NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD€¦ · of Northampton. This will involve the construction of a brand-new dual carriageway from A5199 Welford Road to A428 Harlestone Road, which

NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-RP-LE-00004DECEMBER 2018 INTERNAL

Northamptonshire County Council

NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WESTRELIEF ROADProtected Species Survey Report - Great CrestedNewt


NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROADProtected Species Survey Report - Great Crested Newt

REPORT (V 1.0) INTERNAL

PROJECT NO. 70045931

OUR REF. NO. NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-RP-LE-00004

DATE: DECEMBER 2018


NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROADProtected Species Survey Report - Great Crested Newt

WSP

The Mailbox100 Wharfside StreetBirminghamB1 1RT

Phone: +44 121 352 4700

WSP.com

NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD WSPProject No.: 70045931 | Our Ref No.: NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-RP-LE-00004 December 2018Northamptonshire County Council

QUALITY CONTROL

Issue/revision First issue Revision 1 Revision 2

Remarks Draft

Date 07/12/2018

Prepared by Richard Erskine

Signature

Checked by Peter Bonney

Signature

Authorised by Paul Hill

Signature

Project number 70045931

Report number NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-RP-LE-00004

File reference \\uk.wspgroup.com\CentralData\Projects\700459xx\70045931 -KIERWSPNCCNSEC1819 -Northampton North-West ReliefRoad\02 WIP\EC Ecology


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND 1

1.2. ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 1

1.3. BRIEF AND OBJECTIVES 2

2. METHODS 3

2.1. OVERVIEW 3

2.2. HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) ASSESSMENT 3

2.3. PRESENCE / LIKELY ABSENCE SURVEY 3

2.4. DATES OF SURVEY AND PERSONNEL 4

2.5. BIOSECURITY MEASURES 5

2.6. EVALUATION 5

2.7. NOTES AND LIMITATIONS 5

3. RESULTS AND EVALUATION 7

3.1. OVERVIEW 7

3.2. HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT (HSI) 7

3.3. PRESENCE / LIKELY ABSENCE SURVEY AND POPULATION SIZE CLASSASSESSMENT 8

3.4. EVALUATION OF THE SITE FOR GREAT CRESTED NEWTS 8

4. IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT 9

4.1. OVERVIEW 9

4.2. LEGAL COMPLIANCE 9

4.3. PLANNING POLICY COMPLIANCE 10

5. RECOMMENDATIONS 11

WSP NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROADDecember 2018 Project No.: 70045931 | Our Ref No.: NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-RP-LE-00004


5.1. AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES 11

5.2. ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT MEASURES 11

6. CONCLUSIONS 12

7. REFERENCES 13

7.1. PROJECT REFERENCES 13

7.2. TECHNICAL REFERENCES 13

8. FIGURES 14

TABLESTable 1 - Survey Dates and Personnel 4

Table 2 - Summary of HSI Results 7

FIGURESFigure 1 - Site Location Plan 14

Figure 2 - Route Options and Area of Impact 16

Figure 3 - Pond HSI Survey Results 18

Figure 4 - GCN Presence/ Absence Survey Results 20

APPENDICES- IMAGES

- HSI CALCULATIONS

- PRESENCE / LIKELY ABSENCE SURVEY RESULTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WSP UK Ltd (‘WSP’) was commissioned by Northamptonshire County Council to undertake surveysfor great crested newts (GCN) Triturus cristatus in relation to the proposed construction of a newrelief road. This will involve the construction of a brand-new dual carriageway from A5199 WelfordRoad to A428 Harlestone Road which will cover approximately 10.6ha of currently undevelopedland, hereafter referred to as the ‘Proposed Scheme’, on the outskirts of Northampton. The red lineroute of the Proposed Scheme, hereafter referred to as the ‘Site’, runs from Ordnance Survey (OS)Grid Reference: SP 73306 65531 to OS Grid Reference: SP 72901 63895.

The GCN surveys comprised habitat suitability index (HSI) assessments of all suitable andaccessible waterbodies within the Site and within a 500m buffer of the Site, hereafter referred to asthe ‘Survey Area’ to determine their suitability to support GCN; followed by presence/likely absencesurveys of all waterbodies found to be suitable for this species.

