Hurst Lane Ecological Assessment report Hurstwood …1 Executive Summary 1.1.1 Peter Brett Associates LLP was commissioned by Hurstwood Holdings to undertake an Extended Phase 1 Habitat

On behalf of Hurstwood Holdings

Project Ref: 29670| Rev: AA | Date: July 2014

Office Address: 3rd Floor, Waterloo House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B2 5TB T: +44 (0)121 633 2869 F: +44 (0)121 633 2901 E: [email protected]

Hurst Lane, Rawtenstall Ecological Assessment

Ecological Assessment Hurst Lane, Rawtenstall.

J:\29670 Hurst Lane\Report\Ecology report\Hurst Lane Ecological Assessment report_Hurstwood Holdings 141014.docx

ii

Document Control Sheet

Project Name: Hurst Lane

Project Ref: 29670

Report Title: Ecological Assessment

Doc Ref: R01

Date: October 2014

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by: Paul Howden-

Leach Ecologist

pp

14/10/14

Reviewed by: Oliver Barnett Associate Ecologist

pp

14/10/14

Approved by: David Walker LLP Director

14/10/14

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates LLP

Revision Date Description Prepared Reviewed Approved

Peter Brett Associates LLP disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with the appropriate ACE Agreement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates LLP accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 2014



iii

Contents

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

2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Background ........................................................................................... 2

2.2 Aims of the Study .................................................................................. 2

2.3 Site Description ..................................................................................... 2

3 Methods ............................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Desk Study ............................................................................................ 3

3.2 Site Survey ............................................................................................ 3

3.3 Limitations ............................................................................................. 3

4 Results and Interpretation ............................................................................... 5

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................... 5

4.2 Designated Sites ................................................................................... 5

4.3 Habitats ................................................................................................. 5

4.4 Protected Species ................................................................................. 6

5 Legal Framework, Impacts, Mitigation and Recommendations ................... 9

5.1 Context .................................................................................................. 9

5.2 Habitats ................................................................................................. 9

5.3 Protected Species and legislative context ........................................... 10

6 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 13

7 References ...................................................................................................... 14

Figures

Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat Plan

Figure 2: Proposed Development Layout

Appendices

Appendix A: Desk Study Information

Appendix B: Phase 1 Habitat Plan Target Notes

Appendix C: Photographs of the site

Appendix D: Summaries relating to National Planning Policy Framework and Species of Principal Importance



iv



1

1 Executive Summary

1.1.1 Peter Brett Associates LLP was commissioned by Hurstwood Holdings to undertake an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey of land associated with Hurst Lane, Rawtenstall.

1.1.2 The site is located off Hurst Lane, Rawtenstall, at Ordnance Survey grid reference SD816233. The majority of the site is represented by an area of marshy grassland located adjacent to a residential housing estate and an area of immature broadleaved woodland which exists to the north and west of the site.

1.1.3 The area of marshy grassland on site is dominated by rushes and canary reed grass. Other habitats present include an area of semi-improved grassland in the northern extent of the site which appears to be succeeding to rank grassland owing to lack of management. There are also several individual trees including a single large mature ash tree located in the south-east corner of the site.

1.1.4 The site does not fall within a statutory or non- statutory designated site. However, the mature ash tree in the south-eastern corner of the site is considered to be of moderate suitability with regard to roosting bats. Whilst this tree is identified in the current master plan for the site as scheduled for retention, care should be taken to avoid disturbance of any bats that may be roosting within it, both during the initial site clearance phase and the subsequent construction phase. Disturbance perceived by bats may result from artificial lighting, noise or vibration. The areas of wet grassland are likely to be used by small numbers of foraging bats, but none of the features within the site were considered likely to be particularly valuable as commuting routes.

1.1.5 A variety of bird species are likely to use the trees and other habitats on site for nesting. Recommendations have therefore been made for the retention of mature trees and the prior checking of those other trees and habitats which are scheduled for clearance (or otherwise for their removal outside of the bird nesting season).

