle, P.pyg = soprano pipistrelle, N.nyc = noctule

Static Deployments

3.61 Analysis of data from static deployments increased the list of bat species associated with the site to

eight. Additional species recorded (in addition to those mentioned above) included Nathusius pipistrelle

Pipistrellus nathusii, Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri, serotine Eptesicus serotinus, brown long-eared bat

Plecotus auritus, and an undetermined myotis species. The great majority of activity was from common

and soprano pipistrelle, with only very low numbers of individual passes from other species. Overall

activity levels were also low; an average of 108 total bat passes per night were recorded, combining

data for the two locations sampled each season.

Table 9. Summary of static survey results - passes per species per night of recording (standardised for differences in night length over season and combining data for two sampling locations).

Season

P.p

ip

P.p

yg

P.n

at

P.s

pp

N.n

yc

N.l

ei

N.s

pp

E.se

r

Big

bat

P.a

ur

M.s

pp

Tota

l

Spring 150 38 1 2 3 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 195

Summer 59 13 2 3 3 0.2 80

Autumn 33 14 1 0.2 2 1 0.2 50

Mean 81 22 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 108

P.pip = common pipistrelle, P.pyg = soprano pipistrelle, P.nat = Nathusius pipistrelle, P.spp = pipistrelle species, N.nyc = noctule, N.lei = Leisler’s, N.spp = Nyctalus species, E.ser = serotine, P.aur = brown long-eared, M.spp = Myotis species.

23

Importance

Roosting Bats

3.62 As no bats were observed to emerge from 148-150 Ashingdon Road during the dusk survey and roosting

opportunities within this structure are considered to be very limited, buildings on site are considered to

be of negligible importance for roosting bats.

3.63 Given the very low number of trees observed on site with suitability for roosting bats (two), it is

considered that tree roosting opportunities are likely to be higher outside of the site within the broader

local landscape. Trees on site are therefore considered to be of site importance only for roosting bats.

A tree roost of high conservation significance is considered unlikely to be present given the common

species and low numbers of bat passes recorded during transect surveys, and the limited suitability of

the foraging and commuting habitat on site.

Foraging and Commuting Bats

3.64 Bat species found on site are considered to be ‘common’ (common pipistrelle; soprano pipistrelle) and

‘rarer’ (Nathusius’ pipistrelle; noctule; Leisler’s, serotine and Myotis sp.). Information on the distribution

of the bat species in Essex is provided in Table 10.

Table 10. Distribution of bats in Essex (Dobson & Tansley, 2014; EBG, 2018)

Bat species Status in Essex

Common pipistrelle Widespread, occasionally common. One of the two species most likely to be

encountered and regularly seen at dusk around gardens.

Soprano pipistrelle Widespread, occasionally common. One of the two species most likely to be

encountered and regularly seen at dusk around gardens.

Nathusius' pipistrelle A migratory species that may breed in small numbers, but maternity roosts are yet

to be found within the county. Considered to be rare but possibly over-looked.

Noctule Widespread, but relatively scarce.

Leisler’s bat Widespread, but scarce.

Serotine Widespread, but scarce. Thought to have declined greatly in the last thirty years.

Myotis sp.

Genus including six British species:

Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii - Widespread, relatively frequent near still water.

Natterer’s Myotis nattereri - Widespread, relatively scarce.

Whiskered Myotis mystacinus - One record, assumed to be very rare in Essex.

Brandt’s Myotis brandtii - Not recorded in Essex.

Alcathoe Myotis alcathoe - Not recorded in Essex.

Bechstein’s Myotis bechstenii - Not recorded in Essex.

3.65 Common pipistrelle were the most commonly recorded bats during surveys. However, levels of activity

even for this species were low; on average only 19 passes were recorded per transect, and 81 passes

per static sampling night, combining data for two sampling locations.

24

3.66 Given the low levels of overall bat activity observed and also the very low numbers of passes recorded

for ‘rarer’ species, the site is considered to be of only site level importance for foraging and commuting

bats.

Birds

Preliminary Assessment

3.67 It was considered that the arable fields could provide suitable breeding habitat for ground nesting birds

such as the red-listed skylark, and during the Phase 1 survey, several skylark were observed in territorial

song flight over the site. The hedgerows, trees and scrub at the boundaries were also considered to

provide suitable nesting habitat for a bird assemblage that could potentially include red and amber list

farmland species such as yellowhammer, linnet and corn bunting, all of which have been recorded

within 2km of the site.

Breeding Bird Survey

3.68 The breeding bird surveys recorded a total of 27 species of which 22 were breeding in accordance with

the BTO breeding status code. The remaining five were not considered to be breeding within the site

and were either foraging over the site or flying over.

3.69 There were five red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC) in accordance with the most recent

conservation assessment (Eaton et al., 2015) of which all five were breeding. These included farmland

species such as: skylark, linnet and starling. Starling was the most numerous bird and was recorded in

moderate numbers throughout the farmland on the site and adjacent residential. Hedgerows supported

starling and linnet, arable farmland supported skylark and the margins supported pheasant. Arable, the

dominant habitat on site, provided foraging and nesting habitat for skylark. However, only one skylark

territory was recorded across the site.

3.70 There were five amber-listed BoCC, of which one was considered a breeding species; dunnock Prunella

modularis. There were no Schedule 1 species recorded on site. Results are summarised in Table 11

below. Full results and territory maps are provided in Appendix 9.

Table 11. Summary data on conservation status.

Conservation Status BoCC

Breeding Non-breeding

Red 5 0

Amber 1 4

Total 6 4

Importance

3.71 The bird community size is a function of the size of the site and also the lack of diversity of habitats.

There were 27 species recorded of which 22 were considered breeding. The farmland bird community

was not especially rich and there were surprising gaps such as a lack of finches utilising the farmland

habitats.

25

3.72 The surveys did not record any notable farmland birds such as turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, redpoll

Carduelis cabaret or barn owl Tyto alba. The species list reflected the common habitats within the site

and surrounding residential areas.

3.73 The breeding bird community is hence considered as being of local value based on the criteria of Fuller

(1980).

Table 12. Site value based on breeding bird community size (Fuller 1980).

Number of breeding bird species Site Value

<25 Local

25-49 District

50-69 County

70-84 Regional

>85 National

Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Survey

3.74 A total of 13 ponds were identified in the vicinity of the study area. Eleven of these were identified from

aerial maps, with a further two within the Doggetts Pond LoWS located via a walkover of the site (P12

and P13) (see Appendix 10a for location plan). The nearest pond (P11) was located on the eastern

boundary of the applicate site. The furthest pond, P8, was located approximately 580m from the study

area boundary, and as such was not subject to further survey.

3.75 Of 12 ponds within 500m, nine were accessed for HSI survey. Of these, six were assessed as poor

suitability, two below average suitability, and one (P12) as having average suitability to support great

crested newt. Poor suitability was typically driven by high impacts of fish and waterfowl. Results are

summarised below, with full results available in Appendix 10:

Table 13. Summary of HSI Scores.

Pond No. HSI Suitability Predicted Probability of GCN Presence

1 0.47 Poor 0.03

5 0.29 Poor 0.03

6 0.42 Poor 0.03

7 0.45 Poor 0.03

9 0.32 Poor 0.03

10 0.32 Poor 0.03

11 0.58 Below Average 0.20

12 0.69 Average 0.55

13 0.6 Below Average 0.20

3.76 The below average score for P11, the on-site pond, was driven primarily by poor water quality and the

small area of the pond. P12, the only average suitability pond, is located within the Doggett’s Pond

LoWs, approximately 230m from the application site (straight line distance), rising to approximately

270m following field boundary habitats.

26

Terrestrial Habitat Assessment

3.77 The boundary habitats on site (hedgerows, scrub, ruderals) were considered suitable terrestrial habitat

for great crested newt, providing cover and a connecting feature through the landscape. However, their

suitability was considered to be limited by the lack of a direct hedgerow connection between the site,

P12 (the most likely suitable breeding pond), and the more extensive suitable terrestrial habitat

surrounding P12 (woodland and scrub) at the Doggetts Pond LoWS.


3.78 Previous presence / absence pond surveys were carried out in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017), and no

great crested newts were recorded in any of the ponds surveyed at this time. However, the ponds at

Doggetts LoWS were not accessed for the previous surveys. As P12 and P13 at this site were assessed

as being some of the more suitable ponds for great crested newt, further surveys were recommended

to broaden and update the survey data.

3.79 Presence/absence surveys were therefore undertaken at eight ponds within 500m of the site that were

accessible for survey (P1-P4 to the north of the site were not accessed). This included four waterbodies

at Doggetts Pond LoWs. P11, the on-site pond, was surveyed during the first visit only. The pond then

fully dried out before the second visit, precluding any further survey.

3.80 Great crested newt were confirmed to be present and breeding in only one pond (P12). P13 was

confirmed to support breeding smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris, and common toad Bufo bufo was

recorded at P5. Detailed results are provided in Appendix 10.

Table 14. Summary of GCN presence / absence survey results

Pond number

Adult GCN (Y/N)

Peak count Date recorded

Breeding pond

Comments

5 N Common toad recorded.

6 N

7 N Frog tadpoles recorded.

9 N

10 N

11* N

12 Y 3 13/05/2019 Y Peak count of 1 male 2 female great crested newts. Adult smooth newts also recorded.

13 N Smooth newt eggs found but no adults recorded.

*1 survey visit only

Population Size Class Estimation

3.81 With a peak count of 3 great crested newt adults recorded in P12 and no evidence of great crested newt

presence noted at any other ponds surveyed in the local network, the metapopulation class size is ‘small’

according to the established method.

27

Importance

3.82 It is considered highly unlikely that great crested newt use the application site pond (P11) for breeding,

as no evidence of the presence of this species was detected during either the previous or current

surveys, and the pond also scored ‘below average’ for suitability on the HSI. While this pond was only

surveyed once during 2019 before drying out, it was subject to four visits during 2016 when great

crested newt were found to be likely absent. There is nothing to suggest that conditions within or

surrounding the site have changed in the intervening time period.

3.83 A small population of great crested newt was confirmed to be present locally, but was recorded in only

one pond (P12), located approximately 230m from the application site (straight line distance), or 270m

following suitable terrestrial connecting habitat (field boundaries vegetated with scrub and ruderals).

There are areas of terrestrial habitat suitable for this species at the boundaries of the application site

(scrub, ruderals, hedgerows), however on the balance of probabilities it is considered unlikely that these

would be utilised by the small population of great crested newt associated with P12. This is partly due

to distance (270m via connecting ecological features), as studies suggest a routine migratory range of

up to 250m for great crested newts (Cresswell & Whitworth, 2004), and Jehle (2000) determined a

smaller terrestrial radius of 63m within which 95% of summer refuges were located. In addition, ample

highly suitable terrestrial habitat is present in the immediate surroundings of P12 (scrub and woodland),

limiting the need for great crested newts to travel beyond the immediate surroundings of the breeding

pond in their terrestrial phase.

3.84 As such the application site is considered of likely negligible importance to the local great crested newt

population. Nonetheless precautionary measures are advised to account for residual risk, given the high

level of protection afforded to this species. Mitigation proposed for reptiles in Section 4 will deliver this,

and in the unlikely event great crested newt are found on site during works, works will stop immediately,

and an appropriate mitigation license will be sought. Great crested newt are not considered further in

this report.

Hazel Dormouse

3.85 H2 was considered to provide suitable habitat for dormouse, with a range of native woody species and

a thick, tall, bushy structure as favoured by this species. However it was considered unlikely that this

hedgerow would be utilised by this species, as the only existing records within 10km are from woodlands

that lie to the west of the site beyond features that pose a likely major barrier to dormouse movement

through the landscape (railway lines, roads and residential development). Dormice live at low densities

and thus require large tracts of suitable well-connected habitat to maintain viable populations. Only

small tracts of woodland 2-3ha in extent are present and connected to the site to the east, and it is

considered unlikely that these areas of habitat would be sufficient to support any dormouse population

within the wider arable-dominated landscape to the east. As a result of these factors it is considered

that the site is likely to be of negligible importance for dormice and this species is not considered further

in this report.

Invertebrates

3.86 Much of the site was considered to be of low value for invertebrates, as it comprises intensively

managed arable land. Valuable habitats are limited to the field boundaries (hedgerows, scrub, ruderals,

longer grasses).

28

3.87 The site is considered likely to support an assemblage of common invertebrates by virtue of these

boundary habitats which are comprised in the majority of native flora. However, the sites potential is

limited by low floristic diversity and intensive arable management. Notable invertebrates recorded

locally are considered unlikely to be present. No elm was recorded in the hedgerows, as required for

breeding by white letter hairstreak, and habitats were considered sub-optimal for wall butterfly, due to

the tall sward of the grasses and ruderals.

3.88 The site is therefore considered to have only site value for invertebrates.

Otter and Water Vole

3.89 There are records for water vole within 0.4km of the site, these being associated with Doggetts LoWS.

However the most recent record from this site is from 1996 (i.e. over 20 years old). The ditches within

the study area were considered to provide sub-optimal habitat for water vole, given the combination of

high shading by associated hedgerows, minimal emergent vegetation and low water levels (almost fully

dry at the beginning of spring in March 2019). Hence it is considered that water vole are likely absent

from site. Furthermore, otter are also considered likely absent, as due to periodic drying of both the

ditches and on-site pond, which drives the conclusion that fish are highly unlikely to be present.

3.90 The site is considered to be of negligible importance for both of these species and they are not

considered further in this report.

Reptiles


3.91 The field boundary ruderal habitats, the semi-improved grassland to the north of the site, and the

improved grassland belt through the centre, were considered to offer opportunities for foraging,

dispersal and basking, whilst hedgerows were considered to offer opportunities for reptiles to move

through the landscape, seek refuge and hibernate. The majority of the site was considered unsuitable

habitat, due to periodic soil disturbance associated with the arable use of the site.

Presence/ Likely Absence Survey

3.92 Previous surveys conducted in 2016 (Lockhart Garett, July 2017) confirmed the presence of three reptile

species on site; slow-worm, common lizard, and grass snake. Peak adult counts were 10 for slow-worm,

14 for common lizard, and 1 for grass snake, over 120 mats deployed.

3.93 Suitable habitat on site is limited to the field boundaries and a patch of semi improved grassland to the

north, amounting to a total area of approximately 2.5ha, so the deployment of 120 mats is significantly

above the recommended density of 10 p/ha of suitable habitat (Froglife, 1999). However, to match the

previous survey effort and foster comparability of results, 120 mats were also deployed across the site

for the current survey.

3.94 The update survey confirmed the continued presence of all three species, though only one juvenile was

recorded for grass snake. Reptiles were present throughout the site, with the highest found on the

central and northern boundaries. The peak count of slow-worm was significantly higher than that

recorded in 2016. The population of slow-worm classed as ‘good’ and the population of common lizard

as ‘low’, according to the Froglife (1999) standard, following adjustment of peak counts to reflect the

29

increased survey effort above the recommended mat density of 10 p/ha of suitable habitat. Results are

summarised below, with detailed results provided in Appendix 11.

Table 15. Reptile survey results summary & population assessment (Froglife 1999).

Species Peak Adult Count Peak Count Adjusted for

Enhanced Survey Effort Population Class

Common lizard 15 3 Low

Slow-worm 58 12 Good

Grass snake 0 (1 juvenile only) - Low

Adder 0 N/A N/A

Importance

3.95 Whilst the reptile population on site is not considered to be of substantive ecological importance alone,

all common reptiles are protected from killing, injury and sale under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

1981 (as amended). It is therefore considered that the site is of local level importance for reptiles.

Other Notables Species European hedgehog

3.96 The boundary habitats on site (grasses, ruderals, hedgerows, scrub) and adjoining residential gardens

were considered to provide suitable foraging habitat and refuge / hibernation opportunities for

hedgehog. The site boundary habitats were also considered to provide enhanced ecological linkage

between off-site residential gardens for this species. No hedgehogs were observed on site during the

course of surveys, however they have been recorded recently within 1km and it is assumed they are

likely present on site given the suitability of habitats observed.

Brown hare

3.97 Arable habitats on site and in the surrounding area provide suitable foraging and ‘laying-up’

opportunities for brown hare with hedgerows providing suitable winter refuge. Brown hare were

observed on site during the course of badger and bat surveys, confirming their presence on site.

Harvest mouse

3.98 The combination of cropland, arable field margins, grassland and hedgerows provide a range of suitable

habitats for this species. No evidence of harvest mouse was found during surveys, however there are

local records within 1km and it is considered that they could potentially be present.

Polecat

3.99 The site was considered potentially suitable for this species, which favours farmland and woodland

habitats, both of which are present locally.

Common toad

3.100 With a number of ponds in the local landscape, it is considered that terrestrial habitats on site may

potentially be used by common toad. This species is known to be present locally, having been recorded

30

in P5, 280m from site. The on-site pond (P11) was also considered potentially suitable for breeding,

though no evidence of this was recorded during surveys.

Importance

3.101 Although no evidence of three of the above species was found, the site provides suitable habitat and

low numbers of notable species could be present, therefore other notable species are considered to be

of site importance.

Summary

3.102 A summary of the evaluation of important ecological features is provided in Table 16.

Table 16. Summary of the evaluation of important ecological features.

Feature Summary Description Importance

SPA / Ramsar/ SAC The site is within the ZoI of the Crouch & Roach Estuaries, Foulness Estuary, and Blackwater Estuary SPA & Ramsar sites (all part of the Essex Estuaries SAC)

International

SSSI One SSSI within 5km (Hockley Woods) National

LNR / LoWS One LNR and seven LoWS within 2km, the nearest being Doggetts Pond LoWS 0.1km east of site.

