ELTON 2, EAGLETHORPE, WARMINGTON ......Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (CIEEM, 2018) and survey work has been undertaken in line with references within

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Preliminary Ecological Appraisals • Protected Species Surveys and Licensing • NVC • EcIA • Management Plans Habitats • Badger • Bats • Hazel Dormouse • Birds • Reptiles • Amphibians • Invertebrates • Riparian and Aquatic Species

ECOSA, Ten Hogs House, Manor Farm Offices, Flexford Road, North Baddesley, Hampshire, SO52 9DF

Tel: 02380 261065 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ecosa.co.uk

Registered Office: 3-4 Eastwood Court, SO51 8JJ Registered in England No: 6129868

Final Document April 2019

ELTON 2, EAGLETHORPE, WARMINGTON, PETERBOROUGH, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Elton 2, Eaglethorpe – Ecological Impact Assessment ECOSA Ltd Final Document 5th April 2019

ECOSA Quality Assurance Record This report has been produced in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing 2017 (CIEEM,

2017). The Ecological Impact Assessment and report has been prepared in line with the CIEEM

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (CIEEM, 2018) and survey

work has been undertaken in line with references within CIEEM’s Source of Survey Guidance

(CIEEM, 2017).

Description: Ecological Impact Assessment

Produced For: Ingrebourne Valley Ltd

Issue: Final

Report Reference: 4255.F0

Date of Issue: 5th April 2019

Date of Survey Works: Various dates between November 2015 and November 2018

Author:

Lucy Grable MSc GradCIEEM Ecologist

Checked by:

Richard Chilcott MSc MCIEEM Principal Ecologist

Reviewed by:

Frances King-Smith BSc (Hons.) MCIEEM Principal Ecologist

DISCLAIMER This is a technical report which does not represent legal advice. You may wish to seek legal advice if this is required. COPYRIGHT © This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person is prohibited.

stillRectangle

stillRectangle

stillRectangle


i © This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd.

ECIA-150618-10

ELTON 2, EAGLETHORPE, WARMINGTON, PETERBOROUGH, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 The Site ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Aims and Scope of Report ............................................................................................ 3 1.4 Site Proposals............................................................................................................... 3

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT .................................................................................. 5 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 National Policy .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Local Policy................................................................................................................... 6

3.0 METHODS .................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Zone of Influence .......................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Scoping ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Desk Study ................................................................................................................... 8

3.4.1 Biological Records Centre ..................................................................................... 8 3.4.2 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside .................................... 9 3.4.3 Other Sources of Information ................................................................................ 9

3.5 Field Survey ................................................................................................................ 10 3.5.1 Survey Methods ................................................................................................... 10 3.5.2 Survey Details ...................................................................................................... 10 3.5.3 Field Survey Limitations....................................................................................... 10

3.6 Otter Survey................................................................................................................ 11 3.6.1 Survey Methods ................................................................................................... 11 3.6.2 Survey Details ...................................................................................................... 11 3.6.3 Survey Limitations ............................................................................................... 11

3.7 Water Vole Survey ...................................................................................................... 11 3.7.1 Survey Methods ................................................................................................... 11 3.7.2 Survey Details ...................................................................................................... 12 3.7.3 Survey Limitations ............................................................................................... 12

3.8 Bird Survey ................................................................................................................. 12 3.8.1 Survey Methods ................................................................................................... 12 3.8.2 Survey Details ...................................................................................................... 14 3.8.3 Survey Limitations ............................................................................................... 15

3.9 Reptile Survey ............................................................................................................ 15 3.9.1 Survey Methods ................................................................................................... 15 3.9.2 Survey Details ...................................................................................................... 16 3.9.3 Survey Limitations ............................................................................................... 16

3.10 Criteria used to Assess Ecological Value ................................................................... 17

4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION ............................... 18 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 18 4.2 Statutory and Non-statutory Designated Sites ........................................................... 18

4.2.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 18 4.2.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 19

4.3 Habitats ....................................................................................................................... 20 4.3.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 20


ii © This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd.

ECIA-150618-10

4.3.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Bats ............................................................................................................................. 27

4.4.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 27 4.4.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 29

4.5 Otter ............................................................................................................................ 29 4.5.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 29 4.5.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 30

4.6 Badger ........................................................................................................................ 30 4.6.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 30 4.6.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 30

4.7 Hazel Dormouse ......................................................................................................... 31 4.7.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 31

4.8 Water Vole .................................................................................................................. 31 4.8.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 31

4.9 Birds ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.9.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 32 4.9.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 35

4.10 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................... 36 4.10.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 36

4.11 Great Crested Newt .................................................................................................... 37 4.11.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 37 4.11.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 38

4.12 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 38 4.12.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 38 4.12.2 Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 38

4.13 Other Relevant Species .............................................................................................. 39 4.13.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions ........................................................................... 39

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION/COMPENSATION/ ENHANCEMENT MEASURES ............................................................................................... 40

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 40 5.2 Scheme Design .......................................................................................................... 40 5.3 Designated Sites ........................................................................................................ 40

5.3.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 40 5.3.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 41

5.4 Habitats ....................................................................................................................... 41 5.4.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 41 5.4.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 42 5.4.3 Significance of Residual Effects .......................................................................... 42 5.4.4 Compensation ...................................................................................................... 42 5.4.5 Enhancement ....................................................................................................... 43

5.5 Bats ............................................................................................................................. 43 5.5.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 43 5.5.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 43 5.5.3 Significance of Residual Effects .......................................................................... 43 5.5.4 Compensation ...................................................................................................... 43 5.5.5 Enhancement ....................................................................................................... 44

5.6 Otter ............................................................................................................................ 44 5.6.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 44 5.6.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 44 5.6.3 Significance of Residual Effects .......................................................................... 45 5.6.4 Enhancement ....................................................................................................... 45

5.7 Badger ........................................................................................................................ 45 5.7.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 45 5.7.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 45 5.7.3 Significance of Residual Effects .......................................................................... 45 5.7.4 Compensation ...................................................................................................... 46

5.8 Birds ............................................................................................................................ 46 5.8.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 46 5.8.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 46


iii © This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd.

