APPENDIX E – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal · • Several stands of Japanese knotweed were recorded within the scattered scrub along the northern boundary. 1.1 Recommendations

Euro House, Wembley

APPENDIX E – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Ecology by Design Ltd,

Hampden House, Monument Park, Chalgrove, Oxon OX44 7RW.

Tel 01865 893346 www.ecologybydesign.co.uk

Euro House, Wembley

On behalf of McAleer and Rushe

October 2019

Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal

http://www.ecologybydesign.co.uk/

Copyright Ecology by Design Ltd. All rights reserved.

No part of this report may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written consent from

Ecology by Design Ltd. If you have received this report in error please destroy all copies in your

possession or control and notify Ecology by Design Ltd.

This report has been commissioned for the exclusive use of the commissioning party unless otherwise

agreed in writing by Ecology by Design Ltd; no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents

of the report. No liability is accepted by Ecology by Design Ltd for any of this report, other than for the

purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided.

Opinions and information provided in this report are on basis of Ecology by Design Ltd using due skill,

care and diligence in the preparation of this report and no explicit warranty is provided as to its

accuracy. It should be noted that no independent verification of any of the documents or information

supplied to Ecology by Design Ltd has been made.

Project Code Title Date of Issue

EBD00457 Euro House, Wembley 24 October 2019

Name Date

Prepared by Sam Thomas BSc (Hons) MPhil ACIEEM 22 January 2018

Checked by Joanna Greetham BSc (Hons) ACIEEM 22 January 2018

Updated by Emily Bartlett BSc (Hons) MSc 14 October 2019

Checked by Ben Gardner BSc (Hons) MCIEEM Cenv 24 October 2019

Contents

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 3

2 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Background and Survey Objectives .............................................................................................. 4 2.2 Site Description ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Proposed Works ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Limitations/ Constraints .............................................................................................................. 5

3 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Desk Study.................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal ................................................................................................. 5

4 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Desk Study.................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey ................................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Protected Species Survey Results ............................................................................................... 11

5 Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 13

5.1 Evaluation and Impacts ............................................................................................................. 14

6 Recommendations and Mitigation strategy .............................................................................. 15

7 Relevant Legislation and Policy ................................................................................................ 17

7.1 Nationally Designated Sites ....................................................................................................... 17 7.2 Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 ............................................................... 17 7.3 National Planning Policy Framework......................................................................................... 17 7.4 Local Planning Policy ................................................................................................................. 18 7.5 Protected Species ....................................................................................................................... 20 7.6 Invasive Species ......................................................................................................................... 21

8 References .............................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix 1 - Photographs................................................................................................................ 23

Appendix 2 – Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix 3 – Plant species List ........................................................................................................ 27

Appendix 4 – Definitions of the level of Habitat Value ...................................................................... 29

Appendix 5 – Definitions of the level of Species Value ...................................................................... 30

Appendix 6 – Proposed Enhancements ............................................................................................ 31

Ecology by Design Ltd Page | 3 Reference: EBD00457

1 Executive Summary

Ecology by Design Ltd was commissioned by McAleer and Rushe, on behalf of a private client, to

undertake a preliminary ecological appraisal at Euro House, Fulton Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 0TF

(TQ 1954 8608). McAleer and Rushe seek to secure planning permission for a mixed-use development

on the site.

• The site is dominated by a large warehouse with associated car parking and hardstanding

covering approximately 1.35 hectares. Wealdstone Brook runs along the northern boundary and

is bordered by an area of scattered scrub with scattered trees;

• A large hybrid poplar was identified within the scattered scrub on the northern boundary which

may have potential to support roosting bats;

• All of the buildings on site were assessed as having negligible potential to support roosting bats;

• The scattered scrub, trees and brook may provide suitable commuting and foraging

opportunities for bats;

• The scattered scrub and introduced shrub are suitable for nesting birds; and

• Several stands of Japanese knotweed were recorded within the scattered scrub along the

northern boundary.

1.1 Recommendations

• Any vegetation clearance should be completed outside the bird-nesting season (March to

August inclusive) or preceded by a check for nests;

• A tree climbing bat survey is recommended if the mature poplar is to be removed;

• Light spill toward the brook and any retained or planted trees should be minimised to avoid

disturbing foraging bats;

• A detailed Japanese knotweed management plan should be commissioned from a specialist in

Japanese knotweed removal;

• Recommendations for some enhancement work are included within the report in chapter 6;

and,

• Should potential development not commence within 2 years of this report a resurvey is

recommended due to the potential for changes in the ecological condition and value of the site.