Local

Habitats Predominantly low value arable, with higher value boundary habitats (arable boundaries, pond, semi-improved grassland, and particularly hedgerows)

Up to local

Flora No rare or protected species were recorded. Invasive Schedule 9 species Japanese knotweed on southern boundary.

Site

Hedgerows One important hedgerow (H2), two hedgerows qualifying as HoPI (H2 and H3)

Local

Badger One active main sett, four active subsidiary setts, and one active outlier sett on site; suitable foraging, dispersal and sett building habitat present.

Local

Bats Low suitability roosting and foraging habitat. Low levels of activity, strongly dominated by ‘common’ pipistrelle species.

Site

Birds Five red-list breeding species and one amber list breeding species. Breeding assemblage of less than 25 species.

Local

Great Crested Newt Low population of GCN in off-site pond (P12), 270m from site via connecting habitat. Considered unlikely to be present on site.

Negligible

Hazel Dormouse H2 provides suitable habitat, but poorly connected to wider habitat. Considered absent.

Negligible

Invertebrates Majority of site low-value due to intensive arable management. Boundaries offer opportunities for common invertebrate assemblage

Site

Otter and Water Vole Sub-optimal habitat (ditches) due to regular drying (fish absent) and high levels of shading/low emergent vegetation. Considered absent.

Negligible

Reptiles Good population of slow-worm, low population of common lizard and grass snake.

Local

Other Notable Species Habitat suitable for common toad, hedgehog, brown hare, harvest mouse and polecat.

Site

31

4.0 Impacts, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Description of Development

4.1 An outline planning application for the demolition of numbers 148 and 150 Ashingdon Road and the

development of 665 residential dwellings (C3), a community facility (D1), open space and associated

infrastructure including flood storage and surface water drainage attenuation, with all matters

unreserved for 233 residential dwellings comprising Phase 1 of the proposals, and all other matters

reserved except for Access and Layout.

4.2 On-site open space provision is proposed to comprise 4.85ha of natural/semi-natural open space,

0.14ha of play space, a 0.15ha bike trail youth facility, and 0.26ha of allotments.

Designated Sites

European Designated Sites Construction Impacts

4.3 At 1.9km from the site, the closest European designated site (The Crouch & Roach Estuaries SPA &

Ramsar) is as such a distance that direct impacts such as pollution, disturbance from construction or

habitat loss will not occur.

Occupation Impacts

4.4 The site falls within the ZoI of three Essex coastal European designated sites under the Essex RAMS.

These sites form part of the Essex Estuaries SAC and are underpinned by national SSSI designations. The

nearest of these sites at 1.9km southeast is The Crouch and Roach Estuary SPA & Ramsar. As the

proposed development is a relevant residential development (i.e. for more than one dwelling), it is

therefore possible that European designated sites will suffer from indirect effects through increased

recreational pressure (when considered alone or in combination with other developments). This could

have an adverse effect at the international level.

Mitigation Measures

4.5 Mitigation is set out in detail within an accompanying Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA; SES,

October 2019). In accordance with the Essex RAMs, a financial contribution to the RAMS of £122.30 per

unit will be provided by the developer to fund strategic off-site measures such as wardening and signage

at coastal European protected sites.

4.6 In addition, as the development is for more than 100 homes, a combination of on-site and off-site

mitigation measures will be employed to ensure the integrity of nearby European designated sites. On

site mitigation will be provided in the form of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGS), to draw

potential recreational users, particularly dog-walkers, away from designated sites.

4.7 Guidelines for the creation of SANGSs are well defined by Natural England in relation to the Thames

Basin Heaths SPA. They are required to be suitable publicly accessible areas of semi-natural character,

within 400m of the proposed development, providing 8ha of semi-natural open space for every increase

of 1,000 new residents.

32

4.8 The average household size taken from the UK Census data for 2011 is 2.4 persons. Given the likely

increase in population resulting from this proposed development, if the development was within the

ZoI of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA then a SANGS provision of approximately 12.7ha would be required

((665 x 2.4) x 0.008). This high level of SANGS is necessary to mitigate effects on ground nesting birds

on heathlands with unlimited public access and, while a useful benchmark, is considered more than that

required for sites designated for wintering waterbirds, where disturbance is limited primarily to dog

walking on coastal paths and noting also that mudflats exposed at low tide are generally inaccessible to

dog walkers themselves though sometimes not to dogs. Hence a lower level of SANGS is considered

acceptable when coupled with access to adjacent Public Rights of Way (PRoW) providing adequate dog

walking walks up to 2.7km in length within and adjacent to the site.

4.9 The development proposal includes 4.85ha of natural/semi-natural open space provision within which

required SANGs features will be incorporated i.e. 38% of the recommended SANGS area required under

guidelines for the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. This provision is delivered in line with the Concept

Statement for Policy SER8 of the Rochford Local Development Framework Allocations Plan (2014) “At

least 3.6 hectares of natural/semi-natural greenspace which is publicly accessible should be provided

and integrated into the development. The calculations of greenspace requirements are based on 500

dwellings being provided on the site. If a greater number are provided, the provision of such facilities

should increase proportionately.”

4.10 The open space provision provides sufficient area to incorporate linear and circular on site dog-walking

routes. On site paths will provide an attractive route through semi-natural green space of c.1km in

length. A new formal linear footpath will link Oxford Road in the north to The Drive in the south,

connecting the onsite SANGs to the local greenspace network, in particular paths leading west and south

west, which in turn connect with other offsite green infrastructure nearby. Further informal mown paths

will link to the formal linear footpath, a providing circular walking route within the site. The route will

have dog waste bins, signage and will be specifically designed to encourage dog walkers and other users.

Signage and leaflets will be used to inform residents of the SANGS area and reason for it, which is

recreational diversion from the foreshore on the Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar to reduce

disturbance to wintering waterbirds.

Residual Effects

4.11 Construction impacts are considered negligible.

4.12 With the implementation of the above measures, it is considered that the operational phase impacts

and residual effects upon European designated sites will be negligible.

UK Statutory Designated Sites Construction Impacts

4.13 The nearest SSSI (excluding those underpinning the coastal European designated sites discussed above)

is Hockley Woods SSSI. At 3km west of the site this is considered to be at such a distance that direct

impacts such as pollution, disturbance from construction or habitat loss will not occur. This is also

considered to be the case for Magnolia Fields LNR, at 0.8km northwest.

33

Occupation Impacts

4.14 The site does not fall within the IRZ relating to residential development for Hockley Woods SSSI, and as

such, consultation with Natural England in regard to potential risks is not considered necessary.

4.15 Magnolia Fields LNR is already managed for public access and recreational pressure through the

inclusion of public footpaths. Post-development the walking route to reach this site will be

approximately 1.3km, via existing residentially developed roads. It is considered unlikely that many

residents of the development will either walk this distance or choose to drive to the LNR, given the

extent of alternative semi-natural open space that will be provided on-site, and the closer proximity of

existing publicly accessible LoWS (in particular Doggetts Pond) and attractive PRoW (Doggetts Chase) to

the east. As such the increase in recreational pressure as a result of the development is likely to be

insignificant.

Mitigation Measures

4.16 Increases in recreational pressure on nearby statutory designated sites are considered to be insignificant

therefore mitigation is not required.

Residual Effects

4.17 Construction impacts are considered negligible.

4.18 It is considered that operational phase impacts and residual effects upon UK statutory designated sites

will be negligible.

Non-statutory Designated Sites Construction Impacts

4.19 At 0.1km east of the site, the closest non-statutory designated site (Doggetts LoWS) is as such a distance

that direct impacts such as disturbance from construction could occur. This could have an adverse effect

at local level.

Occupation Impacts

4.20 Doggetts Pond LoWS is already managed for public access and recreational pressure; visitors are

encouraged by the sites fishing lakes, managed by Essex Leisure Fisheries, and the public footpath

linkage through the site. However, given the scale of the proposed development and close proximity to

this site, it is considered likely that increased recreational disturbance could occur once the

development is occupied. This could have an adverse effect at local level.

Mitigation Measures

4.21 The provision of 4.85ha of natural/semi-natural open space on site will serve to decrease the

recreational pressures placed on Doggetts LoWS.

4.22 To address potential direct impacts during construction, a Construction Environmental Management

Plan (CEMP) should be prepared prior to commencement. This should include risk assessments of any

34

potentially damaging activities and identify practical measures to avoid and minimise risk of impacts,

e.g. sensitive timings and precautionary working methods.

4.23 To mitigate for potential increases in disturbance post-occupation, a Landscape and Ecological

Management Plan (LEMP) and Ecological Enhancement Strategy (EES) for Doggetts LoWS should be

prepared during the design and construction phases of the scheme, in consultation with relevant bodies

such as the Council, Natural England and the Essex Wildlife Trust. This should detail practical measures

to minimise disturbance to sensitive features and enhance the site for wildlife long term. This could

include e.g. installation of dead hedging around smaller ponds to prevent dog entry, selective felling of

willow scrub to reduce pond overshading, and a treatment program to eradicate invasive flora (Japanese

knotweed) from the site.

Residual Effects

4.24 With the implementation of the above measures, construction impacts, operational impacts and

residual effects will be reduced to negligible.

Habitats Construction Impacts

4.25 Construction will lead to the loss of a range of habitats. The great majority of permanent habitat loss

will be low-value arable, which is nonetheless known to be utilised by notable fauna such as brown hare.

4.26 In addition, the existing scrub and ruderal boundary habitats adjoining residential to the north, west

and south will also be lost. These habitats while lacking floristic diversity provide habitat for reptiles, a

variety of birds, and likely notable species such as hedgehog.

4.27 Finally, H3 (480m in total length or approx. 270m excluding significant gaps), which runs east-west

through the centre of the site, will be lost in entirety to facilitate excavations required for surface water

drainage. This hedgerow does not qualify as ‘Important’ and is defunct at present, limiting its value as

connecting habitat for fauna. However it nonetheless qualifies as a HoPI under the NERC Act 2006.

4.28 Other impacts such as pollution events, damage of retained trees and their roots and indirect impacts

through increased lighting levels are also possible.

4.29 These impacts are considered potentially adverse at up to local level.

Occupation Impacts

4.30 Potential occupation phase impacts include increased recreational pressure on retained habitats,

pollution events, and indirect impacts through increased lighting levels. These impacts are considered

potentially adverse at up to local level.

Mitigation Measures

4.31 The development proposal has sought to avoid and minimise impacts by retaining and buffering the

most valuable habitat on site, H2, an ‘important’ hedgerow that also qualifies as HoPI.

35

4.32 Loss of H3, existing trees and scrub/ruderal boundary habitats where necessary to facilitate the layout

and drainage works will be mitigated for through compensatory planting. Compensatory planting will

also serve to mitigate for any physical damage / disturbance to retained hedgerows and trees.

4.33 Loss of H3 will be mitigated through new native species-rich hedgerow planting within the eastern POS.

Approximately 180m of new native species-rich hedgerow will be planted to define the boundaries of

the proposed allotments to the north. A further approx. 80m will be replanted along the easternmost

section of the existing H3. Finally, approx. 200m of new native species-rich hedgerow will be planted to

link these two features, running north-south along the eastern boundary. The new hedgerows will

provide continuous connecting, foraging and refuge/nesting habitat for a variety of fauna. Further native

hedgerow planting will also be incorporated within smaller POS within the developed area, amounting

to an approx. 100m additional length.

4.34 Existing trees to be lost are primarily incorporated within H3 or are occasional smaller trees/ shrub

species along the southern, western and north boundaries of the site. The most notable tree requiring

removal to facilitate access is the mature oak adjacent Holt Farm School on Ashingdon Road (T1, Sharon

Hosegood Associates AIA Report, October 2019). Loss of existing trees where unavoidable will be

mitigated through extensive new tree planting within new POS, again in excess of tree losses. This will

comprise of predominantly native tree species. In addition, further specific mitigation will be provided

for the loss of T1, including three new street trees, a community orchard, school tree planting and

sustainable use of the tree trunk for art/seating (Sharon Hosegood Associates AIA Report, October

2019).

4.35 Loss of existing scrub and ruderal habitats along the western, northern and southern boundaries will

also be mitigated for within the eastern POS landscaping. New scrub and native shrub planting will be

utilised to buffer ecologically sensitive features, while a low-intensity management approach within

grassland areas (see 4.43) will encourage the natural development of ruderals within the sward, while

also ensuring any one species does not become over-dominant.

4.36 New on-plot and boundary tree and hedgerow planting will also be incorporated along the northern,

western and southern boundaries of the site, focused around car parking areas and to the rear of the

proposed gardens, to create a green buffer in perpetuity between new and existing development, as

detailed in the SER8 Concept Strategy for the site allocation.

4.37 The total loss of arable fields will not be mitigated for as this type of habitat is considered to be of

generally low ecological value and is ubiquitous in the surrounding landscape.

4.38 To address potential direct impacts during construction, such as risk of pollution events and damage to

retained trees/hedgerows, a CEMP should be prepared prior to commencement as detailed in 4.23.

Hedgerows and trees should be protected from damage (e.g. through root compaction) during

development through the erection of suitable fencing such as HERAS fencing.

4.39 Retained trees, hedgerows and the on-site pond will be protected from potential indirect impacts of

increased nocturnal lighting via the implementation of a wildlife-friendly lighting scheme throughout

the development, which maintains ‘dark zones’ and avoids direct lighting of ecologically sensitive

features such as tree canopies. Further details on appropriate specification are provided within the bat

mitigation section below.

36

4.40 Risk of increased recreational disturbance post-occupation will be guarded against through the

provision of appropriate signage and new planting of native scrub and shrubs (see 4.36), that will act as

natural barriers to access for ecologically sensitive features, e.g. around the retained pond and badger

setts.

4.41 Japanese knotweed will be eradicated from the area to the south of the site. Excavation and removal is

considered to be the most appropriate approach given the proposal to install new drainage along the

southern boundary where the existing stand is located and the proximity of new residential properties

proposed. The recommended treatment approach is fully detailed in an accompanying report (SES,

Japanese Knotweed Survey, October 2019).

4.42 Lastly, a LEMP will be prepared for the site detailing how retained and newly-created habitats will be

managed long term to ensure their value for wildlife. This will detail measures such as mowing regimes,

litter removal, silt removal from the pond as necessary, fish removal and invasive species removal.

Enhancements

4.43 Due to the relatively low ecological value of the majority of existing habitat on site, the proposed

retention of the most valuable habitat (H2), and the inclusion of over 4.85ha of natural/semi-natural

open space within the proposals, development of the site offers an opportunity to deliver measurable

biodiversity net gain in accordance with paragraphs 170 and 174 of the NPPF. It is recommended that

proposed enhancements are detailed in an EES for the site.

4.44 Enhancement measures will include the creation of new native-species rich hedgerows, additional

native tree planting, and sowing of wildflower/meadow mixes and maintenance of a tall sward in some

landscaped areas (e.g. within attenuation basins). Emorsgate EP1 pond edge mixture is suitable where

conditions are likely to remain waterlogged for much of the year, or Emorsgate EM8 meadow mixture

for wetlands is suitable for areas likely to be subject to winter inundation only, remaining dry in summer.

The pond could be further enhanced by managing levels of shading and digging out to reduce the

frequency with which this feature dries out.

4.45 The biodiversity benefits to be delivered by the scheme could be evidenced using the DEFRA Biodiversity

Metric Calculator, which would quantitatively demonstrate adherence to the relevant planning policies.

Residual Effects

4.46 During construction it is considered that habitat loss associated with site clearance will represent an

adverse effect at the site level. Other potential construction impacts may be reduced to negligible

through the measures advised.

4.47 Post-development, compensatory habitat and higher-value new habitats will be provided, addressing

temporary habitat loss during construction. Through this and the implementation of the above

additional measures, the residual effect on habitats is predicted to be beneficial.

37

Protected Species Badgers

4.48 Badgers are legally protected under the Protection of Badgers Act (1992) and as such, are of material

consideration when applying the principals of the NPPF (MHDLG, 2019).

Construction Impacts

4.49 Drainage and/or road and dwelling construction works will require clearance and excavation within 20m

of active subsidiary setts S2, S3, S4 and S7, active outlier sett S5, and disused outlier sett S6 (see Sett

Location Plan, Appendix 7).

4.50 Significant excavation works within 20m of the main badger sett (S1) will be avoided; however, within

this area it will still be necessary to excavate and install a new culvert and create an approx. 0.5m high

bund over the existing sewer line. Furthermore it is considered likely that some heavy machinery will

need to intrude within 20m of the main sett in order to carry out more significant excavations required

for flood storage outside of this zone.

4.51 As badger tunnels may extend up to 20m from sett entrances, these works have potential to destroy or

damage setts, or disturb badgers while occupying a sett (Natural England, 2009), all of which are

offences under the Protection of Badgers Act.

4.52 Subsidiary setts S4 and S7 and outlier sett S5 will be permanently lost during construction. Proposed

drainage excavation works are likely to destroy all or most of the existing sett entrances. Even where

this is not the case, retention post-development is not considered desirable in light of the proposed

layout, as close proximity to proposed properties and roads would likely be associated with too much

disturbance to any badgers occupying these setts post-occupation.

4.53 Active subsidiary setts S2 and S3 and main sett S1 are outside of the proposed development area.

Temporary impacts to these setts during construction are likely due to necessary drainage and flood

storage excavation works, which may damage existing tunnels. However destruction of the setts is

considered unlikely, as existing sett entrances will not directly be impacted by the footprint of the

proposed works. In addition it is considered that the majority of tunnels will likely extend away from the

location of proposed works, due to a history of use of heavy machinery and periodic soil disturbance

within the arable field. Hence it is considered feasible to retain these setts post-development.