ECIA-150618-10

5.8.3 Significance of Residual Effects .......................................................................... 46 5.8.4 Compensation ...................................................................................................... 47 5.8.5 Enhancement ....................................................................................................... 47

5.9 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................... 47 5.9.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 47 5.9.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 47 5.9.3 Significance of Residual Effects .......................................................................... 47 5.9.4 Compensation ...................................................................................................... 48

5.10 Great Crested Newt .................................................................................................... 48 5.10.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 48 5.10.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 48

5.11 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 48 5.11.1 Potential Impacts and Effects .............................................................................. 48 5.11.2 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................. 48 5.11.3 Significance of Residual Effects .......................................................................... 49 5.11.4 Compensation ...................................................................................................... 49

6.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 50 6.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 50 6.2 Updating Site Survey .................................................................................................. 50

7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 51

Map 1 Site Location Plan

Map 2 Phase 1 Habitat Map

Map 3 Location of Reptile Refugia

Map 4 Otter Survey Results

Map 5 Breeding Bird Survey Results

Appendix 1 Proposed Site Layout

Appendix 2 Sites Designated for Nature Conservation

Appendix 3 Protected Species Legislation

Appendix 4 Confidential Badger Appendix

Appendix 5 Protected and Notable Species Appraisal Methods

Appendix 6 Appraisal Criteria for Bats

Appendix 7 Badger Sett Status and Level of Use


1 © This report is the copyright of ECOSA Ltd.

ECIA-150618-10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ECOSA have been appointed by Ingrebourne Valley Ltd to undertake an Ecological Impact

Assessment to support a planning application for the mineral extraction of Elton 2, Eaglethorpe,

Warmington, Peterborough, Northamptonshire. The site is located on the outskirts of the village

of Warmington, Northamptonshire and comprises a mix of the existing works and a Proposed

Extension Area. The proposals entail the extraction of minerals from approximately 19 hectares

within the site and subsequent restoration. The main findings of the Ecological Impact

Assessment are:

Eaglethorpe New Lake Local Wildlife Site is located within the site boundary.

The habitats within the site comprise broad-leaved plantation woodland,

scattered trees, improved grassland, running water and standing water, whilst

the area of the site in the existing Elton Reservoir site and Existing Plant Site

mainly comprise heavily disturbed habitats. At a site level the River Nene

boundary and mature scattered trees are the main features of ecological value.

The site supports resting and foraging/commuting otter, four outlier badger setts,

breeding birds, wintering birds and great crested newt. The Existing Reservoir

site also supports a low population of grass snake. The site has also been

assessed as having suitability to support tree roosting bats, foraging and

commuting bats and invertebrates. The proposals have potential to result in

adverse impacts on the species listed above through harm, loss of suitable

habitat and disturbance. Recommendations have been made for further survey

work in order to establish the status of great crested newt within the site.

Mitigation and compensation measures include the protection of riparian habitat,

the River Nene and New Eaglethorpe Lake Local Wildlife Site, sensitive working

methods and creation of new wet woodland habitat. Enhancement measures

include the development of a long-term Ecological Management Plan.

Given the impacts identified and the mitigation and compensation measures

proposed, it is considered that the proposals have the potential to accord with all

relevant local and national planning policy.

If the planning application boundary changes or the proposals for the site alter,

a re-assessment of the scheme in relation to ecology may be required. Given the

mobility of animals and the potential for colonisation of the site over time,

updating survey work may be required, particularly if development does not

commence within 12 months of the date of the most recent relevant survey.



ECIA-150618-10

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Ecological Survey & Assessment Limited (ECOSA) have been appointed by

Ingrebourne Valley Ltd to undertake an Ecological Impact Assessment to support a

planning application for the mineral extraction at Elton 2, Eaglethorpe, Warmington,

Peterborough, Northamptonshire PE8 6TJ (hereafter referred to as the site).

For the purposes of this report the site refers to the entire red line boundary as shown

on Map 1. However, reference is also made to the Proposed Extension Area which is the proposed area of extraction, Elton Reservoir site which is the previously extracted

area, a proportion of which is inside the redline boundary, and the Existing Plant Site

(the location of these three areas are provided in Appendix 1).

A suite of previous ecological survey work has been undertaken at the site including

the Elton Reservoir at various dates between 2002 and 2015.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of the Proposed Extension Area was undertaken by

ECOSA in September 2015 (ECOSA, 2015). The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

assessed the Proposed Extension Area as having suitability to support roosting,

foraging and commuting bats, otter, water vole, breeding birds, wintering birds and

common species of reptiles.

An updating Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and further survey work in relation to

otter, water vole, breeding birds, wintering birds and common species of reptiles was

subsequently undertaken between 2015 and 2018.This work was focussed on

assessing the ecological baseline of the Proposed Extension Area whilst a

reassessment of the Existing Reservoir site (within the red line boundary) and Existing

Plant Site was also undertaken.

1.2 The Site The site is located on the outskirts of the village of Warmington, Northamptonshire,

approximately 14 kilometres south-west of the city of Peterborough centred on National

Grid Reference (NGR) TL 0716 9194 (Map 1). The Phase 1 habitat map (Map 2) depicts the boundary of the site.

The site itself covers approximately 32 hectares, predominantly comprising grassland

fields and woodland, part of the previously created Elton Reservoir and the Existing

Plant Site. The site is bordered by the River Nene in part on the northern, western and

southern site boundaries, whilst the A605 is situated along the southern site boundary.



ECIA-150618-10

The wider landscape is characterised by open countryside interspersed with small

villages, numerous broad-leaved woodland copses and the River Nene.

1.3 Aims and Scope of Report The information within this report is based on a field survey, desktop study and relevant

species-specific surveys carried out between March 2018 and November 2018. The

report describes the habitats and species (hereafter referred to as ecological features)

within the site’s Zone of Influence (Paragraph 3.2), and provides a detailed assessment

of potential ecological effects of the proposed development of the site. It identifies the

need for any measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for significant adverse effects1

on habitats and species and outlines enhancements to the site’s ecology to be

implemented as part of the development. The objectives of the assessment are:

To provide baseline information on ecological features within the site’s Zone of

Influence and determine the importance of these features;

To assess, characterise and quantify the effects on ecological features, including

cumulative effects, and identify significant effects in the absence of any

mitigation;

To set out measures to avoid, mitigate and compensate for significant ecological

effects in accordance with the ‘mitigation hierarchy’2;

To provide an assessment of the significance of any residual effects;

To outline opportunities for enhancement in order to achieve a net gain for

biodiversity; and

To set out the requirements for any post-construction monitoring.

1.4 Site Proposals The proposals entail the extraction of minerals from an area of approximately 19

hectares within the site (the Proposed Extension Area). To facilitate the extraction

works a new access road will be constructed on the site with a temporary bridge across

a tributary of the River Nene. Minerals will be taken through the Elton Reservoir site to

the Existing Plant Site to the east. On completion of the extraction works, the site will

be reinstated as pasture land with a newly planted area of wet woodland. It is

anticipated that the Proposed Extension Area will be subject to a full planning

application whilst the Existing Plant Site will be subject to a Section 73 application.

1 For the purposes of this assessment a ‘significant’ adverse effect is one which will have an adverse effect on the ecological feature at the site level or higher. 2 In accordance with CIEEM Ecological Impact Assessment guidance (CIEEM, 2018) a sequential process is adopted to address impacts on features of ecological interest, with ‘Avoidance’ prioritised at the top of the hierarchy and Compensation/Enhancement’ at the bottom. This is often referred to as the ‘mitigation hierarchy’.