2 Introduction

2.1 Background and Survey Objectives

Ecology by Design Ltd was commissioned by McAleer and Rushe, on behalf of a private client, to

undertake a preliminary ecological appraisal at Euro House, Fulton Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 0TF

(TQ 1954 8608). McAleer and Rushe seek to secure planning permission for a mixed-use development

on the site. Ecology by Design ecologists undertook a preliminary ecological appraisal during January

2018 with an update survey undertaken in October 2019.

The aim of the survey and supporting desk study was to satisfy the requirements of the National

Planning Policy Framework and relevant legislation and to identify ecological features within or near the

site that could potentially pose a constraint to the proposed works and highlight any opportunities for

incorporating biodiversity enhancements into the proposals.

The objectives of this report are:

• To identify designated nature conservation sites within the vicinity of the site;

• To identify any records and/or populations of protected, notable or scarce species in the vicinity

of the site;

• To record habitats or features of ecological interest within or in immediate proximity of the site;

• To record the presence of, or potential for, protected or notable species;

• To make an ecological assessment and highlight potential ecological constraints;

• To outline any further survey work and potential protected species requirements if relevant;

and

• To make suggestions for mitigation and compensation where appropriate.

2.2 Site Description

The site is dominated by a large warehouse surrounded by a concreted car parking and storage and

delivery yard covering approximately 1.35 hectares. The northern boundary is formed by Wealdstone

Brook and is bordered by an area of scrub with some scattered trees. The southern and western

boundaries are adjacent to roads and to the east of the site are industrial buildings with associated

hardstanding. The wider landscape is comprised of industrial and residential developments with railway

lines to the north and south and Wembley Stadium in the south west.


2.3 Proposed Works

McAleer and Rushe seek to secure planning permission for a mixed-use development on the site. This

would include a hotel, residential and student accommodation as well as associated landscaping and

public spaces.

2.4 Limitations/ Constraints

The wildlife and wider ecological interest of a site can change. The report presented here is a statement

of the findings of surveys carried out during January 2018 and October 2019. Any appreciable delay in

making reference to this report may necessitate a re-survey.

Weather conditions were considered suitable to conduct the survey.

3 Methods

3.1 Desk Study

A desk study was carried out to identify internationally designated sites within 7km, nationally

designated sites within 5km and non-statutory designated sites and records of protected or notable

species within 1km of the site.

Sources consulted include:

• Greenspace Information for Greater London CIC (http://www.gigl.org.uk) - records returned on

24 October 2019;

• MAGIC (www.magic.gov.uk) – accessed 14th October 2019: and

• Local Planning Policy documents.

3.2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) was conducted on 18th January 2018 by Ecology by Design

Ecologists Jo Greetham and Sam Thomas and an update visit was undertaken on 4th October 2019 by

Emily Bartlett and Emily Power using standard techniques and methodologies and the nomenclature of

Stace (2010). The PEA includes a survey of the habitats utilising the standard phase 1 habitat survey

methodology (JNCC, 2007) as well as a scoping assessment of the presence of or potential for protected

and notable species. Where potential impacts are identified the PEA is extended to include an

assessment of impact and mitigation required.

http://www.gigl.org.uk/

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


4 Results

4.1 Desk Study

Table 1. Records of statutory and non-statutory designated sites (7km for International, 5km for

National designations and 1km for local designations):

Site Name Designations Distance (km) Direction

Brent Reservoir SSSI, LNR 1.5 NE

Wealdstone Brook from Kenton to the Jubilee line SINC 0 N

Brent River Park, Wembley SINC 0.4 E

Quainton Street Open Space SINC 0.5 E

Chiltern Line between River Brent and Sudbury Hill Harrow SINC 0.5 S

Wembley Park Wood SINC 0.7 NW

Oakington Manor Primary School Wood SINC 0.8 S

Jubilee Line from Stanmore Junction to Queensbury SINC 0.9 NW

Harp Island SINC 1 NE

Grand Avenue verges SINC 1 SW

SSSI = Site of Special Scientific Interest LNR = Local Nature Reserve SINC = Site of Importance for Nature Conservation


Table 2. Records of selected protected or notable species within 1km of the site:

Species Latin Name Designation Date Distance (km) Direction

Birds

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis WCA1 2014 0.8 SE

Ruff Calidris pugnax WCA1, BOCC: red 1987 0.9 NW

Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius WCA1 1987 0.9 NW

Black tern Chlidonias niger WCA1 1987 0.9 NW

Little gull Hydrocoloeus minutus WCA1 1987 0.9 NW

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus WCA1, BOCC: red 1987 0.9 NW