1.1.6 The presence of reptiles on site cannot be ruled out and measures have been recommended which will allow for the active dispersal, without harm of any individuals which may be present from the construction zone to appropriate adjacent habitats.

1.1.7 Great crested newts are considered likely to be absent from the site and no specific mitigation for this species is considered necessary.

1.1.8 No badger setts or other signs of badger activity were recorded on site during the course of the site survey and, given the general unsuitability of the site for badgers, no specific mitigation for this species is considered necessary.

1.1.9 Recommendations have been made for the retention, enhancement and management of habitats on site which will be of suitability to bats, birds, reptiles, amphibians and badgers, and which will also compensate for the loss of habitats on site to development. These recommendations include the retention (or otherwise recreation), enhancement and management of grassland habitats on site; the retention of mature trees on site; the planting of native broadleaved trees, including fruit bearing species; the planting of species-rich hedgerows; and the incorporation of ecological features, such as bird and bat boxes, within building designs.



2

2 Introduction

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA) was commissioned by Hurstwood Holdings to undertake an Ecological Assessment of land associated with Hurst Lane, Rawtenstall, to inform a full planning application for the development of three residential buildings.

2.2 Aims of the Study

2.2.1 The aims of the study were to assess the conservation value of the site; investigate the likely presence of notable or protected species; identify any features, habitats or species which would constitute potential constraints to the proposals for residential development of this area; and inform recommendations for habitat enhancement and mitigation activities that may be required with regard to valuable habitats and/ or notable or protected species present or potentially present on site.

2.3 Site Description

2.3.1 The site, identified by the red-line boundary on the Phase 1 Habitat Plan (see Figure 1) is located off Hurst Lane, Rawtenstall, at Ordnance Survey grid reference SD 816233. The majority of the site is represented by an area of marshy grassland located adjacent to a residential housing estate which exists to the south of the site. Other habitats recorded at the time of the survey included semi-improved grassland which, owing to a lack of management, was in poor condition and succeeding to rank grassland. There were also a number of scattered broadleaved trees of varying maturity.

2.3.2 The western portion of the survey area, identified by the black-line boundary on the Phase 1 Habitat Plan (see Figure 1), is contiguous with the habitats on site, but lies outside of the proposed development boundary. This area was subject to survey as the presence of notable or protected species within these directly connected habitats would have potential to constitute constraints to the proposals. This area is predominately represented by marshy grassland and tall ruderal habitats, although a small portion of it has been planted out with non-native pines.

2.3.3 Other habitats in the general vicinity of the site include a small parcel of immature broadleaved woodland which is located to the north and west of the site as well as areas of scrub habitat and open arable fields to the north of the site. A footpath used by pedestrians and dog walkers lies adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.



3

3 Methods

3.1 Desk Study

3.1.1 A desktop study was carried out to determine:

The known presence of any protected or notable species or habitats on or within a 2 km radius of the site; and,

The presence of any designated nature conservation areas such as statutory Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or non-statutory Local Wildlife Sites (referred to as either Important Wildlife Sites (IWS) or Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) in Lancashire) on or within a 2 km radius of the site.

3.1.2 Lancashire Environmental Records Network (LERN) was contacted and further information gathered using publically available online resources. In particular, the government’s natural environment geographic information website (www.magic.gov.uk) and the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Gateway (data.nbn.org.uk).

3.2 Site Survey

3.2.1 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey was undertaken within the extent of the survey area as identified by the black line boundary on the Phase 1 Habitat Plan (see Figure 1) on the 14th March 2014, by Paul Howden-Leach MCIEEM of Skyline Ecology, working on behalf of PBA. The weather during the survey was cold, clear and sunny with an approximate temperature of 8 °C. The habitats within the survey area were described with reference to the JNCC Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2010). Target Notes were also recorded for features of notable ecological interest and an assessment was made of the site’s overall potential to support protected species as well as those species and habitats listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, and which continue to be regarded as conservation priorities under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

3.3 Limitations

3.3.1 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 ecological survey has not therefore produced a complete list of plants and animals and the absence of evidence of any particular species should not be taken as conclusive proof that the species is not present or that it will not be present in the future. However, the results of this survey have been sufficient to allow an initial assessment of ecological constraints and opportunities for the site.