ECIA-150618-10

However, for the purposes of this report the impacts have been assessed across the

entire site.

The exact proposals are currently unknown but the proposed red line boundary for the

planning application is provided in Appendix 1.

The exact timescales for construction are currently unknown, however, the planning

application for the proposals is due to be submitted in Spring 2019. For the purposes

of this report it is assumed that extraction would have commenced by the end of 2020.



ECIA-150618-10

2.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

2.1 Introduction This section summarises the planning policy in relation to ecology and biodiversity

within the East Northamptonshire Council administrative area. This information is then

used to assess the compliance of the scheme in relation to relevant planning policy and

where necessary make recommendations for mitigation, compensation and

enhancements (see Section 5.0).

2.2 National Policy The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s

requirements for the planning system in England. The original document was published

in 2012 with the most recent revision published in February 2019. A number of sections

of the NPPF are relevant when taking into account development proposals and the

environment. As set out within Paragraph 11 of the NPPF “Plans and decisions should

apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development”. However, Paragraph 177 goes on to state that “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 site3

(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.”

The general impetus of the NPPF in relation to ecology and biodiversity is for

development proposals to not only minimise the impacts on biodiversity but also to

provide enhancement. Paragraph 170 states that the planning system should

contribute to and enhance the natural environment by “…minimising impacts on

biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent

ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures...”.

A number of principles are set out in Paragraph 175, including that where harm cannot

be adequately avoided then it should be mitigated for, or as a last resort, compensated

for. Where impacts occur on nationally designated sites, the benefits must clearly

outweigh any adverse impact and incorporating biodiversity in and around

developments should be encouraged. Specific reference is also made to the protection

of irreplaceable habitats4. Where loss to irreplaceable habitats occurs planning

permission would normally be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and

3 The NPPF defines a habitats site as “Any site which would be included within the definition at regulation 8 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 for the purpose of those regulations, including candidate Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Community Importance, Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and any relevant Marine Sites.” 4 The NPPF defines irreplaceable habitats as “Habitats which would be technically very difficult (or take a very significant time) to restore, recreate or replace once destroyed, taking into account their age, uniqueness, species diversity or rarity. They include ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, blanket bog, limestone pavement, sand dunes, salt marsh and lowland fen.”



ECIA-150618-10

an adequate compensation strategy is in place. Paragraph 175 also states

“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”. Protection of sites proposed as Special

Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites or

acting as compensation for SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites, should receive the same

protection as habitat sites.

In addition to the NPPF, Circular 06/05 provides guidance on the application of the law

relating to planning and nature conservation as it applies in England. Paragraph 98

states “the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning

authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to

result in harm to the species or its habitat”. Whilst paragraph 99 states “it is essential

that the presence or otherwise of a protected species, and the extent that they may be

affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is

granted”.

2.3 Local Policy Minerals and waste development in Northamptonshire is set out with the Minerals and

Waste Local Plan, adopted on 1st July 2017.

The Minerals and Waste Local Plan refers to two policies in relation to biodiversity:

Policy 20: Natural assets and resources Minerals and waste development should seek to achieve a net gain in natural

assets and resources, through:

Protecting and enhancing international and national designated sites;

Delivery of wider environmental benefits in the vicinity where

development would adversely affect locally designated sites or other

features of local interest;

Protecting and enhancing green infrastructure and strategic

biodiversity networks, in particular the River Nene and other sub-

regional corridors; and

Contributing towards Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan

targets for habitats and species.

Proposals for minerals and waste development will be required to undertake an

assessment (where appropriate) in order to:



ECIA-150618-10

Identify and determine the nature, extent and level of importance of the

natural assets and resources, as well as any potential impacts; and

Identify mitigation measures and / or requirement for compensation

(where necessary) to avoid, reduce and manage potentially adverse

impacts.

Policy 24: Restoration and after-use All minerals and waste related development of a temporary nature must ensure

that the site is progressively restored to an acceptable condition and stable

landform. The after-use of a site will be determined on the basis that it enhances

biodiversity, the local environment and amenity.

The restoration of minerals and waste sites should meet the following

requirements (where appropriate):

Precedence should be given to the establishment of Biodiversity

Action Plan habitat and strategic biodiversity networks;

Sites connecting or adjacent to identified habitat areas and green

infrastructure networks should be restored in a manner which

promotes habitat enhancement (in line with Biodiversity Action Plan

targets) and green infrastructure plans; and

Sites located within river corridors should be restored to support water

catchment conservation and incorporate flood attenuation measures.



ECIA-150618-10

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Introduction This section details the methods employed during the Ecological Impact Assessment.

Any significant limitations to the assessment are also considered.

3.2 Zone of Influence To define the total extent of the study area for this assessment, the proposed scheme

was reviewed to establish the spatial scale at which ecological features could be

affected5. The appropriate survey radii for the various elements of the assessment (i.e.

desktop study, field survey and species-specific surveys) have been defined in the

relevant sections below. These distances are determined based on the professional

judgement of the ecologist leading the appraisal, taking into account the characteristics

of the site subject to assessment, its surroundings and the nature of the proposals.

3.3 Scoping Protected species considered within the Ecological Impact Assessment are those

species/species groups considered likely to be encountered given the geographical

location and context of the site. Where the site was found to be suitable to support

these species/species groups, and adverse effects cannot be avoided from the outset,

further species-specific surveys are undertaken. These are discussed within the results

section (Section 4.0) of the current report. Where such a species is unlikely to be

present on site a justification for likely absence is provided. Species considered likely

absent from the site are not then considered in the assessment of ecological effects

and mitigation/compensation measures section (Section 5.0) of this report.

3.4 Desk Study

3.4.1 Biological Records Centre Northamptonshire Biodiversity Records Centre (NBRC), Cambridgeshire and

Peterborough Environmental Records Centre (CPERC) and Northants Bat Group was

consulted on 7th November 2017 for the following data:

Records of non-statutory designated sites (Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs), Sites of

Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), Sites of Nature Conservation

Interest (SNCIs), Potential Wildlife Sites (PWSs), Nature Improvement Areas

(NIAs) Protected Wildflower Verges, Pocket Parks etc.) within one kilometre of

the Proposed Extension Area6 site boundary. See Appendix 2 for details;

5 The Zone of Influence (ZoI), as defined by CIEEM, is the area over which ecological features may be subject to significant effects as a result of the proposed project and associated activities (CIEEM, 2018). 6 Given the existing ecological baseline associated with the Elton Reservoir and Existing Plant Site the desk study search was focussed on the Proposed Extension Area.