House sparrow Passer domesticus S41, BOCC: red 2005 0.8 E

Tree sparrow Passer montanus S41, BOCC: red 1987 0.9 NW

Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla WCA1 1987 0.9 NW

Starling Sturnus vulgaris BOCC: red 2018 0.3 SW

Wood sandpiper Tringa glareola WCA1 1987 0.9 NW

Greenshank Tringa nebularia WCA1 1987 0.9 NW

Green sandpiper Tringa ochropus WCA1 1987 0.9 NW

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris WCA1, BOCC: red 1987 0.9 NW

Bats

Serotine Eptesicus serotinus EPS, WCA5 2007 0.6 NE

Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii EPS, WCA5 2014 0.6 E

Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri EPS, WCA5 2007 0.6 NE

Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula EPS, WCA5, S41 2007 0.6 NE

Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii EPS, WCA5 2007 0.6 NE

Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus EPS, WCA5 2007 0.6 NE


Species Latin Name Designation Date Distance (km) Direction

Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus EPS, WCA5, S41 2007 0.6 NE

Plants

Spiked speedwell Veronica spicata WCA8 1999 0.3 N

Invertebrates

Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus S41 2017 0.6 NW

Cinnabar moth Tyria jacobaeae S41 2005 0.6 E

EPS = European Protected Species

WCA5 = Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5 Species



BOCC: amber/red = Birds of Conservation Concern

S41 = Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act section 41 species


4.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey

The following habitats were recorded on site (see map in Appendix 2 and species list in Appendix 3):

• Scattered scrub

• Scattered trees

• Poor semi-improved grassland

• Introduced shrub

• Fence

• Buildings

• Bare ground

• Target notes

4.2.1 Scattered Scrub

In the north of the site is an area of scattered scrub adjacent to Wealdstone Brook. The species

composition included abundant bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) with frequent Japanese knotweed

(Fallopia japonica) and ivy (Hedera helix) with rare occurrences of oak species (Quercus sp.).

A small area of scattered scrub was recorded in the south west of the site. The shrub layer included

abundant elder with frequent butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii) and the understory comprised abundant

bramble and common nettle (Urtica dioica) with rare occurrences of common ragwort (Jacobaea

vulgaris) and common nettle (Urtica dioica).

4.2.2 Scattered Trees

Along the northern boundary of the site there is an area of scrub with scattered trees adjacent to the

brook. The tree species recorded included occasional ash (Fraxinus excelsior), oak (Quercus robur agg.)

sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), elder (Sambucus nigra) and hazel (Corylus avellana) and a single

mature hybrid poplar (Populus x canadensis).

4.2.3 Poor semi-improved grassland

There is a small area of managed poor semi-improved grassland adjacent to the brook in the north of

the site. This area contained abundant false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius) as well as frequent red

fescue (Festuca rubra) and yarrow (Achillea millefolium) with occasional cock’s-foot (Dactylis

glomerata), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), smooth sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus) and creeping

cinquefoil (Potentilla reptans).

There is a further area of well-maintained poor semi-improved grassland in the south and west of the

site with a sward height of approximately 3cm. The species composition in this area included abundant

smooth meadow-grass (Poa pratensis agg.) and red fescue with frequent yarrow, common nettle, white


clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale agg.) and

daisy (Bellis perennis).

4.2.4 Introduced shrub

In the east of the site was a small area of introduced shrub which comprised a number of ornamental

species including box (Buxus sempervirens), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), evergreen spindle (Euonymus

japonica), Persian ivy (Hedera colchica), bay (Laurus nobilis) and firethorn (Pyracantha coccinea).

4.2.5 Fence

There are a number of fences around the site including a large chain-link fence along the western and

southern boundaries.

4.2.6 Buildings

During the 2018 survey seven buildings were identified on site, one of which (Building 5) has now been

removed and two metal storage containers have been added to the site (Buildings 9 and 10).

There are currently six buildings on site. Building 1 is a large warehouse style structure with two very

large central halls surrounded by two storey office space with a suspended ceiling which was mostly

disused at the time of the survey. This building was formed of corrugated metal with a pitched

corrugated metal roof clad with plastic mesh. The building had flood lights on the west, north and east

elevations while the southern aspect was lit by the streetlights from the road directly adjacent. Building

2 is a temporary, prefab structure comprised of plastic with a flat roof and surrounded by vegetation to

the west and north. Building 3 is a walled brick structure surrounding the electrical substation and has

no roof. Building 4 is a small metal smoking shelter and open on all sides. Building 6 is storage shed

which is open on two sides with MDF walls and a flat MDF roof clad with felt and corrugated metal.