4.54 Given that all six active setts on site will be impacted during construction, it is considered that

construction impacts could be adverse at up to local level.

Occupation Impacts

4.55 Subsidiary setts S2 and S3, and the main badger sett S1, will be retained post development. These setts

could be subject to increased recreational disturbance (e.g. disturbance from dogs and other domestic

animals). This is predicted to have an adverse effect at the site level.

38

Mitigation Measures

4.56 As excavations will be required within 20m of all six active sett entrances, a Natural England licence will

be sought for permission to close the setts. Closure will ensure no badgers are at risk of being killed or

injured while occupying the setts during the works. Sett closure is only possible between July to

November, to avoid the badger breeding season.

4.57 To minimise the impacts of the development on the badger population currently occupying the site,

closure of existing setts will be on a temporary basis wherever possible. As previously noted, active

subsidiary setts S4 and S7, active outlier sett S5, and disused outlier sett S6 will be permanently lost as

they will be directly impacted by construction activities and are considered likely to be subject to too

much disturbance during the occupation phase if retained. However, the main sett (S1) and subsidiary

setts S2 and S3 will be closed only temporarily to undertake required drainage and flood storage

excavation works and will thereafter be re-opened.

4.58 Once the necessary works are complete, a minimum buffer of 20m will be demarcated around the three

active setts to be retained and visually marked with fencing and signage. Any further excavation within

this zone will then be prohibited and if any other works (e.g. vegetation removal, use of vehicles etc)

are required within the zone the potential impacts will be assessed by a suitably qualified ecologist and

suitable mitigation measures implemented to ensure the sett is not affected by the works.

4.59 The risk of damage to the main sett, the most valuable feature to the badger population occupying the

site, will be minimised as far as is possible through locating all major flood storage excavation works

outside of the 20m buffer zone from this sett. Excavation works within the 20m buffer zone will be

limited to the digging of one trench to install a new culvert. Additional works with the potential to impact

the sett will be limited to the installation of a bund over the existing sewer line and some likely intrusion

of heavy machinery into the 20m buffer area to facilitate excavation works outside this zone. This

approach will also reduce the time it takes to complete works within 20m of the main sett, so that it will

likely need to be closed for a period of only 2-3 weeks.

4.60 In addition, the construction program will be specified to allow for a phased approach to sett closure to

be followed. The main sett will be closed first, while all five other active subsidiary and outlier setts on

site will remain open to ensure the badgers on site have alternative locations to disperse to while works

are undertaken within 20m of the main sett over a 2-3 week period. Once these works are complete

and the main sett can be re-opened, then closure of the outlier and subsidiary setts will follow.

4.61 It is considered that this mitigation approach will serve to reduce the degree and duration of likely

impacts on badgers to such an extent that provision of an artificial sett to mitigate for the temporary 2-

3 week closure of the main sett is not proportionate in this case. However, Natural England will

determine the specific details of mitigation required through the licencing process. As provision of an

artificial sett is often the standard approach where a main sett is to be closed, it is possible that they

may consider this to be required, particularly if plans change and the main sett is required to be closed

for a longer period and/or at the same time as closure of other subsidiary and outlier setts on site. If an

artificial sett is later deemed to be required as mitigation, this will need to be delivered in an area that

will not be disturbed during construction (likely nearby/adjacent site, given the extent of flood storage

excavations required within the site itself), that is within the territory of the badger clan using the site,

and ideally as close to the existing main sett as possible. A bait marking survey may be required to

determine the extent of the extant badger clan territory and aid in locating this mitigation.

39

4.62 In addition to the mitigation detailed above, general precautionary measures will be put in place

throughout construction, to ensure that in the event of a badger coming on to the site, the risk of injuring

and killing is minimised. This will entail:

• Covering any trenches at night or leaving a plank of wood leant against the side to ensure they

can escape if they were to accidentally fall in, and;

• Storing chemicals in a sealed compound (following COSHH guidance),

• Toolbox talks to contractors to ensure ability to identify and flag up any possible badger setts

during construction and;

• Regular clearance of litter from the site.

4.63 Furthermore, as badgers are prolific sett builders, an updated badger survey will be undertaken prior to

the commencement of construction, to establish the current baseline and inform a detailed strategy for

the CEMP.

4.64 To reduce the likelihood of recreational disturbance to badgers occupying retained setts post-

construction, scrub and shrub planting will be utilised to naturally buffer the setts and decrease the

likelihood of incursion into the surrounding area e.g. by dogs and walkers. H2 and the existing pond will

also be retained. Together with new connecting hedgerow planting, this will ensure connectivity along

the eastern boundary of the site and access to water is retained post-development.

Enhancements

4.65 Retention of existing hedgerow and creation of new hedgerow, grassland and scrub habitats within the

proposed open space to the east of the site will provide improved foraging and sheltering resources for

badgers post development. Fruiting species will be included in the planting scheme and once mature,

these will provide additional food resources for badgers (and other wildlife). Recommended planting

lists are provided in Appendices.

Residual Effects

4.66 By minimising the extent and length of works in the vicinity of the main sett, phasing sett closures, and

utilising standard precautionary methods, it is considered that construction phase impacts on the local

badger population can be reduced to a negligible level.

4.67 Through retention and buffering of the main sett and two subsidiary setts, retention of H2, and new

tree and hedgerow planting within the eastern POS, it is considered that occupation phase and residual

effects on badgers will be reduced to negligible.

Bats Construction Impacts

4.68 There is potential for the bat assemblage currently utilising the site for foraging and commuting to be

adversely affected through increases in artificial lighting and habitat loss during the construction phase.

Impacts could disrupt dark corridors present along the site boundary habitats, potentially having an

adverse effect at the site level by driving abandonment of foraging and commuting pathways, as well

as roosts (if present).

40

4.69 Risk of direct impacts (killing, injury, loss of a roost) is considered to be very low, as the hedgerow (H2)

containing the only two trees identified as being potentially suitable for roosting bats is to be retained

and buffered under the development proposal. Some crown pruning works could potentially be required

to T4 (as referenced in the Sharon Hosegood Associates AIA Report, 2019), due to the proximity of

nearby power lines and presence of deadwood within the crown. However, this tree is only of a ‘low

suitability’ for roosting bats, and it is considered highly unlikely that crown pruning works would impact

the only suitable roost feature recorded on this tree, which is located low in the crown and close to the

main stem.

Occupation Impacts

4.70 During the occupation phase, there is potential for indirect effects through increased light levels which

could result in the abandonment of foraging and commuting pathways, as well as roosts (if present)

which would constitute an adverse effect at the site level. Disturbance to roosting bats (both directly

and indirectly) is an offence under UK and EU legislation.

Mitigation Measures

4.71 Proposals retain H2 and the existing pond which provide foraging and commuting habitat for bats. Loss

of H3 and existing scrub/ruderal boundary habitats adjoining existing residential will be mitigated

through compensatory planting, as detailed in the Habitats section above. This will include new linear

native species-rich hedgerow planting to provide north-south connectivity along the eastern boundary

of the POS. Given that bat activity surveys identified only low levels of foraging and commuting activity

on site and did not highlight H3 (to be removed) as a particularly important feature for foraging and

commuting bats, this mitigation is considered to be sufficient to address the potential for any negative

impacts on local bat populations.

4.72 The indirect impact of artificial lighting requires mitigation to ensure the local bat population are

protected from disturbance. Particular care should be directed to retaining dark corridors along

hedgerows. To minimise detrimental effects of light pollution on local bat populations, mitigation will

include:

• Minimising the lighting levels across habitats of where potential foraging/commuting corridors

are situated (i.e. around trees and hedgerows) especially all boundary habitats;

• Minimising spill of light with the use of directional luminaires, shields, baffles and louvers to

direct light where it is needed and prevent light being directed over and around the features

concerned, e.g. avoid backlighting and overspill onto tree lines, and;

• Orientating the pitch of light away from any potential bat foraging/commuting corridors to

allow a dark corridor to persist.

4.73 Site lighting around key features likely to be used by roosting, foraging or commuting bats will be

avoided during both the construction and occupation phases. If lighting is necessary, then there are a

number of ways to minimise the effect of lighting on bats (and other nocturnal species such as badgers

and owls). The following mitigation strategies have been taken from the Institution of Lighting

Professionals and Bat Conservation Trust’s Guidance Note 08/18 Bats and artificial lighting in the UK

(2018) and other referenced sources:

41

• In general, light sources should not emit ultra-violet light to avoid attracting insects and thus

potentially reducing numbers in adjacent areas, which bats may use for foraging. Metal halide

and fluorescent sources will not be used.

• LED luminaires should be used where possible. A warm white spectrum (ideally <2700Kelvin)

will reduce blue light component. Luminaires should feature peak wavelengths higher than

550nm to avoid the component of light most disturbing to bats (Stone, 2012).

• The height of lighting columns should be limited to 8m and the spacing of lighting columns

should be increased to reduce spill of light into unwanted areas such as hedgerows and trees

(Fure, 2006). Only luminaires with an upward light ratio of 0% and with good optical control

should be used. Luminaires will always be mounted on the horizontal, i.e. no upward tilt.

• Other ways to reduce light spill include the use of directional luminaires, shields, baffles and/or

louvres. Flat, cut-off lanterns are best. Additionally, lights will be located away from reflective

surfaces where the reflection of light should spill onto potential foraging/commuting corridors.

Internal luminaires can be recessed where installed in proximity to windows to reduce glare

and light spill. Where windows and glass facades etc. cannot be avoided, low transmission

glazing treatments may be a suitable option in achieving reduced illuminance targets.

• Lighting that is required for security or access should use a lamp of no greater than 2000

lumens (150 Watts) and be PIR sensor activated on a short timer (1 minute), to ensure that the

lights are only on when required and turned off when not in use (Jones, 2000; Hundt, 2012). A

control management system can be used to dim (typically to 25% or less) or turn off groups of

lights when not in use.

4.74 To guard against residual risk of direct harm, if pruning works to T4 (low suitability for roosting bats) are

required, a ‘soft fell’ approach should be used, whereby limbs are removed one at a time, lowered gently

to the ground using ropes, and left in place for 24 hours before being chipped or removed from site, to

allow any bats to escape in the unlikely event they are present.

4.75 No works to the off-site oak at TQ 87691 91690 (high suitability for roosting bats) are known to be

proposed at this stage. However, if felling or pruning of this tree was to be required (e.g. to facilitate

construction access via Doggetts Chase), then three emergence/re-entry surveys would be required to

determine the presence/likely absence of a roost and characterise the nature of any roost present. If a

roost was found, a Natural England licence would then need to be applied for before any works to the

tree could take place. If the roost was to be lost, mitigation would need to be provided, likely in the form

of bat boxes installed on retained trees.

Enhancements

4.76 The inclusion of integrated bat boxes within new residential properties will provide an enhancement for

roosting bats within the site. A variety of bat boxes that can integrate seamlessly into the design of new

buildings are available, such as the Habibat Bat Box, which can be supplied plain for a rendered finish,

or faced with brick. It is recommended for 20 bat boxes to be installed within new homes close to the

eastern boundary of the development and main POS.

42

4.77 Planting of new hedgerows will serve to further enhance the site for bats by improving north-south

connectivity within the site and in turn improving linkage to the wider habitat to the east. New

hedgerow and tree planting will also offer an additional foraging resource. To maximise benefit, new

hedgerows will be native-species rich, as this is most attractive to invertebrates, and incorporate maiden

trees at intervals, as bats tend to favour hedgerows with a more complex structure.

4.78 In addition, plant species of known benefit to bats, principally nectar-rich species which attract moths

and other nocturnal invertebrates will also be included within the landscaping scheme which will also

enhance biodiversity in general. Recommended planting lists are provided in Appendices.

Residual Effects

4.79 With the implementation of the above measures, construction impacts are predicted to be negligible.

4.80 With the implementation of the above measures and the provision of improved foraging resources

within retained and created habitats, it is predicted that the residual effects upon bat populations will

be beneficial at the site level.

Breeding Birds Construction Impacts

4.81 Impacts during construction consist of potential nest destruction and disturbance, which constitutes an

offence under the The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). In addition, construction will

lead to loss nesting and foraging habitats, including open arable land, scrub, trees and hedgerow. These

are considered adverse effects at the site level, given the limited assemblage of mainly common species

currently utilising the site for breeding.

Occupation Impacts

4.82 It is possible that breeding birds will be affected post-development through increased recreational

disturbance (e.g. disturbance from dogs and other domestic animals). This is predicted to have an

adverse effect at the site level.

Figure 1: Habibat Bat Box faced with red brick, incorporated within wall at gable end.

43

Mitigation Measures

4.83 Nesting and foraging habitat loss will be minimised through the retention of H2. This hedgerow will be

protected from damage (e.g. through root compaction) during development through the erection of

suitable fencing such as HERAS fencing.

4.84 Where existing scrub, tree and hedgerow habitats will be lost, this will be mitigated for through

compensatory planting, to include a range of native species that will provide new foraging resources for

berry-eating bird species as well as attract invertebrates for those species reliant on insects. New tree

and hedgerow planting will be in excess of losses to deliver a net gain in nesting habitat for the

development.

4.85 Loss of arable habitat onsite will not be mitigated for; although skylark (a red list species) was considered

to be breeding within this habitat in 2019, only one territory was identified on site and there are

extensive areas of arable cropland to the east of the site offering alternative nesting opportunities for

this species and other ground-nesting farmland birds which may be present locally. Hence it is

considered that displacement from site will not have a significant impact on the local population of

skylark and no specific mitigation for this species is proposed.

4.86 To comply with current legislation and avoid nest destruction, vegetation clearance works affecting

nesting habitat (including hedgerow, scrub, tall grasses/ruderals and open arable) will be scheduled so

that these do not occur during the bird breeding season (i.e. outside the period March-August inclusive).

If this is not possible, a check will be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist no more than 48 hours

in advance of clearance works. If an active birds’ nest is found within the proposed clearance zone,

suitable avoidance measures will be installed, such as creating a buffer zone with barrier tape around

the nest to ensure that the nest is not damaged or destroyed by the works. The nest will then be

monitored until all chicks have fledged and a suitably experienced ecologist confirms the nest is now

inactive and works can safely proceed.

4.87 Recreational impacts post-development will be mitigated for through measures outlined in the habitats

section, i.e. retention and new planting of hedgerows and creation of dark corridors around sensitive

habitats. In addition, retained and created habitats will be specifically managed to benefit wildlife

(including nesting birds). Specific details will be provided in the LEMP and will include measures such as

a biennial and rotational approach to hedge maintenance to maximise berry production, and timing

maintenance to take place in late winter to ensure that berries are retained as a winter food resource.

Enhancements

4.88 To enhance the site for birds a nest box scheme will be incorporated into the development through the

installation of the following boxes (or similar boxes). Larger nest holes (for example for starlings) will be

avoided as these will likely be taken over by ring-necked parakeets.

• 12 x 1G Schwegler Generalist Bird Box (Figure 2).

• 30 x specialised Manthorpe swift bricks (Figure 3) will be installed within the built development

realm. The bricks should be installed in numbers no less than two per household. A total of 30

bricks should be installed.

44

Figure 2: General purpose Schwegler 1B nest box.

Figure 3: Manthorpe swift brick.

Residual Effects

4.89 With the implementation of the above mitigation, the effect on breeding birds is predicted to be

negligible during the construction phase and beneficial at the site level during the occupation phase.

Invertebrates Construction Impacts

4.90 Loss of habitat during the construction phase is likely to result in killing and/or injury to a common

invertebrate assemblage only.

Occupation Impacts

4.91 During the occupation phase, there is potential for indirect effects through increased light levels which

could result in the abandonment of habitat. This is predicted to have an adverse effect at the site level.

Mitigation Measures

4.92 Construction impacts to the existing invertebrate assemblage on site will be minimised through the

retention and buffering of H2, as previously discussed.

4.93 The development proposal contains areas of open space which may be utilised to create new

invertebrate habitat areas within the site. The landscaping scheme will provide appropriate habitat and

resources, such as:

45

• New structural planting of treelines, hedgerow and scrub to provide linear features which

some invertebrates fly along, shelter from wind, and warm microclimates;

• Retention of deadwood generated through site clearance in the form of log-piles, which would

be particularly beneficial for stag beetle which are known to be present in the local area;

• Planting of new flower rich areas - invertebrates will benefit from areas able to offer an

abundance of blossom across the season, with shrubs important in spring and then herbs

providing a continuity to late summer. Night-scented plant species such as evening primrose

Oenothera sp., honeysuckle Lonicera sp. and jasmine Jasminium officinale attract moths in the

evening, which would in turn attract foraging bats.

4.94 Artificial lighting will be kept to a minimum and designed to avoid lighting areas of semi-natural

vegetation, with lighting columns of appropriate height, directional lighting and the use of baffles.

Where possible wavelengths should include a minimal UV component, as previously discussed in the

bat mitigation section above.

Residual Effects

4.95 With the implementation of the above measures, it is considered that the residual effects on

invertebrates will be beneficial.

Reptiles Construction Impacts

4.96 The site supports populations of common lizard, slow-worm and grass snake utilising grassland and field

margins during the summer and hedgerows and scrub for shelter during the winter. Although H2 along

the eastern boundary will be retained and buffered, H3, the adjacent grassland strip running east-west

through the site, and suitable scrub and ruderal habitat along the northern, western and southern

boundaries, will be lost to facilitate drainage works and other construction activities. This could result

in killing and / or injury to individuals, an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This is

predicted to have an adverse effect at the local level.

Occupation Impacts

4.97 During the occupation phase there is a risk of disturbance during management of retained and created

habitats, as well as increased predation of reptiles e.g. due to increases in the number of local pet cats,

which may reduce their viability and thus constitutes an adverse effect at the site level.