ECIA-150618-10

Records of legally protected and notable species (flora and fauna) within one

kilometre of the Proposed Extension Area site boundary, including Species of

Principal Importance (Appendix 3); and

Records of bats within two kilometres of the Proposed Extension Area site

boundary. Bat species are highly mobile and therefore the search radius is

increased for this species group.

3.4.2 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside The Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database

(DEFRA, 2019) was reviewed on 6th March 2019 to establish the location of statutory

designated sites located within the vicinity of the site. This included a search for all

internationally and nationally designated sites such as SPAs, SACs, Wetlands of

International Importance (Ramsar sites), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs),

National Nature Reserves (NNRs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) within one

kilometre of the site. See Appendix 2 for details. Where appropriate, the desk study search area has been extended to take account of any appropriate statutory designated

sites which need consideration in terms of potential in-direct effects and which support

particularly mobile species, particularly those specifically mentioned in local planning

policy. The Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) were also obtained from MAGIC, which are used

to help guide and assess planning applications for likely effects on SSSIs.

Sites within two kilometres of the site boundary where European Protected Species

Mitigation (EPSM) licences or Bat Low Impact Class Licences (BLICLs) have been

granted were reviewed. This information allows a greater understanding of the potential

for European protected species to be present in the local area.

3.4.3 Other Sources of Information Online mapping resources, at an appropriate scale, were used to identify the presence

of habitats such as woodland blocks, ponds, watercourses and hedgerows, in the

vicinity of the site. These habitats may offer resources and connectivity between the

site and suitable habitat in the local area, which may be exploited by local species

populations.

The presence of ponds or other waterbodies within a 500 metre radius of the site in

particular are noted in relation to great crested newt. The 500 metre radius is a

standardised search radius to assist in the assessment of the suitability of a site and

its surrounding habitat to support this species, based on current Natural England

guidance (English Nature, 2001).



ECIA-150618-10

3.5 Field Survey

3.5.1 Survey Methods The field survey broadly followed standard Phase 1 habitat survey methodology (JNCC,

2010) and included a search for evidence of, and an assessment of the site’s suitability

to support, protected and notable species as recommended by CIEEM (CIEEM, 2017).

The field survey covered all accessible areas of the site, including boundary features.

Habitats described in Section 4.0, have been mapped (Map 2) and photographs provided, where relevant. For ease of reference, Target Notes (TN) depict locations of

particular ecological interest or features which are too small to map.

Phase 1 Habitat Survey

An assessment was made of all areas of vegetation within the site based on the

standardised Phase 1 habitat survey methodology (JNCC, 2010). This involved

identification of broad vegetation types, which were then classified against Phase 1

habitat types, where appropriate. A list of characteristic plant species for each

vegetation type was compiled and any invasive species7 encountered as an incidental

result of the survey recorded.

Protected and Notable Species Appraisal

A preliminary appraisal of the site’s suitability to support legally protected and notable

species was carried out. Specific methods for species/species groups considered

during the appraisal are provided in Appendix 5.

3.5.2 Survey Details The field survey was carried out by Richard Chilcott, Principal Ecologist of ECOSA on

19th April 2018. The weather conditions were sunny, clear with approximately 0% cloud

cover, an ambient temperature of 20°C and a light breeze.

Following revision of the red line boundary to include the Elton Reservoir and the

Existing Plant Site, an updating field survey was undertaken by Richard Chilcott of

ECOSA on 12th November 2018. The weather conditions were sunny with

approximately 40% cloud cover, an ambient temperature of 13°C and a gentle breeze.

During the survey, the surveyor was equipped with 10x40 binoculars, a high powered

torch and a digital camera.

3.5.3 Field Survey Limitations Ecological surveys are limited by factors which affect the presence of plants and

animals such as the time of year, migration patterns and behaviour. The field survey

7 Plant species included on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The survey was not specifically aimed at assessing the presence of these species and further specialist advice may need to be sought.



ECIA-150618-10

has therefore not produced a complete list of plants and animals and in the absence of

evidence of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the

species is absent or that it will not occur in the future.

Online mapping resources provide an indication of habitat features present in the wider

area, but do not provide a detailed assessment of habitat types.

The desk study data mainly originates from ad hoc surveys by volunteers and other

records from members of the public. Therefore, the data search results cannot be taken

as an exhaustive list of species present in the area.

3.6 Otter Survey

3.6.1 Survey Methods A detailed investigation was undertaken of both banks of the River Nene bounding the

site in order to record any evidence of otter such as spraints, footprints, feeding

remains, otter slides, holts and couches. Any evidence encountered was mapped

where appropriate.

3.6.2 Survey Details The otter survey was carried out by Edward Venables, Senior Field Ecologist of ECOSA

and Jack Medley, Assistant Ecologist, of ECOSA on 29th March 2018. The weather

conditions were dry with, an ambient temperature of 4ºC and a light breeze.

3.6.3 Survey Limitations Full access to the River Nene was not possible. The banks could not be accessed from

within the watercourse and the survey was instead carried out from the banks along

the accessible areas to be affected by the proposals, and, therefore the entire

watercourse was not surveyed for evidence of otter.

3.7 Water Vole Survey

3.7.1 Survey Methods The survey was undertaken in accordance current best practice guidance (Strachan,

et al., 2011) (Dean, et al., 2016) and consisted of a detailed water vole survey of the

River Nene bounding the site.

The survey was undertaken along the banks of the accessible areas to be affected by

the proposals to identify water vole signs including burrows, latrines and feeding

remains in order to establish the presence/likely absence of the species from the

watercourse. In addition, an assessment of the vegetation and bank structure was

undertaken to assess its suitability for water vole.



ECIA-150618-10

Where evidence of water vole was encountered this was mapped. The best index of

water vole abundance is established through number of latrines present in any one

given stretch of habitat which provides an indication of the relative density of the

species based on the presence of breeding individuals.

The presence/absence of mink, otter and brown rat signs were also recorded noting

abundance of evidence recorded. The presence of these three species has a bearing

on the likely presence of water vole.

3.7.2 Survey Details The water vole survey was carried out by Edward Venables, Senior Field Ecologist of

ECOSA and Jack Medley, Assistant Ecologist, of ECOSA on 29th March 2018. The

weather conditions were dry with, an ambient temperature of 4ºC and a light breeze.

3.7.3 Survey Limitations Full access to the River Nene was not possible. The banks could not be accessed from

within the watercourse and the survey was instead carried out from the banks along

the accessible areas to be affected by the proposals, and, therefore the entire

watercourse was not surveyed for evidence of water vole.

3.8 Bird Survey

3.8.1 Survey Methods

Breeding Bird Survey

Breeding bird transects surveys were undertaken using a modified version the British

Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Breeding Bird Survey (Baillie, et al., 2012). Given that the

site was assessed as having suitability for a range of breeding birds three visits were

undertaken between April and May. Surveys were split by approximately two weeks.