Building 7 is a temporary prefab structure constructed from corrugated metal with a flat corrugated

metal roof. Buildings 8, 9 and 10 are a comprised of large metal storage containers. None of the

buildings had features suitable for roosting bats and no evidence of bats was recorded during the

survey.

4.2.7 Bare ground

The north and east of the site are dominated by a large area of concrete hardstanding which is largely

used for car parking. The south of the site incorporates part of Fifth Way road.

4.2.8 Target notes

There is a large hybrid poplar adjacent to the brook with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 0.7m

(TN1) which has cracked branches and lifted bark which could potentially support roosting bats.


Several stands of Japanese knotweed were recorded with the scattered scrub in the north of the site

(TN2). At the time of the survey it appeared that management of the Japanese knotweed was taking

place.

4.3 Protected Species Survey Results

The waterbody bordering the site, the Wealdstone Brook, is an artificial waterway comprising a concrete

and high sided channel and therefore not suitable for wildlife such as white-clawed crayfish

(Austropotamobius pallipes), water vole (Arvicola amphibius) or otter (Lutra lutra). No further

waterbodies were recorded on site.

4.3.1 Great crested newts

There are no ponds within 500m of the site though there is some suitable terrestrial habitat on site for

great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) in the form of dense scrub. There were no records of great

crested newts within 1km of the site.

4.3.2 Reptiles

The scattered scrub on site would provide suitable habitat for common species of reptile although it was

of poor quality. There were no records of reptiles within 1km of the site.

4.3.3 Birds

The scattered scrub, scattered trees and introduced shrub provide suitable nesting and foraging

opportunities for common birds. There were records of Schedule 1 species such as kingfisher (Alcedo

atthis), little ringed plover (Charadrius dubius), firecrest (Regulus ignicapilla) and fieldfare (Turdus

pilaris) within 1km of the site.

4.3.4 Bats

The scattered trees and brook on the northern boundary of the site are potentially suitable for foraging

and commuting bats. The mature poplar (Target Note 1) had a number of cracks and crevices which may

have potential to support roosting bats.

None of the buildings are deemed suitable to support roosting bats and no evidence of bats was

recorded.

Records for seven bat species were returned in the desk study including records for serotine (Eptesicus

serotinus), Daubenton’s (Myotis daubentonii), Leisler's (Nyctalus leisleri), noctule (Nyctalus noctula),

Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and soprano

pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) bats within 1km of the site. The site is within the core sustenance


zones of all bats recorded (Collins, 2016). Core sustenance zones are the areas that bats are likely to

forage from a known roost.

4.3.5 Hazel dormouse

The trees on site lacked any connectivity with other significant areas of woodland or scrub and were

therefore unsuitable for hazel dormice (Muscardinius avellanaris). There were no records of hazel

dormice within 1km of the site.

4.3.6 Badger

There was no evidence of badgers (Meles meles) using the site such as setts or latrines. There were no

records of badger within 1km of the site.


5 Discussion

One nationally designated site is located within 5km of the site and nine locally designated sites

occurred within 1km of the site. No international designated sites were located within 7km of the site.

Brent Reservoir SSSI and LNR is designated for breeding wetland birds and is situated 1.5km north east

of the site. Natural England define Impact Risk Zones around Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI),

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) and RAMSAR sites and categories of

development for local authorities to determine if they need to consult Natural England in regard to

potential impacts upon them. The development site is within the Impact Risk Zones of Brent Reservoir

SSSI however, proposed development does not meet the criteria which would require the local planning

authority to consult with Natural England regarding the SSSI impact risk zone.

There were nine Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within 1km of the site. One of

these (Wealdstone Brook from Kenton to the Jubilee line) was the brook running along the northern

boundary of the site. Adjacent to the site the brook is in a very deep concrete channel and is bordered

by scattered scrub containing large amounts of Japanese knotweed. Given these factors the section of

the SINC that borders the site is considered to currently be of low value for wildlife. It is unlikely that any

other statutory protected sites or any of the non-statutory protected sites will be affected by the

potential development of the site due to the localised nature of the development.

There were no ponds within 500m of the site and there were no records of great crested newts within

1km of the site. Given these facts and the low suitability of the terrestrial habitat on site no further

consideration of great crested newts is necessary.

The scattered scrub on site is of low suitability for common reptile species and no records of reptiles

were located within 1km of the site.

The scrub and introduced shrub were likely to be utilised by nesting birds. All bird nests are protected

from damage while in use. In addition, Schedule 1 birds have been recorded in the surrounding area.

Schedule 1 birds and their young are additionally protected against intentional or reckless disturbance

whilst they are on or around their nests.