3.3.2 Wherever possible, the survey was carried out by accessing and walking through the site. However, it should be noted that the survey was subject to the following limitations:

The caravan present on site was not subject to internal inspection owing to access constraints; and,



4

It is possible that some water bodies exist within the network of residential gardens to the south and west of the site, which were not accessed as part of the survey; however any garden ponds are likely to be small and ornamental in nature (containing fish), and as a consequence, of limited ecological value.



5

4 Results and Interpretation

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 A map provided by LERN, showing the location of non-statutory designated sites within 2 km of the site, is provided in Appendix A. Figure 1 shows the Phase 1 Habitat Survey plan for the survey area. The locations of Target Notes (TNs) referred to are also shown on Figure 1, with Target Note descriptions in Appendix B and site photographs in Appendix C. Where relevant, Target Notes are also referred to in the text below.

4.1.2 The results of the field survey and desk study undertaken are detailed below.

4.2 Designated Sites

4.2.1 No statutory wildlife sites are located within the search area and the proposed development site does not fall within a statutory or non-statutory designated site.

4.2.2 Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) are considered to be the most import non-statutory wildlife sites in Lancashire, and the closest BHS to the proposed development is Crawshaw Hall Wood, an area of plantation woodland important for its breeding birds. This site is located 1.3 km to the northwest of the site.

4.2.3 The closest Important Wildlife Site (IWS) is Lee Clough (Constable Lee Lodge), Constable Lee, which is located over 430 m from the north-west boundary of the site. The IWS is designated for its characteristic ancient wet woodland flora.

4.2.4 Given the distances involved and the small scale nature of the proposals, it is considered unlikely that the proposed residential development will have any adverse impacts on the non-statutory designated sites.

4.3 Habitats

4.3.1 The majority of the site comprised an area of semi-improved marshy grassland, approximately 100 m x 25 m in extent (See Image 2, Appendix C). This habitat was dominated by reed canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea, soft rush, Juncus effusus, hard rush, Juncus inflexus, and pendulus sedge, Carex pundula. Other plant species recorded within this area include tufted hair grass, Deschampsia caespitosa, willow, Salix sp., dock, Rumex sp., and lesser celandine, Ranunculus ficaria.

4.3.2 The northern area of the site was represented by drier semi-improved neutral grassland (see Image 4, Appendix C). This area of habitat appeared to be succeeding, owing to lack of active management on site, to rank grassland.

4.3.3 A number of immature ash, Fraxinus excelsior, trees were recorded within the area of semi-improved neutral grassland, (see Image 5, Appendix C). A large mature ash tree was also recorded in the south-eastern corner of the site, indicated by Target Note 1.

4.3.4 A dilapidated static caravan was located in the north-eastern corner of the site (see Image 7, Appendix C) surrounded by a number of small trees, including ash, apple, malus sp., and leylandii, Cupressocyparis leylandii.



6

4.3.5 A footpath was located along the southern boundary of the site and a small private road bordered the northern boundary. Local homeowners appeared to be using the site as an informal dumping area for garden waste and, likely as a result of this, a number of non-native garden plant species had colonised the proposed development area (see Image 3, Appendix C). These species included garden mint, Mentha sp., daffodil, Narcissus pseudonarcissus, privet, Ligustrum ovalifolium and rosemary, Rosmarinus officinalis. Cotoneaster, Cotoneaster sp, was also recorded in this location. There are five species of cotoneaster which are listed on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 (as amended) owing to their invasive nature, though the species recorded on site does not represent one of these and no other invasive plant species listed on Schedule 9 of the WCA 1981 (as amended) were recorded during the survey.

4.4 Protected Species

4.4.1 The desk study and survey have allowed for the identification of those protected or notable species that have potential to be present on site and which could be affected by the proposed development. A description of the suitability of the site for protected species and any evidence of their presence is set out below.

Bats

4.4.2 LERN holds a small number of bat records for the surrounding area, though none of these relate to the site itself, and the closest records, of common pipistrelle bats, Pipistrellus pipistrellus, relate to locations approximately 500 m north and 700 m south-west of the study site.