The purpose of the surveys was to determine the presence/ likely absence of GCN on or within500m of the Site and, if present, to determine the likely impact on GCN populations from theProposed Scheme. A desk study and biological data search was carried out in 2017 as part of aPreliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) of the Site (WSP 2017). No records of GCN within 2km ofthe Site were returned in this desk study.

A total of 15 waterbodies were identified within 500m of the Site. Following HSI assessment 13water bodies were identified as requiring additional presence/absence surveys for GCN. No GCNwere found during the subsequent surveys and are presumed likely absent from the Site andsurrounding wider survey area, therefore there are no implications with regards to the ProposedScheme and impacts in relation to GCN.

However, other amphibian species were recorded, in particular common toad Bufo bufo andrecommendations for the protection of these species are given within Section 5 of this report.

Contact: (+44) 121 352 4700

NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD WSPProject No.: 70045931 | Our Ref No.: NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-RP-LE-00004 December 2018Northamptonshire County Council Page 1 of 22

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. PROJECT BACKGROUND1.1.1. WSP UK Ltd (‘WSP’) was commissioned by Northamptonshire County Council in April 2018 to carry

out great crested newt (GCN) surveys regarding the proposed construction of a new relief road tothe north-west of the town of Northampton. The red line route of the road, hereafter referred to asthe ‘Site’, is approximately 2.1km in length and runs through an area of countryside on the outskirtsof Northampton. This will involve the construction of a brand-new dual carriageway from A5199Welford Road to A428 Harlestone Road, which will cover approximately 10.6ha of currentlyundeveloped land, hereafter referred to as the ‘Proposed Scheme’.

1.1.2. This report will be used to inform the ecology chapter of the Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) for the Proposed Scheme that is to be submitted in March 2019.

1.1.3. The original red line route of route ‘Option 1’ extended the full length of the Proposed Scheme fromA5199 Welford Road at its northern end to A428 at its southern end. A preliminary ecologicalappraisal (PEA) of this route was carried out in 2017 (WSP, 2017). Since the time of this survey, theportion of the red line route south of Dallington Grange Farm is no longer within the scope of worksto be covered by WSP. The red line route of Option 1 between A5199 Welford Road and DallingtonGrange Farm, approximately 2.1km in length, was used as the basis for the survey effort for theGCN surveys and is hereafter referred to as the ‘Site’. A location plan of the Site is given in Figure 1.

1.1.4. The Site is situated to the north-west of the town of Northampton. It is surrounded by a mixture ofsemi-improved grassland, pasture land and arable farmland. To the east of the Site lies an urbanhousing estate and arable farmland forming the northern outskirts of Northampton, whilst to the westlie a mixture of mixed woodland and amenity grassland forming the Brampton Heath Golf Centreand Northamptonshire County Golf Club. The Site runs from A5199 Welford Road at its mostnorthern point, south parallel to the River Nene for much of its length crossing the West Coast MainLine railway (Rugby to Northampton branch) and turning west towards at its southern extent.

1.1.5. The current preferred route option, ‘Option 11’ (updated 2018), is expected to have direct impactsupon the River Nene in the form of construction of a new bridge. This preferred route option wasupdated after the completion of the otter and water vole survey and therefore updatedrecommendations have been made in Section 5 with regards to the updated information. TheProposed Scheme will also encompass the surrounding land to be used for flood mitigation and ishereafter referred to as the ‘Area of Impact’. An overlay showing the Site in comparison to thefootprint of route Option 11 and the extent of the required land for flood mitigation (Area of Impact) isgiven in Figure 2.

1.2. ECOLOGICAL BACKGROUND1.2.1. A preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) of the Site, including an extended Phase 1 habitat survey

and desktop study, was carried out in July 2017 (WSP, 2017). The area covered by this PEAincluded the redline route of route Option 1, the preferred route option at the time of the PEA, as wellas habitats within a 50m buffer of this option (WSP, 2017). At the time of the PEA the Site extendedSouth, beyond Dallington Grange Farm through areas of arable farmland and woodland untilmeeting the A428 Harlestone Road. Since then, this part of the Proposed Scheme is no longerwithin the scope of works to be carried out by WSP and is part of a separate application known as

WSP NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROADDecember 2018 Project No.: 70045931 | Our Ref No.: NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-RP-LE-00004Page 2 of 22 Northamptonshire County Council

the ‘Dallington Grange Kings Heath Residential Development’. This revised route was used as thebasis for the survey effort for the GCN surveys.