The bird surveyor walked a pre-determined transect route across the Proposed

Extension Area, on each occasion walking the same transect route. The transect route

ensured that the surveyor visited key areas of habitat for breeding birds within the

Proposed Extension Area such as woodland, wetland and large expanses of grassland,

as well as less suitable habitats. The transect was punctuated by pauses to scan and

listen for territorial birds. The transect survey was always undertaken during the

morning and began within one hour of sunrise. The route across the site was varied so

that time-location bias was minimised. Surveys were undertaken in suitable weather

conditions i.e. without strong winds or heavy rainfall.



ECIA-150618-10

The survey was aimed at recording the presence of Schedule 18 and / or British Trust

for Ornithology red9 or amber listed Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton, et al., 2015)

and assessing the number of active territories of notable species within the Proposed

Extension Area. Green listed species were recorded but no attempt was made to

identify their territories. Territorial activity was mainly defined by the presence of singing

birds, however other evidence such as courtship and display, agitated behaviour, nest

building, distraction display, recently fledged young, occupied nests and / or birds

carrying food was also used.

On completion of the surveys evidence of territorial birds and confirmed breeding

evidence was transferred onto a single map. Clusters of registrations on this map

coincide with the activity of territory holding birds, although with some species this

varies with biology. The maps were then analysed to determine the number of pairs of

each notable breeding species present, a process open to subjectivity in interpretation,

and requiring professional judgement.

The detectability of bird species and associated territorial activity is affected by a variety

of factors including, but not limited to; species detectability, species abundance,

temporal variations in activity, species phenology, habitat structure, survey effort and

observer ability. During the breeding bird survey methods to reduce these potential

impacts included; using experienced ornithologists and undertaking a robust number

of surveys spread over the main breeding season. As a result, a comprehensive

assessment of the breeding bird assemblage at the Proposed Extension Area was

completed.

Wintering Bird Survey

A mixture of walked transect and vantage point surveys were undertaken the Proposed

Extension Area at approximately two week intervals from November 2015 to March

2016 inclusive, to determine the usage of the Proposed Extension Area by wintering

birds. The survey largely consisted of the surveyor/s scanning the Proposed Extension

Area using telescope and binoculars to identify the bird species utilising the Proposed

Extension Area. Largely, the open areas such as fields were not traversed as this

generates disturbance that may deter birds and therefore compromise the results of

the survey. However, hedgerows and woodlands were walked to record the birds

present.

8 Birds listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended) are afforded additional protection making it an offence to: Intentionally or recklessly disturb any bird while it is nest building, or is at a nest containing eggs or young; or; Intentionally or recklessly disturb the dependent young of any such bird. 9 The UK's birds are split in to three categories of conservation importance - red, amber and green. Red is the highest conservation priority, with species needing urgent action. Amber is the next most critical group, followed by green.



ECIA-150618-10

Ten wintering bird surveys were carried out across the Proposed Extension Area

between November 2015 and March 2016.

The detectability of bird species and associated territorial activity is affected by a variety

of factors including, but not limited to; species detectability, species abundance,

temporal variations in activity, species phenology, habitat structure, survey effort and

observer ability. During the wintering bird survey methods to reduce these potential

impacts included; using experienced ornithologists and undertaking a robust number

of surveys spread over the winter season. As a result, a comprehensive assessment

of the wintering bird assemblage at the Proposed Extension Area was completed.

3.8.2 Survey Details


Three survey visits were undertaken between April and May 2018. Table 1 provides details of each breeding bird survey.

Table 1: Breeding bird survey details

Survey Date Weather Conditions

18th April 2018 Sunny, dry, 12°C, 10% cloud cover and a light breeze

7th May 2018 Foggy, 11°C, 0% cloud cover and no wind

28th May 2018 Misty, 13°C, 100% cloud cover and a light breeze

The breeding bird survey was carried out by an experienced ornithologist and ECOSA

surveyor Andrew Bodey. During the breeding bird surveys, the surveyor was equipped

with 10x40 binoculars.


Ten survey visits were undertaken between November 2015 and March 2016. Table 2 provides details of each wintering bird survey.

Table 2: Wintering bird survey details


18th November 2015 100% cloud cover, 10°C, light breeze

27th November 2015 100% cloud cover, 12°C, light breeze

9th December 2015 0% cloud cover, 6°C, gentle breeze

23rd December 2015 0% cloud cover, 7°C, moderate breeze



ECIA-150618-10


18th January 2016 100% cloud cover, 3°C, fresh breeze

11th February 2016 30% cloud cover, 1°C light breeze

24th February 2016 0% cloud cover, 0°C, calm

29th February 2016 75% cloud cover, occasional showers, 2°C, strong breeze

10th March 2016 100% cloud cover, rain, 6°C, moderate breeze

19th March 2016 50% cloud cover, 7°C light breeze

The wintering bird survey was carried out by experienced ornithologists Simon

Colenutt, Principal Ecologist and Company Director of ECOSA and Simon Boswell,

Principal Ecologist of ECOSA.

During the wintering bird surveys the surveyors were/was equipped with 10x42

Swarovski or 10x42 Leica binoculars.

3.8.3 Survey Limitations


During the breeding bird surveys on 7th May 2018 and 28th May 2018 the weather

conditions were foggy and misty, and, therefore the visibility was reduced slightly.

However, the visibility was not assessed as being poor and was not thought to have

reduced activity levels, and, therefore there were no significant limitations to the

breeding bird survey.


There were no significant limitations to the wintering bird survey.

3.9 Reptile Survey

3.9.1 Survey Methods The reptile survey was undertaken in accordance with current best practice guidelines

(Froglife, 1999).

The reptile survey consisted of the laying bitumen felt mats approximately 500

millimetres x 500 millimetres in areas of suitable habitat on in the Proposed Extension

Area. Typically, this included areas of suitable habitat with good exposure to the sun.

The mats were distributed in all areas considered to offer suitable reptile habitat. The

locations of these mats are marked on Map 3.



ECIA-150618-10

The use of such refugia is an effective way of surveying for all species of reptile and

current survey guidance states that seven inspections are sufficient to confirm

presence/likely absence. Survey visits were undertaken in marginal weather conditions

such as cold but sunny weather or hazy and somewhat overcast conditions, as this will

maximise the thermal value of the refugia for basking reptiles.

During each visit surveyors also undertook a visual inspection survey of other suitable

refugia and other suitable basking locations. During the survey a note was also made

of any suitable hibernation features present.

3.9.2 Survey Details A total of 100 reptile refugia were distributed on 29th March 2018 with seven inspection

visits undertaken between 12th April 2018 and 21st June 2018. Table 3 provides details of each reptile survey.