4.4.3 A single ash tree, located in the south-east corner of the site was identified as having potential to support roosting bats (Target Note 1 and Image 6, Appendix C). Although no obvious features of high bat roost potential were noted during the ground-based inspection, features of low to moderate potential value were recorded, including several small dead branches and limbs within the tree’s crown. Owing to the size and age of the tree it was assessed as falling within Category 2 of the BCT tree assessment guidance. Category 2 of the BCT guidance defines such trees as having no obvious potential to support bat roosts, though they may be of a size and age that elevated surveys may result in cracks or crevices being found; or they may support some features which have limited potential to support bats. Consequently, it should be noted that features may have developed within the crowns of this and other trees which were not visible from ground level and which would increase their potential in terms of supporting occupied bat roosts.

4.4.4 Due to the potential array of invertebrate prey species which the wet and water logged grassland habitats on site are likely to support, and owing to the proximity of the site to other habitats, including semi-natural broadleaved woodland, scrub and field margins, the site is likely to be used by foraging bats. However, none of the features within the site were considered likely to be particularly valuable for use by commuting bats.

Birds

4.4.5 LERN holds over 184 records of birds from within the desk study search area, the closest record relating to willow warbler recorded approximately 100 m to the east of the site, a species which could also potentially be present on site.



7

4.4.6 No birds were recorded on site during the survey, although much of the site was represented by semi-improved neutral or marshy grassland which are likely to afford foraging opportunities to a variety of species such as pied wagtail, Motacilla alba, and song thrush, Turdus philomelos. The immature ash trees, large mature ash and the leylandii within the site could all be used by nesting birds during the bird breeding season. The value of the site for ground nesting birds was considered to be limited, due to disturbance associated with apparent regular use by dog walkers.

4.4.7 The disused caravan located within the study site was considered to be of limited value to nesting birds and no evidence of nesting activity was recorded in this location at the time of survey.

Reptiles

4.4.8 No evidence of reptiles was recorded on site at the time of the survey, and no records of reptiles were returned by LERN from within the desk study search area. However, owing to the mosaic of semi-improved marshy grassland and semi-improved neutral grassland habitats on site, it was considered that the site had potential to support common species of reptile, although given the limited size and isolated nature of the site, (see Image 9, Appendix C), only low numbers of reptiles are considered likely to be present, if at all.

Amphibians

4.4.9 No records of amphibians were returned by LERN from within the desk study search area and no water bodies were noted during the survey. A review of aerial photography and Ordnance Survey mapping did not identify any garden ponds in the vicinity of the site, although two water bodies were identified within 500 m of the site. One was a small field pond located approximately 370 m to the north of the proposed development site. The other was a larger water body located approximately 450 m to the north-west. Both water bodies were considered sufficiently distant and disconnected from the proposed development site, owing to the presence of roads and a large school development, to reduce the likelihood of amphibians being present on site to negligible. It remains possible that some ponds exist within the network of residential gardens to the south of the site which were not accessed as part of the survey.

4.4.10 Whilst it is possible that breeding great crested newts could be supported by garden ponds which may be present nearby, these are likely to be small and ornamental in nature, containing fish which would render them unsuitable for use by breeding newts. Also, given the considerable distance from the two water bodies identified from Ordnance Survey maps, the barriers to movement and the lack of desk study records, their presence on site is considered unlikely. Nevertheless, some of the wet areas of the site, in particular, the areas of marshy grassland, could be used by common frogs and toads which would be likely to breed in any adjacent garden ponds that may exist.

Badgers

4.4.11 The closest badger record returned by LERN was over 1.5 km to the north-west. The habitats present on site were suitable for use by foraging badgers, and there was low level habitat connectivity with the wider landscape via the network of hedgerows



8

surrounding the adjacent arable fields. However, no evidence of badger activity was recorded during the survey.