Records of seven bat species were located within 1km of the site including serotine, Daubenton’s,

Leisler's, noctule, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bat. The site is

within the core sustenance zones of all bat species recorded. The core sustenance zones for the

recorded species are 2km for Daubenton’s bat and common pipistrelle, 3km for Leisler's bat, Nathusius’

pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle and 4km for serotine and noctule (Collins, 2016).


The brook and associated scattered scrub and trees may provide a suitable commuting route as well as

foraging opportunities for bats. One mature hybrid poplar had cracks and crevices which may have

potential to support roosting bats. The buildings on site were assessed as having negligible potential to

support roosting bats.

There was no evidence of badgers, such as latrines or setts, on site. However, it should be noted that

badgers could excavate new setts in the areas of scrub and that they can dig new setts at any time of

the year.

The brook was concrete lined and was of poor value to wildlife however, otters may use the brook to

commute to other watercourses and therefore consideration of the brook should be made within the

lighting design.

Japanese knotweed was present in the scrub along the northern boundary of the site. Japanese

knotweed is an invasive non-native plant that is listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981 making it an offence to plant or cause this species to grow in the wild. It is also classed as

‘controlled waste’ under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 meaning that there are strict

regulations governing its disposal.

In the absence of any change to the management regime or the implementation of enhancements, the

ecological value of the site would be unlikely to significantly change.

5.1 Evaluation and Impacts

Using the criteria in the table (Appendix 4), the habitats on site are considered to be of negligible value

due to their small size and low diversity.

The species value (Appendix 5) of the site cannot be fully assessed without further surveys to determine

if the mature hybrid poplar tree supports roosting bats.


6 Recommendations and Mitigation strategy

Any vegetation clearance should be undertaken outside the main bird nesting season, considered to be

March to August inclusive, or immediately preceded by a detailed inspection for nests. Any active nests

found would need to be left undisturbed until they cease to be used.

Japanese knotweed was present in the scrub along the northern boundary of the site. Before

commencing any works in this area, a management plan detailing measures for the eradication and

disposal of the knotweed will need to be commissioned from a knotweed removal specialist.

The mature hybrid poplar has potential for roosting bats and therefore if the tree is to be removed a

tree climbing bat survey is recommended. Tree climbing surveys can be undertaken at any time of the

year however they must be undertaken by a qualified climber.

The brook may be used by foraging and commuting wildlife. It is recommended that a sensitive lighting

scheme is specified. Where practicable lighting will be directional or shrouds or baffles fitted so that the

lights will not illuminate any remaining trees or the brook. Lighting should be sensor activated and set to

a sensitivity that will not be triggered by small mammals.

Increased levels of artificial light can cause disturbance to bats. Though several bat species can take

advantage of artificial lighting systems for foraging, feeding off the insects they attract, other species

avoid them as foraging within an illuminated area increases the risk of predation by nocturnal birds of

prey or even domestic cats. If lighting is intensive and widespread, particularly lighting from lamps,

which emit UV light (such as mercury vapour), it can deter some bats from utilising the site and in some

instances can act as a barrier across commuting lines. Research has also shown that certain types of

artificial lighting (namely mercury vapour lamps) have been proven to disturb the emergence patterns

of bats when they are placed within the vicinity of entrances to a bat roost. The use of low level,

directional lighting is therefore recommended for artificial lighting around the site, with only the

minimum light levels required to meet health and safety standards used within the development.

To increase the connectivity and foraging opportunities for bats, and to enhance the boundary of the

site where it is adjacent to the Wealdstone Brook SINC, native trees and shrubs of local provenance

should be incorporated in the landscape plan particularly adjacent to the brook at the north of the site.

These should include species such as common alder (Alnus glutinosa), crack willow (Salix fragilis) and

hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna).

While there were no signs of badger activity on site it would be prudent to ensure all stored materials

such as spoil are kept covered to inhibit badgers digging new setts. Any open trenches should either be


covered nightly or mammal ramps (plyboard) left in the trenches to allow any mammals to make their

own escape. If any large mammal holes are found advice should be sought from an Ecology by Design

ecologist.

To enhance the site for biodiversity, various optional enhancements to the site are recommended

below:

• Planting plans for the site should include native trees and shrubs as well as a variety of other

native plants of local provenance;

• The area alongside the brook should be planted exclusively with native trees and shrubs;

• Bird boxes should be incorporated into or erected on the new buildings or surrounding trees.

These could include boxes for swifts, sparrows or starlings depending on the design of the

buildings (see Appendix 6).

• Bat boxes should be incorporated into two of the external walls of the new development (see

Appendix 6).

• A green roof or roofs could be incorporated into the design new of the new buildings.