Table 3: Reptile survey details

Survey Date Air Temperature (°C) Weather Conditions

12th April 2018 16°C Misty, overcast, some drizzle, 100% cloud cover with a light breeze

7th May 2018 16°C Dry, bright, 0% cloud cover with no wind

17th May 2018 12°C Warm, 50% cloud cover with a light breeze

21st May 2018 18°C Sunny, clear, 15% cloud cover with a light breeze

24th May 2018 13°C Overcast, 100% cloud cover with a light breeze

28th May 2018 14°C Dry, 100% cloud cover with a light breeze

21st June 2018 16°C Sunny, 70% cloud cover with a light breeze

The reptile survey was coordinated by Richard Chilcott, Principal Ecologist of ECOSA

and undertaken by suitably experienced ECOSA surveyors.

3.9.3 Survey Limitations Some of the reptile refugia were subject to disturbance, which may have reduced

detectability. This is not considered to be a significant limitation as enough refugia

remained on all surveys to more than meet the guideline requirement of a density of 10

per hectare.

No other limitations are associated with the reptile survey. All survey visits were

undertaken during suitable weather conditions.



ECIA-150618-10

3.10 Criteria used to Assess Ecological Value The evaluation criteria used in this report are based on ECOSA’s professional

judgement and publicly available publications, survey data and other sources as

referenced in the main text. The evaluation is based on a sliding scale of importance

as follows; international and European, national, regional, county, local and site. There

are a wide range of characteristics which contribute to the importance of ecological

features, and these may justify an increase or reduction in the value of an ecological

feature. Where deviations occur, these will be explained in the evaluation section of

this report (Section 4.0). Current published relevant guidance, including information

sources such as A Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, 1977) and Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (CIEEM, 2018) have also been

used to inform the assessment.



ECIA-150618-10

4.0 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION

4.1 Introduction This section details the results of the Ecological Impact Assessment undertaken for the

site. It assesses the baseline ecological conditions of the site at the time the desktop

study was completed and based on the findings of the initial field survey and

subsequent protected species surveys. This section also provides an assessment of

the ecological value of ecological features present at the site.

4.2 Statutory and Non-statutory Designated Sites

4.2.1 Baseline Ecological Conditions

Details of designated sites are provided in the paragraphs below.

Statutory Designated Sites

There are no statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest situated within

one kilometre of the site boundary. The nearest statutory designated site of nature

conservation interest is Ashton Wold SSSI located approximately 4.2 kilometres south-

east of the site.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites

There are 10 non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation situated within one

kilometre of the site boundary. These are:

Eaglethorpe New Lake (Local Wildlife Site (LWS) / Nene Valley Improvement

Area (NIA)). Onsite. Designated for its fen, swamp and marsh indicator species

which are present including wild Angelica Angelica sylvestris, meadowsweet

Filipendula ulmaria, yellow iris Iris pseudacorus, purple loosestrife Lythrum

salicaria, water mint Mentha aquatica, water forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides,

common fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica and skullcap Scutellaria galericulata.

River Nene (County Wildlife Site (CWS)). Immediately adjacent to site.

Designated for supporting at least three species of pondweed Potamogeton

species and Nationally Scarce vascular plant species and plants which are rare

in the county.

Lady Margret’s Wood (LWS / NIA). Immediately adjacent to the site. Designated

for supporting nine ancient woodland indicator species.

Elton Estate Mill Fields (Potential Wildlife Site (PWS) / NIA). Immediately south

of site. Designated as a PWS as it does not currently qualify as an LWS, however

is considered to be ecologically important especially floristically.



ECIA-150618-10

Warmington Old Orchard (Pocket Park / NIA). 135 metres south. Designated for

being an open area of land, owned and managed by local people providing free,

open access for all at all times helping to protect and conserve local wildlife,

heritage and landscape.

779 (PWS / NIA). 225 metres west. NBRC does not hold any information in

relation to this non-statutory designated site. Designated as a PWS as it does

not currently qualify as an LWS.

Forthinghay Meadow (PWS / NIA). 420 metres north-west. NBRC does not hold

any information in relation to this non-statutory designated site.







Warmington Big Green (Pocket Park / NIA). 740 metres south-east. Designated

for being an open area of land, owned and managed by local people providing

free, open access for all at all times helping to protect and conserve local wildlife,

heritage and landscape.

Warmington Verge (Protected Wildflower Verge / NIA). 875 metres south.

Designated for being a protected roadside verge with species present including

common calamint Calamintha ascendens and wild clary Salvia verbenaca.

Further information on sites designated for nature conservation are provided in

Appendix 2.

4.2.2 Evaluation Local Wildlife Sites are of particular importance for nature conservation within

Northamptonshire, and are therefore of county value.

Potential Wildlife Sites are likely to be important for the county’s biodiversity either in

their own right or by buffering and linking existing Local Wildlife Sites, and, therefore

are of local value.

Protected Wildflower Verges are crucial to the success of the local Biodiversity Action

Plan, and, therefore are of local value.



ECIA-150618-10

Pocket Parks are of particular importance for the public’s enjoyment and understanding

of the countryside, and, therefore are of local value.

4.3 Habitats


Desktop Study Results

Consultation with NBRC produced a single record of the near-threatened common

cudweed Filago vulgaris on the boundary of the Existing Plant Site. Consultation with

MAGIC identified the site as potentially support the priority habitats lowland mixed

deciduous woodland and coastal and floodplain grazing marsh. These are discussed

in detail in the habitats below. Consultation with CPERC produced no records of

notable habitats or plant species on or adjacent to the site.

Field Survey Results

Habitats within the site are shown on the Phase 1 Habitat Map (Map 2), Target Notes and photographs have been provided as appropriate, Target Notes are cross

referenced to Map 2. Habitats are described in general terms using standard Phase 1 habitat survey terminology, with reference to dominant, characteristic and notable

species in each vegetation type. The main habitats recorded on site during the Phase

1 habitat survey were as follows:

Broad-leaved Plantation Woodland

The east of the Proposed Extension Area is comprised of a broad-leaved plantation

woodland dominated by poplar Populus species with a scattered hawthorn Crataegus

monogyna and elder Sambucus nigra understorey (Figure 1). The ground flora is dominated by common nettle Urtica dioica and cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata, with

occasional bramble Rubus fruticosus aggregate, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium,

cleavers Galium aparine, meadowsweet, garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata, germander

speedwell Veronica chamaedrys and ground ivy Glechoma hederacea.



ECIA-150618-10

Figure 1: Broad-leaved plantation woodland

Figure 2: Area of planted woodland to south of

Existing Plant Site

A second small area of broad-leaved plantation woodland is present on the southern

boundary of the Existing Plant Site (Figure 2). This area is immature and scrubby in the nature. Species recorded within this area include pedunculate oak Quercus robur,

hawthorn, ash Fraxinus excelsior, privet Ligustrum species, holly Ilex aquifolium with

only very limited ground flora including bramble, teasel Dipsacus fullonum and wood

avens Geum urbanum.