9

5 Legal Framework, Impacts, Mitigation and Recommendations

5.1 Context

5.1.1 The presence or potential presence of those habitats and species described in the preceding sections of this report and the legislation and planning policies relating to them make them a material consideration in the planning application for the proposed development. These are discussed below along with recommendations for appropriate mitigation to ensure the proposed development proceeds in compliance with relevant environmental legislation.

5.2 Habitats

5.2.1 The proposed development layout (see Figure 2) will result in loss of the majority of the semi-improved and marshy grassland habitats on site which are considered to be of some local importance for nature conservation. A number of immature trees will also be lost; however, the mature ash tree (Target Note 1) considered to be of particular intrinsic nature conservation value, would be retained.

5.2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages development of land that is not of high environmental value, as is the case here. It also states that local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity where possible when determining planning applications.

5.2.3 Policy 18 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document for Rossendale echoes the objectives guidance set out in the NPPF, stating that the council will seek to avoid any harmful impacts on all aspects of Rossendale’s natural environment, including its biodiversity, priority habitats, species and statutory and locally designated sites. It further states that the council will expect any development proposals to:

Identify, conserve and enhance biodiversity assets, and avoid any negative effects on identified wildlife corridors, ecological networks and habitats – including on previously developed land;

Avoid any loss of trees, woodland, hedgerows and other types of foliage and flora, and ensure that where necessary, developments make provision for new and replacement planting; and,

Take opportunities to create features of biodiversity value including within new developments, where practicable.

5.2.4 Where negative effects on biodiversity are unavoidable, the local council will require

suitable measures to mitigate any negative impacts, or for full compensatory provision to be made where mitigation is not possible.

5.2.5 Development of the site provides an opportunity for ensuring no net loss in biodiversity on site, and potentially net gains, in line with the NPPF (see Appendix D for more information about the NPPF). It also provides opportunities to create features of biodiversity value and conserve biodiversity assets on site, in line with



10

Policy 18 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document for Rossendale. Outline recommendations for the site include the following:

The retention of those mature trees currently present on site and the planting of native broad-leaved tree species to replace those lost to development;

Diversification and enhancement of the habitats currently present on site through the retention and appropriate management of representative areas of existing grassland habitats, potentially along the northern boundary of the site, and the incorporation of additional ecological features such as dead wood piles and lengths of species-rich hedgerow supporting a mix of native species; and,

The use of native species in garden and landscaping design plans for the site.

5.3 Protected Species and legislative context

5.3.1 Recommendations for enhancement and mitigation relevant to particular protected and notable species that may be supported by the habitats present on and around the site are provided below with associated relevant legislation provided for each species.

Bats

5.3.2 All species of bats are afforded legal protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) as amended. They are also afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Taken together, these pieces of legislation make it an offence to deliberately capture or intentionally take, kill or injure a bat; damage or destroy their roost; or intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to their place of shelter. In addition, it is an offence to deliberately disturb any bat which is likely to impair their ability to survive, breed or to nurture their young.

5.3.3 The current masterplan for the proposed development identifies that the large ash tree in the south-eastern corner of the site will be retained. The tree has potential to support roosting bats and as such, care should be taken to avoid disturbing any bats which may be present. Disturbance to bats may result from elevated levels of artificial lighting, noise or vibration. Should any tree surgery/ crown reduction be required to this tree (for health and safety reasons) further surveys may be required to confirm the absence of roosting bats in advance. This is likely to involve a combination of tree climbing inspections and/ or dusk emergence/ dawn re-entry surveys. These surveys will establish use and guide appropriate licensing requirements and associated mitigation measures.

5.3.4 Sensitive and considered development of the site could enhance opportunities for roosting and foraging/ dispersing bats. Bat boxes could be installed on retained trees, and features suitable for roosting bats incorporated into the fabric of new buildings. The planting of species-rich hedgerows supporting a mix of native species around the boundaries of the proposed development site and the retention, or otherwise recreation, and appropriate management of representative areas of existing grassland habitats, potentially along the northern boundary of the site would provide habitat enhancements of benefit to bats. Any grassland recreation should use appropriate, native, species-rich seed mixes which would also support invertebrate assemblages of benefit to foraging bats.