1.2.2. Habitats of ecological value identified within the PEA included: broad-leaved semi-natural andplantation woodland, scattered trees and scrub, semi-improved and improved grassland, tallruderals, arable farm, amenity grassland, hedgerows and dry ditches; as well as a number of watercourses including the River Nene, Brampton Brook and agricultural drains and ditches (WSP, 2017).

1.2.3. A single pond was identified within the area surveyed during the PEA. A review of aerial imagery ofthe Site and land within a 500m buffer of the Site hereafter referred to as the ‘Survey Area’, revealedan additional fourteen water bodies, all of which were deemed potentially suitable to support GCN.These water bodies included a mixture of drains, ditches and ponds.

1.2.4. In addition, suitable terrestrial habitat for GCN was also identified within the Survey Area, includingrough grassland and scrub for foraging and opportunities for refuge, as well as potential commutingroutes along features such as hedgerows and ditches.

1.2.5. The background data search (BDS) for records of amphibians within 2km of the Site was alsoconducted as part of the PEA. This returned a single record for amphibians. This was a record ofcommon toad and no records of GCN were returned.

1.3. BRIEF AND OBJECTIVES1.3.1. Northamptonshire County Council commissioned WSP UK Ltd to complete great crested newt

surveys of waterbodies on and within 500m of the Site in April 2018. The brief was:

§ Complete a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of water bodies on the Site and within500m of the Site boundary to assess their suitability for GCN;

§ Complete GCN surveys, consisting of presence/absence surveys and population estimatesurveys (where relevant) of all waterbodies identified as suitable for GCN to determine thepresence/likely absence of GCN on Site; and survey to determine the presence or likely absenceof this species from water bodies providing suitable habitat on the Site and within 500m of theSite;

§ Where present, evaluate the value of the Site for great crested newts and makerecommendations as to how proposals should account for great crested newts in relation torelevant legislation and planning policy.

1.3.2. The results of this survey, and subsequent recommendations, are included within this report.


2. METHODS

2.1. OVERVIEWHabitat Suitability Index (HSI) and GCN presence/absence surveys followed relevant good practiceguidelines (ARG UK, 2010 & English Nature, 2001 respectively).

2.2. HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX (HSI) ASSESSMENT2.2.1. All waterbodies within 500 m of the Site were assessed for their suitability to support great crested

newts using the standard HSI assessment method (ARG UK, 2010, based on Oldham et al. (2000)).Water bodies were identified using 1:25,000 OS mapping; this was also cross referenced againstaerial photography. Water bodies were assessed and scored on ten key variables which are knownto influence breeding populations of great crested newts, in accordance with standard methods(ARG UK, 2010). These variables are:

§ Geographic location;§ Water body area;§ Water body permanence;§ Water quality;§ Water body shading;§ Impact of waterfowl;§ Fish stocks;§ Number of water bodies within 1km;§ Terrestrial habitat around the water body; and§ Macrophyte cover of the water body.

2.2.2. Scores for each of the above variables were used to calculate an overall HSI value for each waterbody. This was then cross referenced with the guidelines (ARG, 2010) to assign the waterbody toone of five categories, poor, below average, average, good or excellent.

2.3. PRESENCE / LIKELY ABSENCE SURVEY2.3.1. All water bodies suitable for GCN, following the HSI assessments, to which access was possible,

were subject to further surveys to determine the presence or likely absence for GCN.

2.3.2. The surveys comprised four visits to each water body, spread across the recommended surveyperiod (mid-March to mid-June, with at least two of the visits falling between mid-April and mid-May).Survey visits were completed under suitable weather conditions, when overnight temperatures wereabove 5°C and wind and rain were not sufficient to affect the torchlight survey results (throughdisturbance to the water surface).