7 Relevant Legislation and Policy

7.1 Nationally Designated Sites

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended). These pieces of legislation protect the habitats and/or species of interest from intentional or

reckless damage, destruction of features of special interest and disturbance.

7.2 Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006

Section 40 of the NERC Act, 2006 places a duty upon all local authorities in England to promote and

enhance biodiversity in all of their functions. Section 41 lists habitats and species of principal importance

to the conservation of biodiversity. These are all the habitats and species in England that have been

identified as requiring action in the UK. These species and habitats are a material consideration in the

planning process.

7.3 National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was updated in February 2019 thereby replacing the

older versions. The new framework sets out in Paragraphs 174 to 177 that to protect and enhance

biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should:

• 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

• 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.

When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following

principles:

• 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;

• 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;

• 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

• 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.

The following should be given the same protection as habitats sites:

• potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation;

• listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and

• 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.

The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring

appropriate assessment because of its potential impact on a habitats site is being planned or

determined.

7.4 Local Planning Policy

7.4.1 London Borough of Brent: Core Strategy

The London Borough of Brent Core Strategy (Adopted 12th July 2010) contains the following statements

relating to biodiversity.

In the ‘Strategic Area Policies, Wembley Growth Area’ section it is stated that:

‘Development along the Wealdstone Brook will be expected to respect and enhance the waterside

location to take advantage of amenity value, enhance biodiversity and address issues of flood risk’.

Core Policy 18 ‘Protection and Enhancement of Open Space, Sports and Biodiversity’ states that:

‘Policy protects all open space from inappropriate development. Promotes enhancements to open space,

sports and biodiversity, particularly in areas of deficiency and where additional pressure on open space

will be created’.

The Core Strategy for ‘Protecting and Enhancing Open Space, Sports and Biodiversity’ also states that:


‘In addition to protecting and enhancing open space, there is a need to promote and enhance

biodiversity throughout the borough, particularly habitats of important nature conservation value and

species listed within the Mayor's Biodiversity Action Plan and the local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP).

Protecting habitats and recognising important species is significant to the future survival of biodiversity

within the urban environment. Enhancing new areas of open space for biodiversity should also be

considered through good landscaping and design, particularly in areas that are deficient in Nature

Conservation (i.e. >1km from Sites of Accessible Metropolitan or Borough (Grade 1) Nature Conservation

Importance) with preference given to the use of native species. London Plan policy 3D.14 requires

boroughs to have regard for nature conservation and biodiversity as well as give strong protection to

Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. As the borough’s environment is substantially

developed, the Brent BAP identifies the built environment as a key opportunity for wildlife habitat

creation and measures to increase green infrastructure within development such as tree planting, living

roofs, and vertical planting will be promoted’.

The ‘Environmental Quality built & ecological’ section states that:

‘Brent has not always achieved the best standard of design, even when development densities have been

relatively modest. Typical Inner London characteristics and problems can also be seen in Brent: industrial

activities operating cheek by jowl with residential uses and the problems of the re-adjustment of town

centres to shifting patterns of retailing and changing populations. It is therefore important that design

quality of buildings and spaces achieve a high standard, in particular with landscape improvements and

enhanced biodiversity through incorporating effective urban design measures in developments, e.g tree

planting, Sustainable Urban Drainage systems and living roofs’.

7.4.1 The London Plan

The London Plan (March 2016) contains the following relevant policy.

Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature states:

“C. Development Proposals should:

a. wherever possible, make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and

management of biodiversity

b. prioritise assisting in achieving targets in biodiversity action plans (BAPs), set out in Table 7.3,

and/or improving access to nature in areas deficient in accessible wildlife sites

c. not adversely affect the integrity of European sites and be resisted where they have significant

adverse impact on European or nationally designated sites or on the population or conservation


status of a protected species or a priority species or habitat identified in a UK, London or

appropriate regional BAP or borough BAP.

D. On Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation development proposals should:

a. give the highest protection to sites with existing or proposed international designations1 (SACs,

SPAs, Ramsar sites) and national designations2 (SSSIs, NNRs) in line with the relevant EU and UK

guidance and regulations

b. give strong protection to sites of metropolitan importance for nature conservation (SMIs). These

are sites jointly identified by the Mayor and boroughs as having strategic nature conservation

importance

c. give sites of borough and local importance for nature conservation the level of protection

commensurate with their importance.

E. When considering proposals that would affect directly, indirectly or cumulatively a site of recognised

nature conservation interest, the following hierarchy will apply:

1. avoid adverse impact to the biodiversity interest

2. minimize impact and seek mitigation

3. only in exceptional cases where the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the biodiversity

impacts, seek appropriate compensation.”