Mitigation Measures

4.98 To mitigate for risk of killing and/or injury to reptiles during construction, reptile exclusion fencing will

be erected around the boundaries of the site where suitable habitat exists. Along H2 where suitable

habitat will be retained, exclusion fencing will be erected to prevent reptiles within this area from

coming into the construction zone and potentially being injured. Where reptile habitat will be lost

elsewhere, these areas will be trapped out for reptiles and any individuals caught will be moved to an

appropriate receptor area, within which enhancements to improve the quality of the habitat and its

ability to support reptiles will be delivered.

46

4.99 ARG UK guidance requires a minimum of 70 suitable days trapping, with a refugia density of 100/ha

between April and September (HGBI, 1998) for the population class sizes present. Trapping effort is

restricted to periods of appropriate weather and must be undertaken when reptiles are active, typically

from mid-March to mid-September, although this is entirely dependent upon temperature and the

arrival of both spring and autumn. Following this period, capture may be concluded following 7

consecutive ‘clear’ trapping visits or at the judgement of the site ecologist.

4.100 Given the extent of flood storage excavations and other drainage works required to facilitate the

development, very little of the site will remain completely undisturbed throughout the construction

period. It is therefore considered unlikely to be feasible to create a receptor area on-site that is of

sufficient size/carrying capacity to absorb the number of reptiles requiring translocation. Therefore, it

is proposed that reptiles trapped out of boundary habitats to be impacted by the development will be

translocated off-site. A suitable receptor area will need to be identified that is local to the application

site and either already provides suitable habitat or could be enhanced to deliver this. It is suggested that

a Reptile Mitigation Strategy should be produced to detail the proposed approach; this could be secured

as a condition of any future planning approval.

4.101 To reduce residual risk of harm to any reptiles remaining within the impacted boundary habitats post-

translocation, a destructive search supervised by an ECoW will be undertaken. The destructive search

will involve potential reptile habitat being slowly scraped by an excavator using a toothed bucket while

an ecologist supervises and safely removes any reptiles ‘scraped-up’ in the bucket or disturbed on the

ground (Gent & Gibson, 2003). These animals will then be promptly relocated to the receptor site. A

toolbox talk will also be given to site workers and reptile identification information will be displayed on

site. Management will be instructed to always use reptile-sensitive vegetation clearance and

management methods and to maintain long grass buffers around sensitive habitats to be retained.

4.102 On completion of construction, the reptile exclusion fence along retained H2 will be removed. This will

allow reptiles to recolonise the site post-development. New scrub planting and low-intensity

management of grassland within the eastern POS will provide new suitable habitat within the site for

these species. The retained hedgerow (H2) together with new hedgerow planting within the POS will

provide connectivity to the wider environment, fostering recolonization. Provision of log-pile

hibernacula buffered by long-grass areas will also serve to reduce likelihood of predation post-

occupation.

Enhancements

4.103 Through the inclusion of a large area of public open space to the east, incorporating appropriate

enhancements, it is considered that the extent and quality of suitable reptile habitat on site will be

increased post-development. The following measures will be incoporated:

• Creation of log pile hibernacula utilising materials generated through vegetation clearance;

• Areas of open space to be sown with a grass/wildflower meadow mix, subject to a low-

intensity management regime with a longer sward maintained; and

• Creation of new native scrub/hedgerow habitat adjacent to longer grass areas, to provide an

appropriate mosaic of sheltering, foraging and basking opportunities.

47

Residual Effects

4.104 With the implementation of the above mitigation, the effect on reptiles is predicted to be negligible

during the construction phase.

4.105 With the implementation of the above mitigation, the effect on reptiles is predicted to be beneficial

during the occupation phase.

Other Notable Species Construction Impacts

4.106 Brown hare, harvest mouse, common toad, hedgehog and polecat are listed as Species of Principal

Importance under the NERC Act 2006. Brown hare were confirmed as present on site, and suitable

habitat is present for the other species. Should these species be using habitats on site, effects may

include death / injury, habitat loss and fragmentation.

4.107 If present, brown hare is likely to be displaced from arable habitats into the wider landscape however

given the size of the site, the number of animals present is likely to be low and displacement from the

site is considered unlikely to have a significant effect on the local hare population.

Occupation Impacts

4.108 Brown hare are unlikely to remain on site post-development therefore impacts during the occupation

phase are applicable to hedgehog, polecat, common toad and harvest mice, which may colonise new

grassland habitats created within the proposed open space to the east from adjoining arable habitat.

Increased disturbance and predation by domestic animals, as well as increases in road traffic accidents

and recreational disturbance, is possible during the occupation phase which is likely to have an adverse

effect at the site level. Although gardens will provide suitable foraging habitat for hedgehog, if access is

restricted hedgehogs (and other small mammals) are likely to become isolated through fragmentation.

Mitigation Measures

4.109 The risk of construction impacts to hedgehog, harvest mouse, common toad and polecat will be

minimised through the retention and protection of existing hedgerows and associated ditches and

margins. The existing pond, suitable for common toad, will also be retained and protected from

potential construction impacts such as pollution events through methods to be detailed in the CEMP.

4.110 Where clearance of suitable habitat is necessary, precautionary measures will be followed to reduce risk

of direct harm, to include:

• Sensitive timings for works e.g. outside of hedgehog hibernation season (November-March)

• A search by an ecologist for hedgehog and harvest mouse nests prior to clearance, and in

addition for leverets if works take place between March and September

• A two-stage cut of tall grasses and ruderals for common toad, where the first cut is made to a

height of no less than 15cm and 24 hours then left to elapse before remaining vegetation is

cleared to ground level, allowing time for any disturbed animals to move away from the area

48

4.111 Recreational impacts during occupation will be mitigated through measures outlined in the habitats and

badger section, i.e. retention and enhancement of hedgerows and other retained habitats; creation of

dark corridors around sensitive habitats. In addition, retained and created habitats will be specifically

managed to benefit wildlife (including hedgehogs, polecat and harvest mice).

Enhancements

4.112 The green space and garden habitats will provide preferred habitats for foraging hedgehog. Given the

findings of recent studies (Johnson, 2015) highlighting the decline of hedgehogs throughout the UK in

recent years, the provision of access points into residential gardens is an important measure providing

access to foraging resources. To facilitate the movement of hedgehogs through the site, it is

recommended that one 13cm x 13cm hole should be provided within all new lengths of garden (and

where feasible boundary) fencing to permit movement of hedgehogs through back gardens. This size

gap is too small for most pets and can be undertaken by raising a fence panel per garden; installing

hedgehog friendly fencing; removing a brick at the bottom of a wall or cutting a hole in fencing / walls.

Residual Effects

4.113 With the implementation of the above measures, it is considered that construction and residual effects

on other notable species will be negligible.

49

5.0 Summary and Conclusions

5.1 The proposed residential-led development at land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford has been assessed

for its biodiversity value in general, as well as its potential to support ecological receptors. Further

ecological surveys and assessments (badgers, bats, breeding birds, great crested newt, hedgerows and

reptiles) have been undertaken and are discussed within this report.

5.2 Habitats of biodiversity value are considered to be hedgerows, ponds, semi-improved and improved

grassland, and scrub and ruderal dominated arable boundaries. Ecological features of interest include a

number of statutory and non-statutory designated sites within the zone of influence of the

development; hedgerows (one important, two HoPI); active badger setts; foraging and commuting bats;

trees with potential to support roosting bats; a population of breeding birds; and populations of three

reptile species.

5.3 Table 17 provides a summary of the impacts, mitigation and enhancement measures for each ecological

feature and the residual effects.

5.4 Through implementing the recommended mitigation, it is considered that all significant negative

impacts from the proposed development upon protected and notable habitats and species would be

mitigated in line with relevant wildlife legislation and national planning policy (MFHLG, 2019), and local

planning policy related to biodiversity.

50

Table 17. Summary of impacts, mitigation and residual effects.

Feature Construction Impacts Mitigation Occupation Phase Impacts Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Residual effect

SPAs and Ramsar sites

None None

Increased recreational pressure on European protected sites within ZoI of the Essex Coast RAMS.

Contribution per unit (£122.30) to Essex RAMs; Inclusion of SANGS and other areas of greenspace within the site; new PROW

Negligible (C & O)

SSSI / LNR None None None None Negligible (C & O)

LoWS Potential disturbance to Doggetts Pond LoWS

Production of CEMP Increased recreational pressure on Doggetts Pond LoWS

Inclusion of SANGS and other areas of greenspace within the site; production of LEMP and EES for Doggetts Pond LoWS in consultation with relevant stakeholders

Negligible (C & O)

Habitats

Loss of a defunct hedgerow (H3), a significant street tree (T1), arable habitat and scrub/ruderal boundaries Damage to retained hedges and trees Pollution events e.g. pond pollution

Retention and protection of H2 Extensive new tree and hedgerow planting. Native scrub planting. Grassland creation. Sensitive lighting strategy Production of a CEMP to include pollution prevention measures Eradication of Japanese knotweed from site

Recreational/lighting disturbance Pollution events e.g. pond pollution

LEMP detailing how retained and created habitats will be sensitively managed for benefit of wildlife Sensitive lighting strategy Provision of signage and fencing around sensitive features

Adverse (C) Beneficial (O)

Badger

Killing/injury of badgers occupying a sett/disturbance/ destruction of setts Accidental death and injury of foraging/commuting animals. Loss of foraging / commuting habitat.

Licenced sett closures, on a temporary basis wherever feasible Phased approach; subsidiary and outlier setts to remain open while main sett temporarily closed No major flood storage excavations within 20m of main sett 20m buffer around setts to be retained to protect from disturbance Precautionary methods during construction (e.g. covering trenches, tool box talks) Pre-commencement badger survey Creation of habitats suitable for badgers (new hedgerows, fruiting trees)

Increased recreational disturbance.

Scrub buffer planting around retained setts

Negligible (C) Negligible (O)

51

Feature Construction Impacts Mitigation Occupation Phase Impacts Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Residual effect

Bats

Construction lighting impacts Tree roost disturbance (if present)

Sensitive lighting scheme Retention and buffering of hedgerows Retention and protection of trees with suitability for roosting bats Soft fell/prune tree with ‘low’ suitability if required

Indirect impacts to roosting, foraging and commuting bats

Enhancement and buffering of hedgerows Planting of flora favoured by bats invertebrate prey Sensitive lighting scheme Provision of bat boxes within the development

Negligible (C) Beneficial (O)

Breeding birds

Construction impacts on nests of breeding birds including destruction and disturbance

Appropriate pre-clearance checks if clearance required within breeding season (March to August inclusive) Retention and protection of hedgerows

Increased recreational disturbance

Retention and creation of habitats suitable for nesting birds with favourable management Provision of bird boxes within the development


Invertebrates Loss of habitat resulting in killing and / or injury of common assemblage

Retention and protection of hedgerows and pond Indirect effects through increased light levels

Sensitive lighting scheme Native-species planting within landscaped areas


Reptiles Death / injury during clearance

Exclusion from construction area (along H2) Trapping and translocation to an off-site receptor area for reptiles present along other boundaries Destructive search supervised by EcOW

Increased recreational disturbance and predation

Provision of reptile hibernacula, scrub and long-grass habitats Restricted ‘no dogs’ areas


Other notable species

Death injury during vegetation clearance of hedgehog, common toad, polecat and harvest mouse. Displacement of brown hare

Retention and protection of hedgerows Sensitive vegetation clearance

Potential increased mortality from domestic pets Isolation from new gardens

Creation of ‘hedgehog highways’ to allow access to gardens

Negligible (C & O)

52

6.0 References

Baker, H., Stroud, D. A., Aebischer, N. J., Cranswick, P. A., Gregory, R. D., McSorley, C. A., Noble, D. G. &

Rehfisch, M. M. (2006) Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. British

Birds 99: 25-44.

Bat Conservation Trust (2015) Bats and Trees. London: BCT

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D. and Hill, D.A. (1992). Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press, London.

CIEEM (2018). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater

and Coastal, 3rd Edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester.

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edition). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Cresswell, W. & Whitworth, R. (2004). An assessment of the efficiency of capture techniques and the value of different habitats for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus. Research Reports EN Report no 576. Dobson, J. & Tansley, D. (2014) Mammals of Essex. Essex Field Club.

Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108: 708–746. Froglife, (1999). Reptile Survey: An introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Peterborough.

Fuller, R.J., (1980). A method for assessing the ornithological interest of sites for conservation. Biological Conservation 17: 229-239. Fure, A. (2006) Bats and Lighting. The London Naturalist, No. 85.

Gent. T. & Gibson. S. (2003) Herpetofauna Workers Manual. Joint Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.

Gunnell, K., Grant, G., and Williams C. (2012). Landscape and urban design for bats and biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust, London.

Harris, S., & Yalden D.W (2008). Mammals of the British Isles: Handbook, 4th ed. The Mammal Society, London.

Herpetofauna groups of Britain and Ireland (1998). Evaluating local mitigation/translocation

programmes: Maintaining best practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory noted for amphibian and

reptile groups (ARGs). [Online] Available at: https://www.arguk.org/info-advice/scientific-and-

technical-reports/4-evaluating-local-mitigation-translocation-best-practice-and-lawful-standards

Institution of Lighting Professionals (2018). Guidance Note 08/18: Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK. Institution of Lighting Professionals, Warwickshire.

https://www.arguk.org/info-advice/scientific-and-technical-reports/4-evaluating-local-mitigation-translocation-best-practice-and-lawful-standards

https://www.arguk.org/info-advice/scientific-and-technical-reports/4-evaluating-local-mitigation-translocation-best-practice-and-lawful-standards

53

Jehle, R. (2000). The terrestrial summer habitat of radio-tracked great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) and marbled newts (T. marmoratus). Herpetological Journal, 10, pp. 137-142. Jones, J. (2000). Impact of Lighting on Bats. Bat Conservation Trust, London. Langton, T.E.S., Beckett, C.L., and Foster, J.P. (2001), Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook, Froglife, Halesworth. Lockhart Garett (July 2017). Phase 1 Survey Report – Ashingdon Road Rochford. Ref: 16-0341 Lockhart Garett (July 2017). Badger Activity Survey Report – Ashingdon Road Rochford. Ref: 16-1967 Lockhart Garett (July 2017). Badger Activity Survey Report – Ashingdon Road Rochford. Ref: 16-1855 Lockhart Garett (July 2017). Great Crested Newt Survey Report – Ashingdon Road Rochford. Ref: 16-0342 Lockhart Garett (July 2017). Reptile Survey Report – Ashingdon Road Rochford. Ref: 16-1853

Marchant, J. (1983). BTO Common Birds Census Instructions. Tring: British Trust for Ornithology. Massot. M., Clobert. J., Pilorge.T., Lecomte. J. & Barbault. R. (1992). Density Dependence in the Common Lizard: Demographic Manipulation. The Ecology Society of America. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (2019) National Planning Policy Framework. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

Mitchell-Jones, A.J. (2004) Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature

Natural England (2009). Badgers and Development. A Guide to Best Practice and Licensing. June 2009 Natural England (2009). Guidance on ‘Current Use’ in the definition of a badger sett. June 2009 Natural England (2009). Interpretation of ‘Disturbance’ in relation to badgers occupying a sett. June 2009 Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S and Jeffcote, M. (2000). Herpetological Journal. Vol. 10, pp. 143-155.

Place Services (March 2019) The Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance Mitigation Strategy – Habitat Regulations Assessment Strategy Document 2018-2038. Essex County Council

Rochford District Council (December 2011). Local Development Framework - Core Strategy Adopted Version. [Online]. Available at: https://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planningpolicy_cs_adoptedstrategy.pdf

Rochford District Council (February 2014). Local Development Framework – Allocations Plan Adopted Version. [Online]. Available at: https://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/files/planning_all_allplan.pdf Russ, J. (2012). British bat calls. A guide to species identification. Pelagic.

Scottish Badgers (2018). Surveying for Badgers – Good Practice Guidelines. Version 1 2018.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2

https://www.rochford.gov.uk/sites/default/files/planningpolicy_cs_adoptedstrategy.pdf

54

Sharon Hosegood Associates (2019). Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex. Southern Ecological Solutions (2019). Japanese Knotweed Survey - Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex. Southern Ecological Solutions (2019). Habitats Regulations Assessment - Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex. Stone, E.L. (2013) Bats and lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation guidance. University of Bristol: Bristol.

van Langevelde, F., Ettema, J.A., Donners, M., Wallis DeVries., M.F. and Groenendijk., D. (2011). Effect of Spectral Composition of Artificial Light on the Attraction of Moths. Biological Conservation 144 (9): 2274-2281.

55

Appendix 1: Site Location & Development Proposal Plans

Site Location Plan

56

Land Use and Access Parameter Plan

57

Appendix 2: Legislation & Policy Context This document has not been prepared by a legal or planning professional and should be read as an

interpretation of relevant statutes and planning policy guidance only. The information presented within this

document has been reported in good faith and are the genuine opinion of SES on such matters. SES does not

accept any liability resulting from outcomes relating to the use of this information or its interpretation within

this document.

National Planning Policy

The NPPF (MHCLG, 2019) outlines what the planning system should do to contribute to and enhance the

natural and local environment through the following policy statements:

Paragraph 8

Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which

are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken

to secure net gains across each of the different objectives):

c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and

historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using

natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to

climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

Paragraph 20

Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and

make sufficient provision for:

d) conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment, including

landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning measures to address climate change mitigation

and adaptation.

Paragraph 28

Non-strategic policies should be used by local planning authorities and communities to set out more detailed

policies for specific areas, neighbourhoods or types of development. This can include allocating sites, the

provision of infrastructure and community facilities at a local level, establishing design principles, conserving

and enhancing the natural and historic environment and setting out other development management policies.