A wooded area is also present in the south-east of the Elton Reservoir site which is

dominated by poplar.

The access track into the Existing Plant Site is all bounded by broad-leaved woodland

to the north and south. This habitat was not investigated in detailed as part of the survey

however, species recorded along the boundary of the tracks include sycamore Acer

pseudoplatanus, ash, pedunculate oak and poplar with hawthorn, field maple Acer

campestre, willow Salix species, privet and elder recorded in the understorey.

Scattered Trees

A number of scattered trees are present onsite with planted Poplar species mature

trees located towards the western boundary and mature crack willow Salix fragilis and

ash trees located along the southern boundary of the site.

Dense and Scattered Scrub

Occasional areas of scattered and dense scrub are present within the site which are

dominated bramble with other species in these areas including willow and hawthorn.

Intact Species-Poor Hedgerow

The northern boundary of the Existing Plant Site is formed by a relatively recently

planted hedgerow (Figure 3). The hedgerow is up to two metres in height and subject



ECIA-150618-10

to regular management. Species recorded within the hedgerow include field maple,

hawthorn, ash, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, privet and elder.

Figure 3: Northern boundary hedgerow within

Existing Plant Site

Figure 4: Hedgerow running along access track

Defunct Species-Poor Hedgerow

A hedgerow is also present along the access track into the Existing Plant Site (Figure 4). This hedgerow is manged to two metres in height with occasional gaps and a single mature ash present. Species recorded include hawthorn, willow, blackthorn, dog-rose

Rosa canina bramble and elder.

Improved Grassland

An expanse of improved grassland forms the majority of the Proposed Extension Area

(Figure 5). The grassland is managed and has a sward height of up to 30 centimetres which is understood to be cattle-grazed. Areas of the grassland appear to be inundated

on occasion whilst some areas at the margins of the field are tussocky in nature (Figure 6). Species recorded include perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, meadow grass Poa species, crested dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus, common

nettle, broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, wild thyme Thymus polytrichus, creeping

buttercup Ranunculus repens, daisy Bellis perennis, dandelion, lesser celandine

Ranunculus ficaria, meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris, ground ivy, white clover

Trifolium repens, cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, common chickweed Stellaria

media, dove’s-foot crane’s-bill Geranium mole, common field-speedwell Veronica

persica, and red-dead nettle Lamium purpureum.



ECIA-150618-10

Figure 5: Improved grassland within site

Figure 6: Tussocky improved grassland towards

the woodland

An area of improved grassland is present along the access road between the Existing

Plant Site and the A605 to the east. Species present in this area are typical of the

habitat including perennial rye-grass, cock’s-foot, creeping buttercup, common nettle,

ground ivy and cleavers.

Ephemeral/Short Perennial

An area of ephemeral/short perennial vegetation areas present around the margins of

the Existing Plant Site where the habitat is recolonising (Figure 7) from previously cleared earth. Species recorded in this area include fescues, bristly ox-tongue, teasel,

curled dock Rumex crispus, broad-leaved dock, creeping buttercup, dove’s-foot

crane’s-bill, common nettle, common fleabane, knotgrass Polygonum aviculare and

creeping thistle Cirsium arvense. In areas this habitat is beginning to establish more

grassland habitat with species such as perennial rye-grass, crested dog’s-tail and white

clover.

Figure 7: Margins of the Existing Plant Site

Figure 8: Mosaic of habitats present within the

Elton Reservoir

The southern Elton Reservoir site comprises a mosaic of ruderal and recolonising

habitats (Figure 8) which are interspersed with areas of bare earth. Species present



ECIA-150618-10

include curled dock, teasel, common nettle, hard rush Juncus inflexus, common

fleabane, water mint, knotgrass, scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum inodorum and

creeping jenny Lysimachia nummularia.

Tall Ruderal Vegetation

Areas of tall ruderal vegetation are present set on an existing bund within the Elton

Reservoir site. Species recorded within this habitat included common nettle, bramble,

teasel and common reed Phragmites australis,

Running Water

The River Nene defines the boundaries of the site, flowing from west to east continuing

off site through Peterborough and ultimately into the North Sea at Guy’s Head (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The river forms a boundary between the site and surrounding rural land. The vegetation had been recently cut in areas with species recorded within the

river include sedges Carex species, rushes Juncus species, reedmace Typha species,

water forget-me-not and water mint.

Figure 9: The River Nene located south of the

site

Figure 10: The River Nene at the west of the site

Standing Water

A number of areas of standing water were recorded within the site during the field

survey.

An oxbow lake is located towards the north-eastern boundary of the Proposed

Extension Area which fills from the adjacent River Nene (Figure 11). Marginal vegetation includes water dock Rumex hydrolapathum and water mint.



ECIA-150618-10

Figure 11: Ox bow lake in north-east of

Proposed Extension Area

Figure 12: Pond situated in the south-west of the


Four ponds were identified during the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal within the

Proposed Extension Area which support some limited aquatic vegetation with sedges

and rushes recorded (Figure 12). At the time of survey there were also a number of ephemeral pools which are considered likely to dry out in the summer (Figure 13).

Areas of standing water area also present at the southern end of Elton Reservoir which

falls into the site boundary (Figure 14).

It is also understood that site visits were undertaken by Ingrebourne Valley Ltd’s in-

house ecologist on 12th November 2018 and 25th February 201910. The onsite

waterbodies were inspected on both occasions. Consultation with Ingrebourne Valley

Ltd’s in-house ecologist, identified only two waterbodies as being permanent including

the oxbow lake and the southern pond (Figure 11 and Figure 14). The remainder appear to dry out seasonally, including during Ingrebourne Valley’s site visit in February

2019.

10 Personal communication between ECOSA and Victoria Harris

Figure 13: Ephemeral pool in the centre of the


Figure 14: Areas of standing water forming the

southern part of Elton Reservoir



ECIA-150618-10

The existing settling ponds present within the Existing Plant Site which include areas

of bulrush Typha latifolia, common reed and areas of willow scrub beginning to

establish.

Disturbed Ground

A large proportion of the Existing Plant Site comprises heavily disturbed ground and

shingle from the ongoing operations at the site (Figure 15). Disturbed ground is also present associated within the entrance of the Elton Reservoir site in the east (Figure 16). Occasional ruderal species are beginning to colonise this habitat in areas.

Figure 15: Existing Plant Site

Figure 16: Disturbed ground at entrance to Elton

Reservoir Site

Other Habitats

A ditch which is partly dry runs through the centre of the Proposed Extension Area.