7.5 Protected Species

7.5.1 Birds

Wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is illegal to take

or harm them, their nests (whilst in use or being built) or their eggs.

Additionally, for some species it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb the adults while they

are in and around their nest or intentionally or recklessly disturb their dependent young (schedule 1

species).

7.5.2 Bats

Bats and their roost sites are protected by UK and European legislation.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to:

• Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for

shelter or protection by a bat; and

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

that purpose.


Additionally, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 make it an offence to:

• Deliberately capture or kill a bat;

• Deliberately disturb a bat;

• Damage or destroy a breeding site or a resting place of a bat; and

• Keep, transport, sell or exchange or offer for sale or exchange alive or dead bat or any part of a

bat.

7.6 Invasive Species

7.6.1 Japanese knotweed

Japanese knotweed is an invasive non-native plant that is listed under Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 making it an offence to plant or cause this species to grow in the wild. It is also

classed as ‘controlled waste’ under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 meaning that there are strict

regulations governing its disposal.


8 References

Collins, J. (ed.) (2016) Bat surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat

Conservation Trust, London

Ecology by Design (2018) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal: Euro Car Parts, Wembley.

Greater London Authority (2016) The London Plan: The Spatial Development Strategy for London

Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011. Greater London Authority.

HM Government (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Department for Communities and local

Government.

JNCC, (2007). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey. A technique for environmental audit (reprint). Joint

Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

London Borough of Brent Council (2010). London Borough of Brent | Core Strategy

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16404211/core-strategy-small.pdf

Oldham R.S., et al. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus

cristatus). Herpetological Journal 10 (4), 143-155.

Stace, C. (2010). New British Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press.

https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16404211/core-strategy-small.pdf


Appendix 1 - Photographs

Photo 1: Northern elevation of Building 1 Photo 2: Western elevation of Building 1

Photo 3: Eastern and northern elevations of

Building 1 Photo 4: Eastern elevation of Buidling 2

Photo 5: Southern elevation of Buidling 3 Photo 6: Building 4


Photo 7: Southern elevation of Building 6 Photo 8: Northern elevation of Building 7

Photo 9: Wealdstone brook on northern boundary Photo 10: Poor semi-improved grassland in north

of site

Photo 11: Scattered scrub in south east of site Photo 12: Bare ground, introduced shrub and poor

semi-improved grass in south of site


Photo 13: Japanese knotweed in north west of site Photo 14: Hybrid poplar tree in north of site


Appendix 2 – Site Plan

Next page.

Phase 1 Habitat Map

This drawing is the property of Ecology by Design Ltd and is issued on thecondition it is not reproduced with out written permission of Ecology byDesign Ltd.

This drawing may contain data reproduced from Ordnance Survey digitalmap data © Crown Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. Ordnance SurveyOpen Data © Crown copyright and database right 2019; Aerial images ©Getmapping plc 2019 and © Google 2019.

Hampden House, Monument Park,Chalgrove, Oxon, OX44 7RW

t: 07487238739e: [email protected]

w: www.ecologybydesign.co.uk

SCALE (@A3): Drawn by EB Date: 16 October 2019

Project:

Client:

DrawingTitle:

Euro House,Wembley

McAleer and Rushe

PreliminaryEcological Appraisal

ScatteredscrubScatteredtreesPoorsemi-improvedgrassIntroducedshrubFenceBuildingsBareground

TargetNotesPoplar

Japaneseknotweed

Siteboundary


Appendix 3 – Plant species List

Common Name Latin

Trees and Shrubs Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus

Butterfly bush Buddleia davidii

Box Buxus sempervirens

Hazel Corylus avellana

Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp.

Evergreen spindle Euonymus japonica

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica

Ash Fraxinus excelsior

Bay Laurus nobilis

Hybrid black-poplar Populus x canadensis

Firethorn Pyracantha coccinea

Oak Quercus robur agg.

Elder Sambucus nigra

Forbs Yarrow Achillea millefolium

Michaelmas daisy Aster amellus

Black horehound Ballota nigra

Daisy Bellis perennis

Hedge bindweed Calystegia sepium

Wavy bitter-cress Cardamine flexuosa

Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum

Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare

Guernsey fleabane Conyza sumatrensis

Cleavers Galium aparine

Cut-leaved crane’s-bill Geranium dissectum

Dove’s-foot crane’s-bill Geranium molle

Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum

Persian ivy Hedera colchica

Ivy Hedera helix

Common cat’s-ear Hypochaeris radicata

Red dead-nettle Lamium purpureum

Black medick Medicago lupulina


Common Name Latin

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata

Creeping cinquefoil Potentilla reptans

Selfheal Prunella vulgaris

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens

Bramble Rubus Fruticosus agg.