Paragraph 102

Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so

that:

d) the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and

taken into account – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse

effects, and for net environmental gains; and

Paragraph 118

Planning policies and decisions should:

58

a) encourage multiple benefits from both urban and rural land, including through mixed use schemes

and taking opportunities to achieve net environmental gains – such as developments that would

enable new habitat creation or improve public access to the countryside;

b) recognise that some undeveloped land can perform many functions, such as for wildlife,

recreation, flood risk mitigation, cooling/shading, carbon storage or food production;

Paragraph 141

Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance their

beneficial use, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport

and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and

derelict land.

Paragraph 170

Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in

a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan);

b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from

natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and

most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where

appropriate;

d) d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing

coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

Paragraph 174

To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should:

a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological

networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of

importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas

identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration

or creation; and

b) promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks

and the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for

securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.

Paragraph 175

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through

locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort,

compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to

have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments),

should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development

in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that

make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of

Special Scientific Interest;

59

c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient

woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional

reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and

d) development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported;

while opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should

be encouraged, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity.

Paragraph 176

The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites:

a) potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation;

b) listed or proposed Ramsar sites;

c) sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on habitats sites,

potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed

Ramsar sites.

Paragraph 177

The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to

have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless

an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the

habitats site.

Paragraph 180

Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking

into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the

natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise

from the development. In doing so they should:

c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes

and nature conservation.

Local Planning Policy

The adopted Rochford Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011) contains the following policy with

relevance to biodiversity:

Policy ENV1 – Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Landscape and Habitats and the Protection of

Historical and Archaeological Sites

The Council will maintain, restore and enhance sites of international, national and local nature conservation

importance. These will include Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Ramsar

Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Ancient Woodlands, Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and Local

Wildlife Sites (LoWSs). In particular, the Council will support the implementation of the Crouch and Roach

Management Plan. The Council will also protect landscapes of historical and archaeological interest.

Part of the site (23.5ha) is allocated for residential development of 500 units (including at least 175 affordable

units) under Policy SER8 of the Rochford Local Development Framework Allocations Plan (2014). This is

expected to accommodate the following infrastructure, services and facilities:

60

• Local highway capacity and infrastructure improvements, including contribution to traffic

management of Ashingdon Road;

• Public transport infrastructure improvements and service enhancements;

• Link and enhancements to local pedestrian/cycling and bridleway network;

• Sustainable drainage systems;

• Public open space;

• Play space; and

• Youth facilities and community facilities.

The Concept Statement for the site allocation details the following expectations in relation to environment

and biodiversity:

• Trees and hedges should be developed in garden areas along the northern, western and southern

boundaries of the site to create a green buffer in perpetuity between new and existing development,

whilst promoting integration.

• The loss of any trees on site or in the vicinity of the site should be appropriately mitigated against,

with the provision of replacement trees on a like-for-like basis.

• Amenity greenspace and appropriate landscaping should be provided throughout the site.

• At least 3.6 hectares of natural/semi-natural greenspace which is publicly accessible should be

provided and integrated into the development. The calculations of greenspace requirements are

based on 500 dwellings being provided on the site. If a greater number are provided, the provision

of such facilities should increase proportionately.

• A green buffer to the east should be provided following the existing tree line further to the east to

soften the boundary of the site. Within this area, a greenway linking Oxford Road in the north to The

Drive in the south should be developed, enhancing access/egress to King Edmund School in the north

and the facilities and services in Rochford town centre in the south. This buffer will not form part of

the development area, but will be situated in the Green Belt to the east of the residential settlement.

The green buffer should take the form of parkland which is publicly accessible and integrated into

the development. Conditions will be attached to ensure that any greenspace provided on or off site

has ecological value. A landscape strategy promoting green links and biodiversity corridors should be

prepared for the site.

• Links to the neighbouring Local Wildlife Site to the east/south east of the site should be explored.

Given the proximity of the site to this area of ecological value, a management plan for the Local

Wildlife Site should be prepared during the design and construction phases in consultation with

relevant bodies such as the Council, Natural England and the Essex Wildlife Trust, given potential

increased recreational pressure on the site. Disturbance of this site should be avoided.

England Priority Species and Priority Habitats

The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, published in July 2012, has now succeeded the UK Biodiversity

Action Plan. Much of the work previously carried out under the UK BAP is now focussed at a country level.

England Priority Species and Priority Habitats are those that have been identified as being the most threatened

and requiring conservation action under the England Biodiversity Strategy.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189

61

Badgers

Badgers have historically been given legal protection since 1973 however the Protection of Badgers Act 1992

consolidated and strengthened previous legislation. It is a criminal offence to:

• Wilfully kill, injure, or take any Badger.

• Possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger.

• Possess any dead badger or part of one.

• Possess or control a living, healthy Badger.

• Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to a sett, or disturb a Badger whilst it

is occupying a sett.

The maximum fine per offence is £5000; the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) amendment

contains a provision for a custodial sentence of up to 6 months instead of, or in addition to, a fine. Along with

a lengthy development delay until an appropriate mitigation programme has been agreed and completed.

Local authority planning departments should also meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) 2018; which requires planners not only to protect biodiversity, but where possible to

enhance it. Planning authorities are required to take into account of protected species so an ecological survey

is normally required.

Bats

All UK bat species are protected under European and UK law (Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations

(CHSR) 2017; Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981). Some are also Natural Environment and Rural

Communities (NERC) Act 2006 /UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority species and local BAP species.

Protected and NERC/UK BAP/local BAP species are a material consideration under the NPPF (MHCLG, 2019).

Hazel Dormouse

Hazel dormice are protected under UK and European law primarily by the WCA (1981) as amended and

regulation 41 of the CHSR (2017). Taken together it is illegal to:

• Deliberately kill, injure or capture any wild animal of European protected species;

• Deliberately disturb wild animals of any European protected species in such a way to be likely to

significantly affect:

• The ability of any significant groups of animals of that species to survive, breed, rear or nurture their

young; or

• The local distribution of that species.

• Recklessly disturb a European protected species;

• Damage or destroy breeding sites or resting places of such animals;

• Deliberately take or destroy the pups of such an animal;

• Possess or transport any part of a European protected species, unless acquired legally; and

• Sell, barter or exchange any part of a European protected species.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1992/ukpga_19920051_en_1

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_1

62

Birds

All UK wild birds are afforded statutory protection under the WCA (1981) (below). In addition to this statutory

protection British birds are also classified according to their conservation status, including their position on

the Red and Amber lists of Birds of Conservation Concern in the UK 3 (Eaton et al, 2009) and whether they have

been identified as Priority Species under the England Biodiversity Strategy. All British birds are also covered by

the EU Birds Directive.

EU Birds Directive

Under the EU Birds Directive all bird species naturally occurring on the European territory of the EU are

protected. This means they must not be deliberately killed, caught or disturbed, and their mating, breeding,

feeding and roosting habitats must not be destroyed. The taking and destruction of eggs is prohibited as well

as keeping of wild-caught birds

A major provision of the Directive includes the identification and classification of Special Protection Areas

(SPA’s) for rare or vulnerable species which are listed in Annex I of the Directive. The Directive also regulates

the hunting of certain species of birds listed in Annex II, while Annex III regulates the sale, transport, keeping

and offering for sale of certain live or dead game birds. In the UK, the provisions of the ‘Birds Directive’ are

implemented through the WCA (1981)

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Wild birds in the UK are protected under the WCA (1981). Under this legislation all birds, their nests and eggs

are protected by law and it is an offence, with certain exceptions, to intentionally kill, injure, or take any wild

bird or their eggs or nests (exceptions to this are listed in Schedule 2). In addition, a select group of species

are further listed under Schedule 1 of the Act and these have additional protection that makes it an offence to

disturb these birds at the nest, or to disturb their dependent young.

Birds of Conservation Concern:

Red list species are those that are Globally Threatened according to IUCN criteria, those with populations or

ranges that have declined rapidly in recent years and those that have declined historically and not shown a

substantial recent recovery.

Amber list species are those with an unfavourable conservation status in Europe, those whose population or

range has declined moderately in recent years; those whose population has declined historically but made a

substantial recent recovery; rare breeders; and those with internationally important or localised populations.

Green list species are all regularly occurring species that do not qualify under any of the Red or Amber criteria.

The Green list also includes those species listed as recovering from Historical Decline in the last review that

have continued to recover and do not qualify under any of the other criteria.

63

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; Section 41

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act came into force on 1 October 2006. Section 41

(S41) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of habitats and species which are of principal

importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England.

England Priority Species on the list (see below) are those species found in England which have been identified

as requiring action under the England Biodiversity Strategy. The list is used to guide decision-makers such as

public bodies, including local and regional authorities, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in

England.

GCN

GCN are protected under S9 of the WCA (1981) and regulation 41 of CHSR (2017). Taken together offences

relevant to this project are likely to be:

• Deliberately kill, injure or capture any wild animal of European protected species;

• Deliberately disturb wild animals of any European protected species in such a way to be likely to

significantly affect:

o The ability of any significant groups of animals of that species to survive, breed, rear or nurture

their young; or

o The local distribution of that species.

• Intentionally or recklessly disturb an animal while occupying a place used for shelter or protection;

• Damage or destroys breed sites or resting places of such animals;

• Deliberately takes or destroys the eggs of such an animal;

• Possess or transport any part of a European protected species, unless acquired legally.

Other Amphibians

Amphibians (common frog, common toad, smooth newt, palmate newt) are protected under Section 9(5) of

the WCA (1981) against:

• Selling, offering or exposing for sale, or having in possession or transporting for the purpose of sale,

any live or dead wild animal or any part of, or anything derived from, such an animal;

• Publishing or causing to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying buying

or selling, or intending to buy or sell, any of those things.

Invertebrates

Many invertebrates are listed as UK BAP priority species and as Species of Principal Importance (NERC S.41).

Although such species do not receive protection under criminal law their presence is a material planning

consideration, consequently (following Natural England, 2010):

• Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities will use the Section 41 list to identify the

species and habitats that should be afforded priority when applying the requirements of the NPPF

(MHCLG, 2019) to promote the “protection and recovery of priority species populations”.

64

• Local Planning Authorities will use it to identify the species and habitats that require specific

consideration in dealing with planning and development control, recognising that under NPPF the

aim of planning decisions should be to avoid minimise impacts to biodiversity.

Of wider relevance to biodiversity assessment is the presence of other rare and scarce invertebrates, of which

potentially there are several thousand in the United Kingdom. These species comprise the majority of

invertebrate diversity and conservation value, and their significance is poorly defined within legislation and

planning policy.

Reptiles

Habitats found on/off site are suitable for common lizards, slow-worms, grass snakes and adders which are

protected under the WCA (1981). These species are listed on schedule 5 and offences are outlined under S9

(1) and S9 (5) and are follows:

• Intentionally, or recklessly, kill or injure any of the above species, and/or;

• Sell, or attempt to sell, any part of the species, alive or dead.

The maximum fine per offence is £5000 and if more than one animal is involved, the fine is £5000 per animal

(WCA 1981, S21). The CRoW amendment contains a provision for a custodial sentence of up to six months

instead of, or in addition to, a fine, along with a lengthy development delay until appropriate mitigation has

been agreed and completed.

The NERC (2006) also lists the above reptiles as a species of ‘principle importance’ under S41 and s40 requires

every public body in the exercising of its functions (in relation S41 species) ‘have regard, so far as is consistent

with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’

Small and medium-sized mammals

Species highlighted for further consideration within this report are European hedgehog, harvest mice, brown

hare and polecat which are all listed as UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority species, Essex priority

(local BAP) species, and as species of principal importance (section 41) of the NERC Act 2006. Although such

species do not receive protection under criminal law their presence is a material planning consideration.

Consequently:

• Regional Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities will use the Section 41 list to identify the

species and habitats that should be afforded priority when applying the requirements of the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (MHCLG, 2019) to promote the “protection and recovery of

priority species populations”.

Local Planning Authorities will use it to identify the species and habitats that require specific consideration in

dealing with planning and development control, recognising that under NPPF the aim of planning decisions

should be to minimise impacts to biodiversity

65

Hedgerows

Hedgerows assessed as important under the Wildlife and Landscape criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997

require permission from the local planning authority before they can be removed in whole or in part.

66

Appendix 3: Detailed Survey Methods

Hedgerows

All hedgerows surrounding the site were assessed under The Hedgerow Regulations (1997) on 21 May 2019.

A total of three hedgerows were subject to survey, detailed survey results for each hedge and their locations

within the site are shown in Appendix 6.

The Hedgerow Regulations 1997

The hedgerows were assessed under the ecological criteria given in the Hedgerow Regulations (HM

Government, 1997). This was to determine whether any of the hedgerows are considered ‘important’ under

the ecological criteria.

To qualify as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, the hedgerow must comply with the following

list of criteria:

• The hedgerow must have a continuous length of or exceeding 20m;

• Has a continuous length of less than 20m, but meets another hedgerow (by intersection or junction)

at each end, and;

• The hedgerow must be over 30 years old.

Apart from the above, to be deemed important a hedgerow must meet one or more of the following criteria:

• The hedgerow marks the boundary of a historic parish or township existing before 1850;

• The hedgerow contains or is within an archaeological feature which is on the Sites and Monuments

Record, or a pre-1600 manor or estate;

• The hedgerow is a part of or associated with a field system predating the Enclosure Acts;

• The hedgerow contains species in part I of Schedule 1; Schedule 5; or Schedule 8 of the Wildlife &

Countryside Act 1981; or various other defined species including certain Red Data Book species;

• The hedgerow is adjacent to a public right of way (not counting an adopted highway) and includes at

least four woody species as defined in Schedule 3 of the regulations plus at least two Associated

Features;

• The hedgerow includes one or more of the following within a 30 m sample area:

o At least seven woody species

o At least six woody species plus at least three Associated Features (see below)

o At least six woody species including a Populus nigra (Black-poplar), Tilia platyphyllos (Large-

leaved Lime), Tilia cordata (Small-leaved Lime) and Sorbus torminalis (Wild Service-tree).

o At least five woody species and at least four Associated Features

The associated features mentioned above, as part of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, are as follows:

• A bank or wall for at least half the length of the hedgerow;

• A ditch for at least half the length of the hedgerow;

• Gaps over no more than 10% of the length of the hedgerow;

• On average, at least 1 standard tree per 50 m of hedgerow;

67

• At least three woodland species from a list of 57 woodland plants (as defined in Schedule 2 of the

Regulations) within 1m of the hedgerow;

• Connections scoring 4 or more points, where connection with a hedgerow counts as one, a broad-

leaved woodland or pond counts as two; and

• A parallel hedge within 15 m.

Under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, the removal of any hedgerow to which the Regulations apply is

permitted if it is required for carrying out development for which planning permission has been granted or it

is deemed to have been granted.

Badgers

Surveys were carried out using standard guidelines for classifying badger setts and categorising entrance holes

(Harris et al., 1989; Scottish Badgers, 2018; Natural England, 2009). All areas of the site and wider area were

readily accessible except private residential properties and patches of dense scrub. Detailed results are

provided in Appendix 7, as well as a map showing the location of badger setts.

The survey comprised a detailed systematic walkover survey of the site and known setts. Dense scrub was

present on site and was accessed to a satisfactory degree. The badger signs looked for were:

• Additional holes/setts;

• Prints;

• Badger runs;

• Hairs;

• Latrines;

• Scratching posts, and;

• Snuffle marks.

The number of entrances and levels of use were recorded, and the sett was classified according to the criteria

used in the National Badger Surveys (Harris et al., 1989). The classification criteria are given below:

• Main setts – a large well established, often extensive and in continuous use. There is only one main

sett per social group of badgers. This is where the cubs are most likely to be born.

• Annexe setts – occur in close association with the main sett and are linked to the main sett by clear

well-used paths. If a second litter of cubs are born, they will be reared here.

• Subsidiary setts – these often have 3-5 holes and are normally over 50m from a main sett and are

not linked by clear paths. These setts are not continually active.

• Outlying setts – these usually have 1-3 holes, have small spoil heaps and are sporadically used. Foxes

and rabbits may move in.

An assessment of the activity of each sett was undertaken; the following categories were assigned to the

entrance holes to make this assessment:

• Well-used: Entrances clear of debris and vegetation and are obviously well used.

• Partially-used: Entrances are not in regular use and have debris such as leaves or twigs across the

entrances. These holes could come into regular use with minimal clearance.

68

• Disused: Entrances have not been used for some time, are partially or completely blocked. There may

be a depression in the ground where the hole used to be.

A badger sett is protected by legislation if it “displays signs indicating current use by a badger”. A sett is

therefore protected if such signs remain present (Natural England, 2009). As such, a sett is likely to fall outside

the definition of a sett in the Act if the evidence available indicates that it is not in current use by badgers; e.g.

absence of badger field signs, debris in sett entrances etc.

Bats


Habitats on and adjacent site were assessed for their suitability to support roosting, foraging and commuting

bats using guidelines issued by the Bat Conservation Trust (Collins, 2016). All potential roosting habitats

(existing buildings and trees) were assigned a level of suitability according to the descriptions outlined in Table

A3.1. Trees and building exteriors were initially assessed from ground level, using binoculars where necessary

to identify potential roost features and bat access points. Building interiors were searched for evidence of

roosting bats using a high-powered torch. Evidence of bat occupation sought included the physical presence

of bats, droppings, urine staining and mammalian fur oil staining.

The site as a whole was also assigned a level of suitability for foraging and commuting bats according to the

descriptions outlined in Table A3.1.