An area of hardstanding is also present forming the access track from the A605 to the

Existing Plant Site and a small prefabricated building is also present in the Existing

Plant Site.

The invasive Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera was recorded along the eastern

boundary of the Proposed Extension Area (Map 2).

4.3.2 Evaluation The habitats within the site comprise common and widespread species. In the context

of the site, the features of relatively greater intrinsic ecological value are the boundary

River Nene and mature scattered trees located towards the southern and western

boundaries of the site. The boundary River Nene is designated as a County Wildlife

Site and is therefore of county value. The mature scattered trees along the southern

and western site boundaries have local value while the rest of the habitats within the

site area are of site value.



ECIA-150618-10

4.4 Bats



A single granted EPSM licence in relation to bats was identified within two kilometres

of the site boundary as part of the MAGIC search undertaken. The licence was granted

in 2013 for the destruction of a resting place of common pipistrelle Pipistrellus

pipistrellus, brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus, whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus,

Brandt’s bat Myotis brandti and Natterer’s bat located approximately 1.4 kilometres

north-east of the site.

A number of records of bats were returned by Northants Bat Group from within a two

kilometre radius of the site as part of the desktop study undertaken with the majority of

records being over ten years old. Records were located within one kilometre grid

squares within the vicinity of the site with species including pipistrelle Pipistrellus

species11, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus,

Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri and brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus.

CPERC and NPERC do not provide any records of bats.


Tree Assessment

A total of three trees within the Proposed Extension Area have been assessed as

having suitability to support roosting bats.

A single crack willow is located along the southern site boundary is assessed as having

high suitability to support roosting bats (Figure 17, TN1). The tree was recorded as supporting a torn limb on the eastern aspect providing potential access points.

A single ash located along the southern site boundary is assessed as having torn limbs

and a downward facing cavity, offering potential bat roosts (Figure 18, TN2). This is tree is assessed as having moderate suitability to support roosting bats.

11 There are three species of pipistrelle bat, the common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, the soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and the Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii. The species can be separated by their echolocations, examination of physical characteristics and Phylogenetic Analysis Identification of bat droppings. Unless confirmation of identification has been made by visual identification the three species shall be referred to in this report as pipistrelle bat. All three species will roost in similar locations within buildings. The soprano pipistrelle has a tendency to form larger roosts numbering 100’s of bats and is associated with wetland habitat. Nathusius’ pipistrelle bats frequently share maternity roosts with soprano pipistrelle bats.



ECIA-150618-10

Figure 17: Willow located along southern site

boundary (TN1)

Figure 18: Ash located along southern site

boundary (TN2)

A mature poplar along the western site boundary with a hollowing rot hole on its eastern

aspect is assessed as having moderate suitability to support tree roosting bats (TN3).

Figure 19: Mature poplar in Elton Reservoir site

(TN4)

A mature poplar was also recorded as supporting snags (Figure 17, TN4) and a broken limb which offer suitable cracks and crevices for roosting bats. This tree has been

assessed as having low suitability to support roosting bats.

The boundary woodland along the access track also contains occasional mature trees

which were not fully assessed as part of the survey, but are likely to support suitable

bat roosting features.



ECIA-150618-10

Foraging and Commuting Habitat

The habitats present along the watercourse which borders the site are considered to

provide high quality habitat for foraging and commuting bats. The woodland plantation

located towards the east of the Proposed Extension Area also provides sheltered

habitat and the woodland boundary provides good linear habitats suitable for foraging

and commuting. Habitats in and surrounding Elton Reservoir also provide high quality

habitat for supporting foraging and commuting bats. The site is also well connected to

other suitable habitat in the surrounds. Overall, the site is assessed as having high

suitability to support foraging and commuting bats.

4.4.2 Evaluation Given that bat emergence / re-entry surveys have not been undertaken on those trees

assessed as having suitability to support roosting bats, it is unknown whether the trees

support bat roosts, and, therefore the value of the trees for roosting bats is not known.

Given that bat activity surveys have not been undertaken at the site, it is unknown as

to what importance the site is for bat species.

4.5 Otter



No granted EPSM licences in relation to otter Lutra lutra were identified within two

kilometres of the site boundary.

A number of records of otter were returned by NBRC as part of the desktop study

undertaken. Five of the records were located within the River Nene immediately

adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site with a further three records further north-

east along the River Nene, approximately 80 metres west of the site. No records of

otter were returned by CPERC.

A previous otter and water vole survey of Elton Reservoir was undertaken (RPS, 2007).

An updating survey was subsequently undertaken in 2013 which identified otter activity

along the River Nene (ECOSA, 2014).


The River Nene offers suitable conditions for otter with well vegetated margins

providing cover for otter and the river itself likely to provide good foraging habitat.

Otter Survey Results

Evidence of otter in the form of spraints, feeding remains, footprints and slides was

recorded along the River Nene. A potential otter holt was recorded on the River Nene



ECIA-150618-10

along the bank situated within the Elton Reservoir site. The surveys identified that otter

are present within the stretch of the River Nene bordering the site. Locations of otter

activity are provided in Map 4.

4.5.2 Evaluation Otters have been confirmed as present along the River Nene. Otter are thought to have

recolonised Northamptonshire from the east since the 1990s and are breeding otter

populations are now becoming more established in the county (Northamptonshire

Biodiversity Partnership, n.d.) Given their confirmed present within the site, the site is

of value at the local level.

4.6 Badger



Consultation with NBRC produced six records of badger Meles meles from within the

desktop study area between 1996 and 2004. These records were located within one

and ten kilometre grid squares within the vicinity of the site. No records of badger were

returned by CPERC.


A total of six outlier badger setts were recorded across the site. An active outlier badger

sett comprising four entrances and an outlier badger sett comprising two entrances

were recorded during the otter and water vole survey undertaken in the Proposed

Extension Area.

Two active outlier setts were also recorded within the Existing Plant Site one comprising

a single active entrance whilst another supported two active entrances. The locations

of the badger setts are provided in a confidential appendix which should not be made

publicly available (see Appendix 4).

The site offers suitable foraging habitat for badger in the form extensive grassland and

areas of plantation woodland. The badger results are provided in a confidential map.

4.6.2 Evaluation Badger are a relatively common and widespread species, which are primarily

considered within this report due to their legal protection. Given that the habitats within

the site are common within the wider area, it is considered that the site is of local value

for badger.



ECIA-150618-10

4.7 Hazel Dormouse



No granted EPSM licences in relation to hazel dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius

were identified within two kilometres of the site boundary.

Consultation with NBRC and CPERC produced no records of hazel dormouse within

the desktop study ar

Documents

ELTON 2, EAGLETHORPE, WARMINGTON ......Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (CIEEM, 2018) and survey work has been undertaken in line with references within