11

Birds

5.3.5 Nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) which makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or take, damage or destroy its nest whilst in use or being built, or take or destroy its eggs. Potential exists for ground nesting birds to be present on site, and hence topsoil stripping as well as the removal of any vegetation on site should be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season which, as a guide, is between the end of February and September inclusive (although dates vary by species and can be affected by seasonal conditions). If this is not possible then vegetation scheduled for removal should be surveyed for evidence of bird-nesting activity by a suitably qualified ecologist no more than 24 hours in advance of clearance. If any nests are identified then these should be left undisturbed until the chicks have fledged and the nest is no longer in use.

5.3.6 If any vegetation removal is undertaken on site during the bird-nesting season, all resultant brash should be removed from the site at the time of clearance to prevent birds from nesting within it.

5.3.7 Where possible, trees on site, particularly mature specimens, should be retained for the ongoing benefit of nesting birds and bird boxes erected on these as well as on the residential properties to be constructed. Replacement species-rich hedgerows and native broadleaved trees should be planted. In addition, residential gardens and green space can provide foraging opportunities for birds if planted appropriately. It is therefore recommended that the garden and landscape design plans for the scheme include native berry producing species which will provide an additional winter food resource for birds.

Reptiles

5.3.8 The proposals will result in the loss of an area of grassland which could support low numbers of common species of reptiles. Reptiles are afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), against intentional killing and injury. It would therefore be appropriate to undertake vegetation clearance in a sensitive manner to avoid their incidental mortality. Given that the habitats immediately adjacent to the west of the site are contiguous, and similar in nature to those within the development site boundary, it is recommended that a phased approach is taken to vegetation clearance, to displace any reptiles which may be present into suitable adjacent habitat. This should be undertaken during the reptile active season (i.e. between April and September, inclusive), and should involve strimming vegetation initially to a height of 15 cm and then to ground level over two days.

5.3.9 Consideration should be given to the creation of deadwood piles/ refuges within the retained habitats on site, which would be of value to reptile species. This would be in accordance with Section 40 of the NERC Act (see Appendix D).

Amphibians

5.3.10 Great crested newts are afforded legal protection under Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). They are also afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). However, given that great crested newts are considered likely to be absent from the site (see Section 4.4), no specific mitigation for this species is considered necessary.



12

5.3.11 Consideration should be given to the creation of deadwood piles/ refuges within the retained/ enhanced habitats on site, which would be of value to common species of amphibians. This would be in accordance with Section 40 of the NERC Act (see Appendix D).

Badgers

5.3.12 The Protection of Badgers Act (1992) makes it illegal to wilfully kill, injure or take any badger, or attempt to do so. It also makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any part of a badger sett.

5.3.13 Given the wet and water logged nature of much of the site and the lack of hedgerows, woodlands and embankments, it is considered extremely unlikely that badgers would dig new setts and occupy the site in the intervening period between the survey and development. Consequently, no specific mitigation for this species is considered necessary. However, potential site enhancements with regard to badgers include the planting of species-rich hedgerows, the planting of native, fruit bearing trees and the retention, or otherwise re-creation, and appropriate management of representative areas of grassland on site.



13

6 Conclusions

6.1.1 Full account has been taken of relevant biodiversity policy and legislation in order to complete the assessment, and an Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey has been undertaken to identify the habitats present on site and their potential to support protected or notable species. This has identified the potential presence of roosting bats, breeding birds and common reptiles on site and appropriate approaches have been recommended for addressing these constraints. Similarly, recommendations have been made for the retention, replacement and enhancement of habitats on site such that the development would create features of biodiversity value and conserve biodiversity assets on site, in line with Policy 18 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document for Rossendale, and result in no net loss in biodiversity on site, and potentially net gains in biodiversity, in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF.