Table A3.1. Assessment of the potential suitability of a proposed development site for roosting, foraging and

commuting bats (Collins, 2016)

Suitability Roosting habitats Commuting and foraging habitats

Negligible Negligible habitat features on site likely to be

used by roosting bats

Negligible habitat features on site likely to be

used by commuting and foraging bats

Low A structure with one or more potential roost

sites that could be used by individual bats

opportunistically but not enough space,

shelter, protection and appropriate conditions

to be used on a regular basis or by larger

numbers of bats

A tree of sufficient size and age to contain

potential roosting features but with none seen

from the ground or features seen with only

very limited roosting potential

Habitat that could be used by small numbers of

commuting bats such as a gappy hedgerow or

unvegetated stream, but isolated, i.e. not very

well connected to the surrounding landscape by

another habitat

Suitable, but isolated habitat that could be used

by small numbers of foraging bats such as a lone

tree (not in a parkland situation) or patch of

scrub

Moderate A structure or tree with one or more potential

roost sites that could be used by bats due to

their size, shelter, protection, conditions and

surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a

roost of high conservation status

Continuous habitat connected to the wider

landscape that could be used by bats for

commuting such as lines of trees and scrub or

linked back gardens

Habitat that is connected to the wider

landscape that could be used by bats for

foraging such as trees, scrub, grassland or water

69

Suitability Roosting habitats Commuting and foraging habitats

High A structure or tree with one or more potential

roost sites that are obviously suitable for use

by larger numbers of bats on a more regular

basis and potentially for longer periods of time

due to their size, shelter, protection,

conditions and surrounding habitat

Continuous, high-quality habitat that is well

connected to the wider landscape that is likely

to be used regularly by commuting bats such as

river valleys, streams, hedgerows, lines of trees

and woodland edge

High-quality habitat that is well-connected to

the wider landscape that is likely used regularly

by foraging bats such as broad-leaved

woodland, tree-lined watercourses and grazed

parkland

Site is close to and connected to known roosts


A bat emergence/re-entry survey of the existing semi-detached bungalows on site (at 148-150 Ashingdon

Road) was carried out in accordance with current guidance (Collins, 2016). This recommends one dusk

emergence or dawn re-entry survey, carried out between May-August, for structures assessed as having a ‘low’

suitability to support roosting bats.

A dusk emergence survey was therefore conducted on 15 August 2019, commencing 15 minutes before sunset

and continuing until approximately 1.5 hours after sunset. The survey was carried out under appropriate

weather conditions (avoiding strong winds, cold temperatures and heavy rainfall).

Three surveyors maintained static positions around the building, focusing their attention on features that could

potentially be utilised by roosting bats and watching closely for any emergence, while also recording bat

activity incidentally observed in the immediate surroundings.

Surveyors used Batlogger and Batbox Duet bat detectors with Edirol/Tascam digital recorders to record bat

activity. Calls were subsequently analysed using Kaleidoscope and BatExplorer computer software.

Activity Surveys

The site was assessed as having low suitability for foraging and commuting bats therefore a suite of further

activity surveys were required. The following surveys were recommended in line with published guidelines

(Collins, 2016), see Table A3.2.

Table A3.2. Guidelines on the number of bat activity surveys recommended to achieve a reasonable survey effort in

relation to a site with low habitat suitability, adapted from Collins 2016.

Survey type Low suitability habitat for bats

Transect surveys One survey visit per season (spring – April/May, summer – June/July/August, autumn

– September/October) in appropriate weather conditions for bats

Automated surveys One location per transect, data to be collected on five consecutive nights per season

in appropriate weather conditions for bats

70

Transect surveys provide qualitative descriptive data which describes how bats use the site. A transect route

(Appendix 8) was designed to cover all the best habitats for bats on and adjacent to the site. Given the extent

and range of habitats present, one transect route was considered sufficient to sample the site.

The transect route was walked at a steady pace (so the sampling area is the same per unit time), and

supplemented by spot counts, where surveyors remained stationary for 5 minutes at locations along the route

selected to represent the different habitats in the survey area. The transect start point and direction of travel

was randomised for each survey to overcome the potential for results to be biased by systematic differences

in the timing with which each habitat feature was sampled across the series of surveys.

Surveyors recorded observations of bats such as likely species, numbers, flight direction, flight height,

behaviour (e.g. foraging or commuting), appearance and relative speed. Surveyors used an Echo Meter touch

2 Pro to record echolocation calls, which were subsequently analysed using Kaleidoscope computer software.

Three surveys were undertaken in 2019, one in May, one in July and one in September 2019, to provide

coverage across the bat active season. All surveys were undertaken at dusk, when bat activity tends to be the

highest, and in appropriate weather conditions for bats (no heavy rain, cold temperatures or high winds). In

accordance with guidance, all surveys commenced at sunset and lasted until two hours after sunset. Results

are reported in Appendix 8

Automated Surveys

Automated static detectors provide quantitative data over longer periods of time useful for assessing the

species assemblage in an area and the temporal changes in bat activity.

Two static detectors per transect were set up at different monitoring points and used to record bat activity

within the habitats on site for at least five consecutive nights per season, in accordance with current guidance.

Sampling was undertaken in May, July and September 2019. Survey dates were selected when the predicted

weather forecast indicated suitable weather conditions for foraging and commuting bats (i.e. air temperature

above 10°C, no strong winds and no rain).

Anabat Express and Anabat Swift static bat detectors were used to record bat echolocation calls. The units

were set up to continuously record from 30 minutes before sunset until 30 minutes after sunrise. All recordings

were stored on memory cards and analysed using computer software programs Analook and Kaleidoscope.

Echolocation calls were identified down to species or genus level depending on the type of bat encountered

(often it is not possible to reliably identify species belonging to the genus Myotis, Plecotus and Nyctalus) and

the quality of the recording.

The analysed data was then standardised to account for differences in night length and the number of nights

over which activity was sampled per season. This was achieved by following procedure:

• dividing the total number of passes recorded per season (defined as a maximum 15 second bat

recording) by the number of recording nights, to provide the number of passes per night

• then, dividing the number of passes per night by the night length, to provide the number of passes per

night hour

71

• finally, multiplying the number of passes per night hour by the mean night length over the sampling

period, to provide the standardised number of passes per night

Birds

Breeding Bird Surveys

SES conducted three breeding bird survey visits during the 2019 bird breeding season, one per month from

April to June. The survey area included the whole of the study area and adjacent areas that could be surveyed

from within the site, generally covering a buffer perimeter of 10-20m. Thus, adjacent field boundaries and

other potential bird nesting habitats where birds using the site during the breeding season may nest, and vice

versa were generally also included. A transect was walked slowly pausing to record birds heard and observed,

covering all areas of the study area within 25m, and route directions were varied between survey visits. Birds

flying over and not using the site or surrounding area were recorded separately. All bird locations and

behaviour were mapped onto photocopied OS maps (1:5000 scale) using the standard CBC notation.

All survey visits were undertaken during the morning after the dawn period when bird singing intensity tends

to be high but stable (Bibby et al. 2000).

Field maps were analysed to determine probable breeding bird registrations relating to different territories

and to judge which birds are using the area for breeding or for other activities such as foraging. A probable or

definite territory is defined as a cluster of registrations of singing or displaying individuals from more than one

visit, or one or more registrations of the following breeding behaviour: disturbance displaying, interspecific

aggressive interaction, repetitively alarming, carrying food, nest material or faecal sacs, or if active nests or

young were found.

If a singing bird is recorded on just one visit or sight observations of birds are recorded in the same area on

more than one visit and are not likely to be associated with any other recorded territories, these are assigned

as possible territories. For birds that do not sing, such as many waterfowl, birds present at a location in suitable

breeding territory on at least two visits are assigned to probable territories. Presence of such species in suitable

breeding habitat on a single visit is assigned to possible territories unless the possibility of nesting is considered

negligible by the observer.

This process is open to subjectivity in interpretation except where active nests are located. Therefore, these

territories are classed as putative and their mapped locations indicate the ‘centre’ of a territory and not

necessarily the nesting location. The maps were analysed to determine the number of probable and possible

territories or pairs of each species present.

Great Crested Newts

HSI Survey

Aquatic habitats were assessed for their suitability to support breeding GCN (as well as other amphibians)

using the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). This method was developed by Oldham et al. (2000) and provides a

numerical index, between 1 and 0, based on a number of factors which influence great crested newt presence:

72

• Geographic locality

• Pond area

• Permanence

• Water quality

• Shade

• Waterfowl presence

• Fish presence

• Pond count within 1km2 of survey pond

• Terrestrial habitat quality

• Macrophyte cover

The data regarding each factor is collected in the field at each pond and also by using maps, this is then

converted into SI scores on a scale of 0.1 -1.0. The HSI is calculated as a geometric mean of the 10 suitability

indices (SI) as indicated below:

HSI = (SI1 x SI2 x SI3 x SI4 x SI5 x SI6 x SI7 x SI8 x SI9 x SI10) 1/10

On the index, 0 indicates unsuitable habitat, while 1 represents optimal habitat. Lee Brady developed a system

of using HSI scores to define ponds suitability for great crested newts on a categorical scale during a study

undertaken in south-east England in which 248 ponds were surveyed for GCN using standard methods and

also subjected to an HSI. The results of this study show that as the HSI score increases, the proportion of ponds

occupied also increases, as summarised below:

Table A3.3. HSI score categories (Oldham et al., 2000) and predicated probability of GCN presence

HSI score Pond suitability Predicted presence of GCN (% of

ponds occupied n=248)

< 0.5 Poor 0.03

0.5 – 0.59 Below average 0.2

0.6 – 0.69 Average 0.55

0.7 – 0.79 Good 0.79

> 0.8 Excellent


Eight ponds within 500m of the site were surveyed between mid-March and mid-June 2019. Surveys were

undertaken during suitable conditions i.e. when the ambient air temperature exceeded 5°C, with little/no wind

and no rain.

The surveys followed recommended methods (English Nature, 2001). To determine the presence or likely

absence of GCN, four individual survey visits were carried out, at least two of these falling within the peak

survey season of mid-April to mid-May. On each survey occasion, a minimum of three different techniques

(bottle trapping, torching, egg searching, terrestrial searching) were used where possible. A summary of each

is provided below:

73

Bottle Trapping

Bottle traps were deployed in the waterbodies in the evening at densities of one trap per 2m of shoreline

(where feasible) and left overnight for inspection in the morning. Traps were partially submerged in the water

leaving an air bubble in the bottle and secured by a cane marked with a high visibility tape to ensure relocation

the following day. Care was taken to ensure that trapping did not occur during excessively warm weather,

when the temperature inside the trap could rise considerably, reducing oxygen levels and potentially

suffocating the newts.

Torching

Torching involved searching the waterbody after dusk using high-powered torches to scan the margins and

potential display areas for newts. The perimeter of the pond was walked slowly recording any newts observed.

Egg Searching

Newts lay single eggs on the leaves of aquatic plants or other suitable pliable material, after which the material

is folded over the egg to protect it. GCN eggs can be distinguished from those of the other newts by their size,

shape and colour. Submerged vegetation was examined for newt eggs and folded leaves gently opened to

check for eggs.

Terrestrial Searching

Great crested newts may rest under refuges such as logs, bark, rocks, and debris (discarded furniture, etc).

Items such as this within the vicinity of the ponds were lifted to search underneath. It should be noted that

this is considered an inefficient method and is best used as an additional technique.

Population Size Class Assessment

Two further surveys were carried out at one pond (P12) where GCN were confirmed to be present. These

further surveys followed the same methodology as outlined above, with at least one additional visit being

undertaken during the peak survey season of mid-April to mid-May, in accordance with current guidance.

The maximum adult count per night gained through torch survey or bottle-trapping (the peak count) was used

to determine the population size class, as indicated in the table below.

Table A3.4. Population class size assessment.

Population Class Peak Count

Small <10

Medium 11-100

Large >100

Reptiles

Artificial refuges (0.5m x 0.5m felt squares) were laid in suitable habitat, using the surveyor’s professional

judgement. Artificial refuges were used to observe reptiles basking or taking refuge, these were laid in

transects and left for seven days to settle before the survey commenced. Guidance recommends laying mats

74

at density of 10p/ha of suitable habitat (Froglife, 1999), however in this case a larger number of mats (120 for

approximately 2.5ha of suitable habitat) were laid to match previous survey effort and foster comparability of

results.

Visits for the presence/likely absence survey were undertaken during ‘suitable’ days for reptile activity; a

‘suitable’ survey day is determined by the weather, with temperature being the pre-eminent factor. Reptile

surveys conducted between 10 and 17°C have the most chance of success. The key months for reptile surveys

are April, May and September with April and May being advantageous because it is reptile mating season,

which means they will be more obvious and less wary of observers. Also, the temperatures are generally lower

during these months and as such it will take longer for the reptiles to warm up so they must spend more time

basking. During the warmer summer months animals will have to spend less time basking due to the increase

in ambient temperature, thus reptile survey visits will be conducted earlier in the day during the hotter

summer months. However, the temperature on the day of the visit will ultimately determine what time the

survey takes place.

As presence was detected a categorical population assessment was carried out with the largest count within

the first seven visits indicating the category of the recorded reptile species. This count was adjusted to

determine the population class due to enhanced survey effort. The table below details the assessment

categories:

Table A3.5. Froglife reptile population assessment.

Species Low Population Good Population Exceptional Population

Common Lizard <5 5-20 >20

Slow-Worms <5 5-20 >20

Grass Snake <5 5-10 >10

Adder <5 5-10 >10

75

Appendix 4: CIEEM EcIA Methods

Ecological features are evaluated and assessed with due consideration for the Chartered Institute of Ecology

and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) (CIEEM, 2016;

updated 2018). For clarity, the evaluation and assessment process adopted within this report is set out below.

Establishing potentially important ecological features

Potentially important ecological features of relevance to the development are determined in accordance with

current CIEEM guidelines. Table below sets out a non-exhaustive list of ecological features that are typically

considered, along with key examples:

Table A4.1. Examples of potentially important ecological features.

Potentially important ecological feature Typical examples

Statutory designated sites SSSIs, SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites, LNRs, NNRs

Non-statutory designated sites LWSs, CWSs

Protected species European protected species (e.g. GCN, bats)

International, National or local priority habitats S41 priority habitats and species; Annex I Habitats

Notable species or sub-species Individual red-listed species

Notable or large population or assemblage of species Diverse bird assemblage; exceptional numbers of

common amphibians

Novel or locally distinct assemblage of species

Diverse non-native floral community on a brownfield site;

populations of individual species showing distinct physical

variation

Habitats which form diverse mosaics, create important

connection and/or have synergistic attributes;

Brownfield habitat mosaics; riparian habitat corridors;

hedgerow network utilised by an important bat

population

Habitats of potential importance (with regard to restoring

or creating habitats to S41 priority or SSSI quality) Previous Ancient Woodland (PAWs) sites

Habitats of secondary or supportive importance (which

safeguard important habitats, or which support important

populations of species)

Scrub habitats buffering calcareous grassland from

agricultural improvement; pasture regularly utilised by

bird populations for which an SPA is designated

Establishing likely Zone of Influence (ZoI)

For the purposes of this assessment, the site is considered to be inside the ‘zone of influence’ of:

• Internationally important designations within 22km of the site boundary.

• Nationally important designations within 5km of the site boundary.

• Locally important designations within 2km of the site boundary.

• Non-statutory designations within 2km of the site boundary.

The arbitrary distances identified set out above considered sufficient for identifying the majority of

designations which may be affected by the proposals. However, it is acknowledged that in certain

circumstances effects beyond these distances are possible and should be considered as far as is reasonably

practicable to do so.

76

It should also be noted that certain ecological features have smaller ‘zones of influence’ than those mentioned

above. For such features the appropriate zone of influence is described and justified as appropriate within the

report, depending on their respective sensitivity to an environmental change.

The results of professionally accredited or published scientific studies have been used and referenced, where

available, to establish the spatial and temporal limits of the biophysical changes likely to be caused by specific

activities and to justify decisions about the zone of influence.

Determining importance of ecological features

In determining the importance of ecological features, a range of guidelines and reference materials have been

utilised, including:

• Criteria against which statutory and non-statutory nature conservation designations are selected (e.g.

SSSI designation criteria; LWS selection criteria).

• Definitions for national and priority habitats.

• Publications and guidelines against which to establish the importance of particular populations or

assemblages of species groups (e.g. Wray et al for evaluating bat populations and roosts; ISIS for

assessing conservation interest of invertebrate assemblages).

• Publications describing the conservation status of individual species (e.g. Red-data books).

• The Hedgerows Regulations to assess the importance of hedgerows.

• National, regional and local species Atlases.

• Species/group population trends.

It should be noted that the legal protection which some species and their habitats receive are considered

separately from ‘importance’ within this assessment as not all legally protected species are necessarily rare

(e.g. common pipistrelle bat). Legal issues and the appropriate mechanism for dealing with any such constraint

are addressed in the report.

It should also be noted that the social, community, economic or multifunctional importance attributed to

ecological features are not assessed as they fall outside the scope of this assessment.

Geographic frame of reference

In assigning importance to an ecological resource the following geographic frames of reference are used:

• International;

• National (i.e. England);

• Regional (South East);

• County (Essex);

• District (Rochford District);

• Local or Parish (Rochford); and

• Within Site or zone of influence only

The size, conservation status and the quality of features or species are all relevant in determining value.

Furthermore, the value of a species and / or habitat may vary depending on its geographical location.