Curled dock Rumex crispus

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius

Autumn hawkbit Scorzoneroides autumnalis

Common ragwort Senecio jacobaea

Smooth sow-thistle Sonchus oleracea

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg.

Red clover Trifolium pratense

White clover Trifolium repens

Common nettle Urtica dioica

Wall speedwell Veronica arvensis

Grasses, Rushes and Sedges False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius

Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata

Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne

Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus

Annual meadow-grass Poa annua


Appendix 4 – Definitions of the level of Habitat Value

Geographic level

of Value Examples

International value

Ramsar Sites, Special Protection Areas, Biosphere Reserves, Special Areas of Conservation. Sites supporting populations of internationally important species.

National value SSSIs or non-designated Sites meeting SSSI selection criteria, NNRs, Marine Nature Reserves, NCR Grade 1 Sites. Sites containing viable areas of key habitats identified in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Regional value Sites containing viable areas of threatened habitats listed in a Regional BAP (or some Natural Areas), comfortably exceeding SINC criteria, but not exceeding SSSI criteria.

County / Metropolitan

Sites meeting the criteria for county or metropolitan designation (SINC, CWS, etc.). Ancient semi-natural woodland, LNRs or viable areas of key habitat types listed in county BAPs/Natural Areas.

District / Borough

Undesignated Sites or features considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource in the District or Borough.

Parish / Neighbourhood

Undesignated Sites or features which appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the Parish or Neighbourhood.

Negligible value Low grade and widespread habitats.


Appendix 5 – Definitions of the level of Species Value

Geographic level

of Value Examples

International Any regularly occurring population of an internationally important species, which is threatened or rare in the UK. i.e. it is a UK Red Data Book species or listed as occurring in 15 or fewer 10km squares in the UK (categories 1 and 2 in the UK BAP) or of uncertain conservation status or of global conservation concern in the UK BAP. A regularly occurring, nationally significant population/number of any internationally important species.

National Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species which is threatened or rare in the region or county (see local BAP). A regularly occurring, regionally or county significant population/number of any nationally important species.

Regional Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce which occurs in 16-100 10km squares in the UK or in a Regional BAP or relevant Natural Area on account of its regional rarity or localisation; A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a regionally important species.

County/ Metropolitan

Any regularly occurring, locally significant population of a species which is listed in a County/Metropolitan “red data book” or BAP on account of its regional rarity or localisation; A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a County/Metropolitan important species.

District / Borough

A population of a species that is listed in a District/Borough BAP because of its rarity in the locality or in the relevant Natural Area profile because of its regional rarity or localisation; A regularly occurring, locally significant number of a District / Borough important species during a critical phase of its life cycle.

Parish / Neighbourhood

Species that are not threatened but are valued at a local level on intrinsic appeal.

Negligible Common or widespread species.


Appendix 6 – Proposed Enhancements

Products Description

1SP Schwegler Sparrow Terrace

Designed to support a colony of house sparrows the 1SP

can be hung on or installed into a wall.

http://www.nhbs.com/1sp-schwegler-sparrow-terrace

No. 17A Schwegler Swift Nest Box

The 17A is designed specifically for swifts and can

accommodate three pairs. It must be installed at least 7m

above the ground.

http://www.nhbs.com/no-17a-schwegler-swift-nest-box-

triple-cavity

3S Schwegler Starling Nest Box

A versatile box that attracts other species such as

woodpeckers, nut hatches and pied flycatchers.

http://www.nhbs.com/title/177925/3s-schwegler-starling-

nest-box

1FR Schwegler Bat Tube

A bat tube designed to be fitted discretely on the external

walls of a building or fitted beneath a rendered surface.

http://www.nhbs.com/title/161276/1fr-schwegler-bat-

tube?bkfno=178018&ca_id=1495&gclid=CNb_5M_8o9ICF

UFmGwodDgcEYw

http://www.nhbs.com/1sp-schwegler-sparrow-terrace

http://www.nhbs.com/no-17a-schwegler-swift-nest-box-triple-cavity

http://www.nhbs.com/no-17a-schwegler-swift-nest-box-triple-cavity

http://www.nhbs.com/title/177925/3s-schwegler-starling-nest-box

http://www.nhbs.com/title/177925/3s-schwegler-starling-nest-box

http://www.nhbs.com/title/161276/1fr-schwegler-bat-tube?bkfno=178018&ca_id=1495&gclid=CNb_5M_8o9ICFUFmGwodDgcEYw



Documents

APPENDIX E – Preliminary Ecological Appraisal · • Several stands of Japanese knotweed were recorded within the scattered scrub along the northern boundary. 1.1 Recommendations