14

7 References

i. JNCC, 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Peterborough (see

section 3.2.1 of this report)

ii. Hundt, L. et al., 2012 Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd edition. Bat Conservation Trust. (See section 4.4.3 and Appendix B of this report)


Figures

Figure 1: Phase 1 Habitat plan

Px

Fe

Fe

Ap

Sx

Fe

Md

Fe

© 2014 Google, © 2014 Infoterra Ltd & Bluesky, Image © 2014 Getmapping plc

Figure 1 - Phase 1 Habitat Plan

Job Name: Hurst Lane

Job No: 29670

Date: 04 June 2014 Prepared By: NB

Px

Fe

Ap

Md Sx

Pinus sp. tree Fraxinus excelsior tree Acer pseudoplatanus tree Malus sp. tree Salix sp. tree

SI

SI

NOT DRAWN TO SCALE

Target Note 1

TN01

Surveyed Area

local authority owned land outside of the proposed development site


Figure 2: Proposed Development Layout


Appendix A: Desk Study Information

Statutory & non-statutory designated sites within a 2 km radius of the proposed development site.

Please note that LERN has provided almost 5,000 records for the requested search area, and as such this information has not been included in full in this report, but can be obtained upon request.


Appendix B: Phase 1 Habitat Plan Target Notes

Target Note 1: Single ash tree located in the south-east corner of the site (see Image 6 in Appendix C). The tree has some limited potential for roosting bats. The tree has been categorised as a Category 2 tree, according to the Bat Conservation Trust guidance. The tree also has some potential to support nesting birds, although no nests were recorded during the survey.


Appendix C: Photographs of the site

Image 1: Study site looking east

Image 2: Area of marshy grassland

Image 3: Example of non-native species (cotoneaster)

Image 4: Area of semi-improved grassland


Image 5: Row of immature ash trees

Image 6: Mature ash tree (Target Note 1)

Image 7: Disused static caravan

Image 8: Area of tall ruderal habitat within the survey area to the west of the site


Image 9: Image showing the limited extent of the site, the footpath, neighbouring houses and roads. Image taken from the south west corner of the site


Appendix D: Summaries relating to National Planning Policy Framework, Species of Principal Importance and Biodiversity Framework

National Planning Policy Framework

The government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27th March 2012. The NPPF states that, “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

a. Protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

b. Recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

c. Minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, where possible contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

d. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

e. Remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.”

The NPPF also states that “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

a. If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

b. Proposed development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest likely to have an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Where an adverse effect on the site’s notified special interest features is likely, an exception should only be made where the benefits of the development, at this site clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have 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;

c. Development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;


d. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;

e. Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss; and

f. The following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites:

g. potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and

h. sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.”

Species of Principal Importance

Planning authorities have a duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 to ensure that species of principal importance are protected from the adverse effects of development, where appropriate, by using planning conditions or obligations. They should also refuse permission where harm to the species or their habitats would result unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly outweigh that harm. Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 required a list to be prepared of those habitats and species of principal importance. Under the NPPF, local authorities are instructed to take measures to protect the habitats and species referred to by Section 40 from further decline through policies in local development documents.

UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework

The UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework succeeds the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and 'Conserving Biodiversity - the UK Approach'. The Framework continues the conservation work initiated by the UK BAP following the establishment of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992. The purpose of the Biodiversity Framework is to set a broad enabling structure for conservation action across the UK until 2020, in summary:

To set out a shared vision and priorities for UK-scale activities, in a framework jointly owned by the four countries, and to which their own strategies will contribute.

To identify priority work at a UK level which will be needed to help deliver biodiversity targets and the EU Biodiversity Strategy.

To facilitate the aggregation and collation of information on activity and outcomes across all countries of the UK, where the four countries agree this will bring benefits compared to individual country work.

To streamline governance arrangements for UK-scale activity.


Many of the tools developed under UK BAP remain of use, for example, background information about the lists of priority habitats and species and the plans for the priority species and habitats agreed under UK BAP still form the basis of the Framework.

There are no priority habitats covered by the UK Biodiversity Framework which occur within the site.

Priority species that are considered to be relevant, or potentially relevant, to the site include:

Song thrush

Dunnock

Hedgehog

Documents

Hurst Lane Ecological Assessment report Hurstwood …1 Executive Summary 1.1.1 Peter Brett Associates LLP was commissioned by Hurstwood Holdings to undertake an Extended Phase 1 Habitat