77

Characterising effects and any significant effects of the proposed project or occupation are characterised using

the following terminology:

• Direct or indirect

• Beneficial or adverse

• Magnitude and/or extent

• Duration

• Reversibility

• Timing and frequency

Impacts have been assessed using the Mitigation Hierarchy, which forms the key principles of Ecological Impact

Assessment (EcIA):

• Avoidance – seeking options to avoid harm to ecological features;

• Mitigation – seeking options to avoid or minimise adverse effects;

• Compensation – offsetting adverse effects through appropriate compensatory measures;

• Enhancements – seeking to provide net benefits for biodiversity.

Determining ecologically significant effects

An ecologically significant effect is defined as an effect (adverse or beneficial) on the integrity of a defined

designated site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species within a given geographical

area.

The importance of any feature that will be significantly affected is then used to identify the geographical scale

at which the impact is significant. This value relates directly to the consequences, in terms of legislation, policy

and/or development control at the appropriate level. So, a significant adverse effect on a feature’s importance

at one level would be likely to trigger related planning policies and, if permissible at all, generate the need for

development control mechanisms, such as planning conditions or legal obligations, as described in those

policies.

If an effect is found not to be significant at the level at which the resource or feature has been valued, it may

be significant at a more local level. Significant effects on features of ecological importance will be mitigated

(or compensated for) in accordance with guidance derived from policies applied at the scale relevant to the

value of the feature or resource. The scale is derived from the interaction of the feature sensitivity and

magnitude of impact.

78

Appendix 5: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Results

Appendix 5a – Phase 1 Survey Plan

Bloor Homes Limited

79

Appendix 5b – Target Notes

Table A5.1. Phase 1 Survey target notes.

Target Note Description

1 Semi-improved grassland grading into scrub. Reptile potential.

2 Mature intact hedge. Bird nesting habitat.

3 High bat roost potential tree with lightning strike feature.

4 Pond on site boundary. Potential for amphibians.

5 Main badger sett. Active.

6 Mature hedge; defunct to west, becoming intact to east.

7 Power lines.

8 Approx. 2m field margin, vegetated with ruderals and patches of scrub. Reptile potential.

9 Approx. 2m field margin, improved grassland & common herbs/ruderals.

10 Approx 10m field margin & vehicle trackway, bare ground, grasses and common herbs/ruderals.

11 Singing/displaying skylarks Alauda arvensis observed over oilseed rape fields.

12 Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica growing along field boundary for approx. 15-20m. Also growing in garden of adjacent residential property.

13 148-150 Ashingdon Road; two semi-detached bungalows with low suitability for roosting bats.

80

Appendix 5c – Species Lists

Table A5.2. Flora observed on site during Phase 1 Survey

Common name Latin name

Ara

ble

Sem

i-im

pro

ved

gras

slan

d

Imp

rove

d

gras

slan

d

Am

enit

y

Gra

ssla

nd

Tall

rud

eral

Den

se/

Scat

tere

d

scru

b

Scat

tere

d

bro

adle

af t

rees

Stan

din

g w

ater

Hed

ge 1

Hed

ge 2

Hed

ge 3

Annual meadow grass Poa annua O F O

Ash Fraxinus excelsior O O O

Blackthorn Prunus spinosa A O A F A

Bramble Rubus fruiticosus D F F

Broad leaved dock Rumex obtusifoloius O O

Bristly ox-tongue Helminthotheca echoides O O

Buddleia Buddleja R

Cherry plum Prunus cerasifera O

Cocks foot Dacytlis glomerata F O

Common mallow Malva sylvestris O

Common nettle Urtica dioica D

Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris F F F F

Clover Trifolium repens A O

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens O O

Creeping cinquefoil Potentilla repens R

Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense O O O O

Daffodil Narcissus sp. O

Daisy Bellis perennis O F

Dog rose Rosa canina O

Dogwood Cornus sanguinea O

Doves foot cranesbill Geranium molle F

Elder Sambucus nigra O O F

Field maple Acer campestre O

Goat willow Salix caprea O O

Goosegrass Galium aparine F

Grape hyacinth Muscari armeniacum O

Hairy bitter cress Cardamine hirsuta O

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna F F

81


Ara

ble

Sem

i-im

pro

ved

gras

slan

d

Imp

rove

d

gras

slan

d

Am

enit

y

Gra

ssla

nd

Tall

rud

eral

Den

se/

Scat

tere

d

scru

b

Scat

tere

d

bro

adle

af t

rees

Stan

din

g w

ater

Hed

ge 1

Hed

ge 2

Hed

ge 3

Hazel Coyrlus avellana O

Hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium F

Hedge mustard Sisymbrium officinale O

Holly Ilex aquifolium O

Horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum O O

Ivy Hedera helix F

Lesser burdock Arctium minus O O O

Lesser celandine Ficaria verna R

Nigella Nigella damascena R

Nipplewort Lapsana communis O

Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris O

Milkweed Euphorbia peplus O R

Oilseed rape Brassica napus D

Pendunculate oak Quercus robur F O O

Perennial rye grass Lolium perenne A D D

Plum Prunus domestica O F

Ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris O

Red campion Silene dioica O

Red dead nettle Lamium purpureum F

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata F

Scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum O O

Speedwell Veronica persica O F

White dead nettle Lamium album O

Wild cherry Prunus avium O

Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus O

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus F F

82

Table A5.3. Fauna observed on site during Phase 1 Survey


Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus

Dunnock Prunella modularis

Green woodpecker Picus viridis

Great tit Parus major

House sparrow Passer domesticus

Robin Erithacus rubecula

Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Skylark Alauda arvensis

83

Appendix 5c – Site Photographs

Photo 1: Semi-improved grassland to north of site.

Photo 2: Arable fields sown with oilseed rape, dominating the site.

Photo 3: Hedge 1 on eastern boundary.

Photo 4: Hedge 2 on eastern boundary.

Photo 5: Ruderals and scattered scrub on southern boundary.

Photo 6: Japanese knotweed on southern boundary.

84

Appendix 6: Hedgerow Survey Plan

85

Appendix 7: CONFIDENTIAL Badger Survey Results

Appendix 7a – Badger Sett Location Plan

86

Appendix 7b – Badger Activity Plan

87

Appendix 7c – Badger Sett Monitoring Results

Main Sett Entrance Plan

88

Main Sett Monitoring Results Table A7.1: Summary of main sett badger monitoring survey results.

Entrance number

Entrance direction

Comments Classification

1 E Clear of debris on commencement of monitoring with well-worn path through nettles to east. Sticks cleared from entrance on all monitoring visits. Well-used

2 NE Debris in entrance and no recent digging noted during survey set-up. However, sticks cleared from entrance on all subsequent monitoring visits. Well-used

3 E Directly adjacent entrance 4. Sticks remained undisturbed on one occasion over monitoring period. Well-used

4 E Directly adjacent entrance 3. Sticks remained undisturbed on one occasion over monitoring period. Well-used

5 W Clear of debris on commencement of monitoring with well-worn path through nettles to west. Sticks placed over entrance during first visit but following growth of dense scrub entrance could no longer be accessed for monitoring. Well-used

6 E Sticks remained undisturbed on most monitoring visits. Viewed on the final monitoring visit, sticks had been removed and fresh bedding was observed outside the hole. Partially used

7 W Sticks placed over entrance during set-up visit, never disturbed. Disused

8 W Sticks remained undisturbed on most monitoring visits. On one occasion sticks were moved but debris remained in the hole and it is considered likely that this could have been caused by a passing animal. Partially used


10 W Debris in entrance noted during set-up visit. Sticks placed and never disturbed. Disused

11/12 W Two accesses appearing to join to one tunnel. Sticks remained undisturbed on most monitoring visits. On one occasion sticks were moved but debris remained in the hole and it is considered likely that this could have been caused by a passing animal. Partially used

13 W Sticks cleared from entrance on most monitoring visits. Trail camera footage showed badger entering hole on three occasions. Well-used

14 W Sticks remained undisturbed on most monitoring visits, cleared on one occasion. Partially used


16 W Recent digging noted during set-up visit. However sticks over entrance remained undisturbed on all follow up monitoring visits. Partially used

17 W Some debris in entrance noted during set-up visit. Sticks remained undisturbed on most monitoring visits, cleared on one occasion. Partially used

18 W Some debris in entrance noted during set-up visit. Sticks remained undisturbed on most monitoring visits, cleared on one occasion. Partially used

19 W Sticks remained undisturbed on most monitoring visits, cleared on one occasion. Partially used

20 W Clear of debris on set-up. Sticks removed from entrance during all subsequent monitoring visits. Trail camera footage showed badger entering hole on two occasions. Well-used

21 W Sticks cleared from entrance on most monitoring visits. Well-used

22 W Clear of debris on set-up. Sticks removed from entrance during all subsequent monitoring visits. Well-used

23 W No sticks placed at entrance due to difficult access into scrub. Appeared disused from distance with no clear path to access and debris around the hole. No changes noted over monitoring period. Disused

89

Entrance number

Entrance direction

Comments Classification

24 W No sticks placed at entrance due to difficult access into scrub. Appeared recently used from distance with no debris around the hole. No changes noted over monitoring period. Partially used

25 W New entrance located during first monitoring visit. Clearly disused partially collapsed hole. Sticks placed and never disturbed. Disused

Subsidiary & Outlier Setts Monitoring Results

Table A7.2: Summary of subsidiary and outlier sett badger monitoring survey results.

Sett Number

Sett Classification

Status Entrance Number

Entrance direction

Comments Entrance Classification

2 Subsidiary Active

1 NW Sticks remained undisturbed on most visits. Cleared from entrance on one visit. Partially used

2 E Clearly disused hole within ditch on west bank. Collapsed. Disused

3 E Within ditch on west bank. Sticks placed during set-up and cleared on all subsequent monitoring visits. Two badgers observed on trail camera footage entering hole, including one cub.

Well-used



3 Subsidiary Active 1 S

Bedding noted outside hole during set-up visit. Sticks remained undisturbed on most visits but had been pushed to one side during one monitoring visit. Trail camera footage revealed adjacent path through hedgerow is well-used by badger. On four occasions a badger showed interest in the entrance, sniffing and partially but not fully entering the hole.

Partially used

4 Subsidiary Active

1 SW Entrance clear of debris, bare earth all around and significant spoil heap present. Well-worn paths from entrance. Three badgers observed entering hole during May bat transect and on trail camera footage, including one badger cub. Sticks cleared from entrance on all visits.

Well-used

2 N Entrance clear of debris, bare earth all around and significant spoil heap present. Well-worn paths from entrance. Three badgers observed entering hole during May bat transect and on trail camera footage, including one badger cub. Sticks cleared from entrance on all visits.

Well-used

3 N Entrance clear of debris, bare earth all around and significant spoil heap present. Well-worn paths from entrance. Sticks placed and cleared from entrance on all monitoring visits.

Well-used

4 N Entrance clear of debris, bare earth all around and significant spoil heap present. Well-worn paths from entrance. Sticks placed and cleared from entrance on all monitoring visits.

Well-used

5 Outlier Active 1 E Bedding noted outside hole during set-up visit. Sticks removed on all monitoring visits. Badger seen emerging from and entering hole on trail camera footage.

Well-used

6 Outlier Disused 1 W No clear path to entrance and leaf litter within hole on set-up visit. Sticks placed and remained undisturbed through all monitoring visits.

Disused

90

Sett Number

Sett Classification

Status Entrance Number

Entrance direction

Comments Entrance Classification

7 Subsidiary Active

1 S Bare earth and worn path from hole noted during set-up, suggesting recently active. However sticks placed at entrance remained undisturbed during all subsequent monitoring visits.

Partially used

2 E Noted to be clear of debris during set-up visit. Sticks at entrance typically remained undisturbed, cleared on one occasion only.

Partially used

3 S Recent digging noted during set-up visit and hole clear of debris. However sticks placed at entrance remained undisturbed during all subsequent monitoring visits.

Partially used

4 S Sticks at entrance typically remained undisturbed, cleared on one occasion only. Partially used

5 E New entrance located during third visit. Initially full of leaf debris and appearing disused. However on next visit, hole had been dug out and all debris cleared. Badger seen emerging from and entering hole on trail camera footage.

Partially used

91

Appendix 8: Bat Survey Results

Appendix 8a – Trees with Suitability for Roosting Bats: Location Plan

92

Appendix 8b – Trees with Suitability for Roosting Bats: Photographs

T1

Viewed from north,

looking south

T2 (T4 Cat B)

Viewed from south,

looking north

TQ 87691 91690

T4

93

Appendix 8c – Buildings with Suitability for Roosting Bats: Location Plan

94

Appendix 8d – Buildings with Suitability for Roosting Bats: Photographs

Photo 13: View of 148-150 Ashingdon Road, west

elevation.

Photo 14: Gap at base of chimney on west elevation due

to lifted tile.

Photo 15: Missing tiles along ridge to frontage of 148.

Photo 16: Gap in concrete flashing at base of chimney on

east elevation.

Photo 17: Loft interior of 148; unlined. Daylight visible

through gaps between tiles.

Photo 18: Loft interior of 150; insulated with

polystyrene.

95

Appendix 8e – Emergence Survey Results Table A8.1: Summary of building emergence survey results.

Visit Date Survey Type Survey Timings Weather Conditions

Position Summary of Activity

15/08/2019 Dusk emergence Start: 20:05 Sunset: 20:20 Finish: 21:50

16-21⁰C 10-30% Cloud Beaufort 1-2

West Elevation No#150

20:50 1 x common pipistrelle pass 21:17 1 x common pipistrelle pass 21:36 1 x common pipistrelle pass

West Elevation No#148

20:50 1 x common pipistrelle pass 21:05 1 x soprano pipistrelle pass

East Elevation 20:52 1 x common pipistrelle pass 21:04 1 x soprano pipistrelle pass 21:37 1 x common pipistrelle pass

96

Appendix 8f – Activity Transect Route & Static Detector Deployment Locations

97

Appendix 8g – Activity Transect Survey Results Table A8.1: Summary of spring bat transect results.

Date Survey type Survey timings Weather Start Point Route Direction

16/05/2019 Spring dusk transect Start/Sunset: 20:42

Finish: 22:42

10⁰C 0% Cloud

1 Beaufort Stop 1 Anti-clockwise

Time Location Comments

20:40 – 20:45

No activity 20:45 – 20:50

20:50 – 20:55

20:55 – 21:00

21:00 – 21:05 Stop 3 1 x noctule, 1 pass overhead

21:05 – 21:10 No activity

21:10 – 21:15 Walk 3 1 x common pipistrelle, flying west along boundary, 2 passes

21:15 – 21:20 Stop 4 1 x common pipistrelle, foraging along boundary vegetation and over residential gardens, 6 passes

21:20 – 21:25 Stop 4/Walk 4 1 x common pipistrelle, foraging along boundary vegetation and over residential gardens, 13 passes

21:25 – 21:30 Walk 4 3 x common pipistrelles, foraging over residential gardens, 3 passes

21:30 – 21:35 Walk 4 3 x common pipistrelles, foraging over residential gardens, 8 passes

21:35 – 21:40


21:45 – 21:50

21:50 – 21:55

21:55 – 22:00 Walk 6 1 x soprano pipistrelle, 1 pass, heard not seen


22:05 – 22:10

22:10 – 22:15 Stop 8 1 x common pipistrelle, foraging over residential gardens, 2 passes

22:15 – 22:20

No activity

22:20 – 22:25

22:25 – 22:30

22:30 – 22:35

22:35 – 22:40

22:40 – 22:45

98

Table A8.2: Summary of summer bat transect results.


10/07/2019 Summer dusk transect Start/Sunset: 21:12

Finish: 23:25

19-22⁰C 20-40% Cloud

1 Beaufort Stop 9 Clockwise


21:10 – 21:15


21:20 – 21:25

21:25 – 21:30

21:30 – 21:35 Walk 7 1 x noctule, 1 x pass overhead, heard not seen


21:40 – 21:45

21:45 – 21:50 Walk 7 1 x common pipistrelle, foraging along boundary, 2 passes

21:50 – 21:55


22:00 – 22:05

22:05 – 22:10 Walk 6 1 x common pipistrelle, 2 passes. 1 x soprano pipistrelle, 2 passes

22:10 – 22:15

No activity

22:15 – 22:20

22:20 – 22:25

22:25 – 22:30

22:30 – 22:35

22:35 – 22:40

22:40 – 22:45

22:50 – 22:55 Stop 5 1 x soprano pipistrelle, 1 pass heard not seen


23:05 – 23:10 Stop 1 1 x common pipistrelle, 1 pass, heard not seen

23:10 – 23:15 Stop 10 1 x common pipistrelle, 2 passes, heard not seen


23:20 – 23:25

99

Table A8.3: Summary of autumn bat transect results.


12/09/2019 Autumn dusk transect Start/Sunset: 19:19

Finish: 21:19

21⁰C 20% Cloud

2-3 Beaufort Stop 5 Clockwise


19:20 – 19:25

No activity

19:25 – 19:30

19:30 – 19:35

19:35 – 19:40

19:40 – 19:45

19:45 – 19:50

19:50 – 19:55

19:55 – 20:00

20:05 – 20:10 Walk 7 1 x soprano pipistrelle pass, 1 x common pipistrelle foraging, 5 passes

20:10 – 20:15 Stop 8 1 x common pipistrelle pass

20:15 – 20:20

No activity

20:20 – 20:25

20:25 – 20:30

20:30 – 20:35

20:35 – 20:40

20:40 – 20:45

20:45 – 20:50

20:50 – 20:55

20:55 – 21:00

21:00 – 21:05

21:05 – 21:10 Stop 1 1 x soprano pipistrelle, 3 passes, 1 x common pipistrelle, 1 pass


21:15 – 21:20

100

Appendix 9: Breeding Bird Survey Results

Appendix 9a – Breeding Bird Survey Results and Weather Conditions Table A9.1: Status of breeding birds within the site.

Species S.1 NERC BoCC Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Max

Count Status/ Notes Status

House sparrow Passer domesticus ✓ Red 13 13 11 13 Minimum of two colonies Probable breeding

Linnet Carduelis cannabina ✓ Red 0 1 8 8 1 flock Probable breeding

Skylark Alauda arvensis ✓ Red 1 0 0 1 1 territory Possible breeding

Song thrush Turdus philomelos ✓ Red 1 2 0 2 2 territories Probable breeding

Starling Sturnus vulgaris ✓ Red 4 88 29 88 Foraging site Probable breeding

Black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus Amber 0 1 1 1 Flyover Non-breeding

Dunnock Prunella modularis ✓ Amber 2 1 3 3 2 territories Probable breeding

House martin Delichon urbicum Amber 0 18 0 13 Flyover Non-breeding

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Amber 1 0 0 1 Flyover Non-breeding

Swift Apus apus Amber 0 0 1 1 Flyover Non-breeding

Blackbird Turdus merula Green P P P * Breeding Confirmed

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla Green 0 P P * Breeding Probable

Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus Green P P P * Breeding Confirmed

Buzzard Buteo buteo Green P P P * Breeding Probable

Carrion crow Corvus corone Green P P P * Breeding Probable

Collared dove Streptopelia decaocto Green P P P * Breeding Probable

Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Green P P P * Breeding Probable

Great tit Parus major Green P P P * Breeding Confirmed

Jay Garrulus glandarius Green 0 p 0 * Breeding Probable

Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus Green P 0 P * Breeding Probable

Magpie Pica pica Green P P P * Breeding Confirmed

Robin Erithacus rubecula Green P P P * Breeding Confirmed

Swallow Hirundo rustica Green P 0 0 * Flyover Non-breeding

Whitethroat Sylvia communis Green P P P * Breeding Probable

Wood pigeon Columba palumbus Green P P P * Breeding Confirmed

Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Green p P P * Breeding Probable

Pheasant Phasianus colchicus I 0 p 0 * Breeding Possible I Introduced

N/A Not assessed

101

Red rows are BOCC red-list, Amber rows are BoCC amber-list, Green rows are BoCC green-list, NA rows are non-native species.

BoCC: Birds of Conservation Concern as defined and listed in Eaton et al., (2015)

Table A9.2: Summary of breeding bird survey survey visit dates and weather conditions.

Visit Date Survey Conditions

1 18/04/2019 Good: 10°C (average), no precipitation, 1 wind, cloud 0/8, good visibility.



102

Appendix 9b – Breeding Bird Survey Territory Maps

Bloor Homes Limited

103

Appendix 10: Great Crested Newt Survey Results

Appendix 10a – Locations of Ponds within 500m of the Site & HSI Score Categories

104

Appendix 10b – HSI Survey Results Table A10.1: Detailed HSI survey results.

Pond No.

SI1 SI2 SI3 SI4 SI5 SI6 SI7 SI8 SI9 SI10

HSI Suitability Predicted Probability of GCN Presence

Loca

tio

n

Po

nd

Are

a

Dry

ing

ou

t

Wat

er

Qu

alit

y

Shad

e

Wat

er

Fow

l

Fish

Ne

arb

y P

on

ds

Terr

est

rial

Hab

itat

Mac

rop

hty

es

1 1 0.3 0.9 0.33 1 0.01 1 1 0.67 0.8 0.47 Poor 0.03

2

Not able to access for survey 3

4

5 1 0.3 0.9 0.33 1 0.01 0.01 0.9 1 0.55 0.29 Poor 0.03

6 1 0.02 0.5 0.33 0.2 0.67 1 1 1 0.35 0.42 Poor 0.03

7 1 0.25 0.9 0.67 1 0.67 0.01 1 1 0.35 0.45 Poor 0.03

8 Not surveyed as more than 500m from study area boundary (approx. 580m)

9 1 0.8 0.9 0.33 1 0.01 0.01 1 1 0.55 0.32 Poor 0.03

10 1 0.91 0.9 0.33 0.8 0.01 0.01 1 1 0.45 0.32 Poor 0.03

11 1 0.1 0.5 0.33 0.8 1 1 1 0.67 0.45 0.58 Below Average 0.20

12 1 0.4 0.5 1 0.3 1 1 1 1 0.4 0.69 Average 0.55

13 1 0.1 0.5 0.67 0.4 1 1 1 1 0.45 0.6 Below Average 0.20

105

Appendix 10c – Pond Presence/Absence & Population Size Class Survey Results & Weather Conditions Table A10.2: Detailed pond survey results.

Egg Search

Ve

geta

tio

n C

ove

r

(0-5

)

Turb

idit

y

(0-5

)

% P

on

d S

urv

eye

d

GC

N E

ggs

Fou

nd

Y/N

GC

N

Mal

e

GC

N

Fem

ale

GC

N

Tota

l

GC

N

Larv

ae

Smo

oth

Mal

e

Smo

oth

Fem

ale

Smo

oth

Tota

l

Pal

mat

e

Mal

e

Pal

mat

e

Fem

ale

Pal

mat

e

Tota

l

GC

N

Mal

e

GC

N

Fem

ale

GC

N

Tota

l

GC

N

Larv

ae

Smo

oth

Mal

e

Smo

oth

Fem

ale

Smo

oth

Tota

l

Pal

mat

e

Mal

e

Pal

mat

e

Fem

ale

Pal

mat

e

Tota

l

GC

N

Mal

e

GC

N

Fem

ale

GC

N

Tota

l

GC

N

Larv

ae

Smo

oth

Mal

e

Smo

oth

Fem

ale

Smo

oth

Tota

l

Pal

mat

e

Mal

e

Pal

mat

e

Fem

ale

Pal

mat

e

Tota

l

1 25/04/2019 1 2 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 02/05/2019 1 2 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 x toad

3 13/05/2019 1 3 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 23/05/2019 2 3 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 25/04/2019 0 3 25 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 02/05/2019 0 2 60 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 13/05/2019 0 2 25 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 23/05/2019 0 3 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 25/04/2019 1 2 50 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 02/05/2019 1 2 60 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 13/05/2019 0 2 50 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 23/05/2019 0 1 50 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 x frog tadpole

1 25/04/2019 1 4 60 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 02/05/2019 2 4 30 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 13/05/2019 2 4 30 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 23/05/2019 1 3 30 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 25/04/2019 1 3 40 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 02/05/2019 2 2 40 N 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 13/05/2019 1 3 40 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 23/05/2019 1 2 40 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 25/04/2019 0 1 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2

3

4

1 25/04/2019 0 0 40 N 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 02/05/2019 0 0 70 Y 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 13/05/2019 0 0 70 - 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 23/05/2019 0 1 90 - 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 30/05/2019 1 1 90 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 x greater diving beetle

6 04/06/2019 0 2 80 - 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 x greater diving beetle

1 25/04/2019 0 0 30 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 02/05/2019 0 0 30 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 13/05/2019 3 1 80 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 smooth newt eggs

4 23/05/2019 1 1 100 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 smooth newt eggs

11

12

13

Conditions

Unable to survey further after visit 1 due to pond drying out

5

6

7

9

10

Additional species.Pond

No#

Visit

No#Date

Torching Bottle Traps Terrestrial

106

Table A10.3: Survey dates and weather Conditions for pond surveys.

Temperature Cloud Cover % Beaufort

1 25/04/2019 12 5 3

2 02/05/2019 11 80 2

3 13/05/2019 12 20 1

4 23/05/2019 16 10 1

5 30/05/2019 19 20 1

6 04/06/2019 14 10 1

107

Appendix 11: Reptile Survey Results

Appendix 11a – Reptile Refugia Location Plan

108

Appendix 11b – Reptile Survey Results Table A11.1: Detailed reptile survey results.

Visit No# Date Temp Cloud %Wind

(Beaufort) Last rain M F Total J M F Total J Ad Juv M F Total J

1 14/05/2019 13 10 1 5 days ago 11 19 30 13 2 2Slow-worms distributed evenly throughout site boundaries

apart from none found along F

2 21/05/2019 18 50 3 >24 hrs 7 8 15 17

Slow-worms distributed evenly throughout site apart from

none found along F. 3 breeding pairs of slow-worm found in

A, B and C

3 05/06/2019 18 90 3 24 hrs ago 17 13 30 27 7 8 15

Highest counts of slow-worm along B (11 adults, 12 juveniles)

and G (9 adults, 4 juveniles). Slow worms present on all

boundaries excepting F. Common lizard only found on B and

G, with largest count (11 adults) on G

4 11/06/2019 18 60 2 9 hrs ago 15 10 25 12 4 1 5

Not all mats located on some boundaries due to dense

ruderal and scrub growth. Slow worm present on all

boundaries except E and F, with highest count on B (11

adults, 8 juveniles) and G (8 adults, 2 juveniles). Common

lizard only found on G.

5 18/06/2019 16 90 1 5 days ago 24 34 58 34 5 3 7

Highest counts of slow-worm along B (27 adults, 21

juveniles). Slow worm present on all boundaries excepting F.

Common lizard only found on A, B and G.

6 26/06/2019 17 100 2 >24 hrs 18 25 43 27 0 2 2

All female common lizards found were gravid. Highest

counts of slow-worm along B (20 adults, 14 juveniles). Slow

worm present on all boundaries excepting F. Common lizard

only found on A and G.

7 08/07/2019 15-17 85 1 >24 hrs 13 31 44 47 3 2 5 0 1

One juvenile grass snake (new species presence confirmed).

Highest slow-worm count on B (17 adults, 32 juveniles). Slow-

worm present on all boundaries, common lizard only on B

and G.

Slow-worms Common lizards Grass snake Adder

Comments

109

Appendix 12: Plant Species of Known Benefit to Bats

The following table is reproduced from Gunnell, K., Grant, G. and Williams, C. (2012). Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity, Bat Conservation

Trust. This suggests plant species that can provide benefit for bats by either providing a food source for insects and / or roost potential. The plants listed are

predominately native to Britain. The small group of non-native plants included for their documented value for wildlife. This list has been checked against Natural

England's list of invasive non-native plants.

Plant species Common name Native (N)

Type Benefit Soil Light Green roofs

Living walls

Rain gardens

Hedge/ trees

Beds/ borders

Acer campestre Field maple N T/S C Any Sun / shade Y

Acer platanoides Norway maple T S Well drained / alkaline Sun / shade Y

Acer saooharum Sugar maple T S Any Sun / shade Y

Achillea millefolium Yarrow N HP C,F Well drained Sun Y

Ajuga reptans Bugle N HP C,F Any Sun / shade Y Y

Anthyllis vulneraria Kidney vetch N HP F Well drained Sun Y

Aubrieta deltoidea Aubrieta H F Well drained Sun/shade Y

Betula pendula Sliver birch N T C Sandy / acid Sun Y

Cardamine pratensis Cuckoo- flower N HP F Moist Sun / shade Y Y

Carpinus betulus Hornbeam N T C Clay Sun Y

Centaurea nigra Common knapweed N HP C,F Dry, not acid Sun Y Y

Centranthus ruber Red valerian HP F Well drained Sun Y Y

Clematis vitalba Old man's Beard N C F well drained / alkaline Sun Y

Corylus avellana Hazel N S C Any dry Sun / shade Y Y

Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn N S S,C Any Sun / shade Y

Daucus carota Wild carrot N Bi S,C,F Any Sun Y Y

Dianthus spp. Pinks N A-Bi F Well drained Sun Y Y Y

Digitalis purpurea Foxglove N Bi C Well drained Shade / partial shade Y Y

Erica cinera Bell heather N S F Sandy Full sun Y

Ersimum cherira Wallflower Bi-P F Well drained Sun Y Y

Eupatorium Hemp agrimony N H F Moist Sun / shade Y Y

Fagus sylvatica Beech N T C, R Well drained alkaline Sun / shade Y

Foeniculum vulgare Fennel H F Well drained Sun Y

Fraxinus excelsior Common Ash N T C, R Any Sun / shade Y

Hebe spp. Hebe species S F Well drained Sun / shade Y Y

Hedera Helix Ivy N C F,C Any Sun / shade Y Y Y Y

Hesperis matrionalis Sweet Rocket H F Well drained/ dry Sun / shade Y

Hyacinthoides non -scripta Bluebell N B F Loam Shade / partial shade Y Y Y

llex aquilfolium Holly N T C Any Sun / shade Y

110



Living walls

Rain gardens

Hedge/ trees

Beds/ borders

Jasmine officinale Common jasmine C F Well drained Sun Y Y

Lavandula spp. Lavender species S F Well drained / sandy Sun Y Y

Linaria vulgaris Toadflax N HP C Well drained / alkaline Sun Y Y

Lonicera periclymenum Honeysuckle N C F Well drained Sun Y Y

Lotus corniculatus Bird's foot trefoil N HP F Well drained / dry Sun Y Y

Lunaria annua Honesty Bi F Any Sun / partial shade Y Y

Malus spp. Apple T C Any Sun Y Y

Matthiola longipetala Night - scented stock A F Well drained / moist Y Y

Myosotis spp. Forget me not species N A F Any Sun Y Y Y

Nicotiania alata Ornamental tobacco A F Well drained moist Sun / partial shade Y Y

Oneothera spp. Evening primrose Bi F Well drained Sun Y Y

Origanum vulgare Marjoram N HP F Well drained / dry Sun Y

Populus alba White poplar N T C Clay loam Sun Y

Primula veris Cowslip N HP F Well drained / moist Sun / partial shade Y Y

Primula vulgaris Primrose N HP F Moist Partial shade Y Y Y Y

Prunus avium Wild cherry N T C Any Sun Y Y

Prunus domestica Plum T C Well drained / moist Sun Y Y

Prunus spinosa Blackthorn N S C Any Sun / partial shade Y

Querois petraea Sessile oak N T C,R Sandy loam Sun / shade Y

Quercus robur Common oak N T R Clay Loam Sun / shade Y

Rosa canina Dog rose N S C Any Sun Y Y Y

Salix spp. Willow species N S S,C Moist Sun / shade Y Y

Sambucus nigra Elder N T C Clay loam Sun Y

Saponaria officinalis Soapwort N HP F Any Sun Y

Saxifraga oppositifolia Saxifage N HP C Well drained Sun Y Y Y

Scabiosa columbaria Small scabious N HP F Well drained / alkaline Sun Y Y

Sedum spectabile Ice plant HP F Well drained / dry Sun Y Y

Silene dioecia Red campion N HP F Any Shade / partial shade Y Y Y Y

Sorbus aucuparia Rowan N T C Well drained Sun Y

Stachys lanata Lamb's ear HP F Well drained / dry Sun Y

Symphotrichum spp. Michalemas daisies HP F Any Sun Y

Tages patula French marigold A F Well drained Sun Y

Thymus serpyllum Creeping thyme N HP / S F Well drained / dry Sun Y Y Y

Tilia x europaea Common lime T C Any Sun / shade Y

Trifolium spp. Clover species N H F Any Sun Y Y

Valerina spp. Valerian species N HP F Moist Sun / partial shade Y Y

Verbascum spp. Mulliens N Bi, HP C Well drained Sun Y

Verbena bonariensis Verbena HP F Well drained /moist Sun Y

Viburnum lantana Wayfaring tree N S C Any Sun / shade Y Y

111



Living walls

Rain gardens

Hedge/ trees

Beds/ borders

Viburnum opulus Guelder rose N S C Moist Sun / shade Y Y

Viola tricolor Pansy N A F Well drained / moist Y Y Y

Legend:

Type Benefit

HP Herbaceous perennial C Moth caterpillar food plant

Bi Biennial S Sap sucking insects (e.g. whiteflies)

BiP Biennial perennial F Flowers attract adult moths

T Tree E Good roost potential

S Shrub

H Herb

A Annual

B Bulb

C Creeper / climber

112

Appendix 13: Plants Offering a Value to Wildlife

Common Name Scientific Name Benefits Note: Shrubs * Non-native species Barberry * Berberis spp. Nectar, fruit, nesting cover # poisonous Blackthorn^ Prunus spinosa Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant, nesting cover ^ Native Woody species Broom Cystisus scoparius Nectar, larval foodplant

Buckthorn # Rhamnus cathartica Nectar, berries, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Californian lilac* Ceonothus spp. Nectar, nesting cover

Dog Rose^ Rosa canina agg. Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Dogwood^ Cornus sanguinea Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant

Elder^ Sambucus nigra Nectar , fruit, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Field rose Rosa arvensis Nectar, larval foodplant, fruit

Firethorn* Pyracantha spp. Nectar, fruit, nesting cover

Flowering currant * Ribes sanguineum Nectar, larval foodplant

Garden lavender* Lavandula x intermedia Nectar

Gorse^ Ulex europaeus Nectar, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Guelder rose^ Viburnum opulus Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant

Hawthorn^ Crataegus monogyna Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Hazel^ Corylus avellana Nuts, larval foodplant

Hebe * Hebe spp. Nectar

Holly^ Ilex aquifolium Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Laurustinus* Viburnum tinus Nectar, nesting cover

Mexican orange * Choisya ternata Nectar

Rosemary * Rosmarinus officinalis Nectar

Spindle ^# Euonymous europaeus Nectar, fruits

Tutsan Hypericum androsaemum Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant

Wayfaring tree^ Viburnum lantana Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant

Yew# Taxus baccata Berries, nesting cover

Climbers

Clematis* Clematis tangutica Nectar, seeds

Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Ivy Hedera helix Nectar, fruit, larval foodplant, nesting cover

Traveller’s joy Clematis vitalba Nectar, seeds, larval foodplant

Documents

Impact... · Executive summary 1. This report presents the findings and recommendations of ecological surveys carried out at Land east of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex. The surveys