2.3.3. At least three survey techniques were used during each survey visit to search for the presence ofgreat crested newts in line with good practice (English Nature, 2001); these included:

§ Torchlight searching – systematic search for amphibians within waterbodies at least 60 minsafter sunset using a high-powered torch; all amphibians observed were recorded. The duration ofthe torchlight survey was determined by the time taken to walk slowly around the water bodyperimeter


§ Bottle-trapping – Bottle traps are set in accordance with standard guidance (JNCC, 1998) at aratio of every 2m of water body perimeter with a maximum of 50 per water body. Traps were setprior to dusk, and checked and removed the following morning;

§ Egg searching – water body was searched for GCN eggs on submerged or floating vegetation.The duration of the egg search is either the amount of time required to search thoroughly allvegetation present, or a maximum of 15 minutes per survey visit1;

§ Netting – a net was used to sample each water body at regular intervals (approximately every 2m for 5 minutes duration) around the water body perimeter.

§ Dewsbury box-traps – Dewsbury box-traps consist of a weighted box with a one-way entranceattached to a 20-litre bag with an airhole at the top allowing continuous free flow of air into thetrap. A single trap is deployed in the pond, whilst the weighted section fills with water the baginflates and the one-way entrance allows newts to enter the trap but prevents them from leaving.Dewsbury box-traps can only be deployed by a surveyor who holds a licence for their use. Theresults of surveys conducted with Dewsbury traps are not consistent with those done usingtraditional bottle traps. As a result, although Dewsbury traps can be used to deterime thepresence or likely absence of GCN they cannot be used to carry out population estimate studies.

§ Refugia search – suitable terrestrial habitat was searched, where present around thewaterbodies, for potentially sheltering GCN. Where the use of one of the above techniques wasnot possible or the effectiveness of a technique was impaired by the conditions of a waterbody,refugia searching was used as an additional method.

2.4. DATES OF SURVEY AND PERSONNEL2.4.1. The dates for the survey visits are summarised in Table 1 beneath and are fully listed in Appendix C

Table 1 - Survey Dates and Personnel

HSI assessment Presence/ absence surveys Population estimate surveys

Personnel: Consultant and Assistant Ecologists

Date 12/04/2018 &17/04/2018

18/04/201825/04/201802/05/201803/05/201808/05/201809/05/201810/05/201830/05/201831/05/2018

N/A

1 Once a great crested newt egg had been recorded, no egg searching occurred on subsequent visits to avoid unnecessary uncovering of eggs which wouldthen be at an increased risk of predation.


14/06/2018

2.4.2. The lead surveyor had 4 years of experience of surveying great crested newts and holds a NaturalEngland survey licence for this species (2016-23202-CLS_CLS). The deployment of the Dewsburybox-trap was undertaken by NE licensed surveyor (NE license number: 2018-34368-SCI-SCI).

2.5. BIOSECURITY MEASURES2.5.1. No invasive non-native species were recorded within the water bodies surveyed for GCN. However,

Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera and New Zealand pygmyweed Crassula helmsii wererecorded in the area surrounding the Survey Site, therefore biosecurity measures were taken toreduce further contamination of habitat.

2.5.2. Surveyors ensured that footwear was rinsed in Virkon™ to minimise spread of New Zealandpygmyweed.

2.5.3. Cross contamination of water from each water body was avoided by using different sampling bottlesfor each water body.

2.6. EVALUATION2.6.1. The value of the Site for GCN was evaluated using the CIEEM guidance (CIEEM, 2016). This

guidance recommends that valuation of site importance is made with reference to a geographicalframework, e.g. a site is of local, regional, national value etc. To inform the assessment in this reportthe population size class assessment (and peak counts of adults) were considered in the context ofthe distribution and abundance of this species locally and nationally, the quality of aquatic andterrestrial habitat present, and the abundance of this species on other sites.

2.7. NOTES AND LIMITATIONS2.7.1. The index calculation used in the HSI assessment method is not a failsafe method of identifying

whether a water body supports great crested newts or not; therefore, professional judgement andavailability of records of great crested newt in the locality has also been used to inform therequirement for further survey.

2.7.2. The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment technique was designed to assess the suitability ofponds to support populations of great crested newts only. Although great crested newts can occupyother water bodies such as ditches and drains, no equivalent method to determine the suitability ofsuch water bodies exists. For the purposes of this survey, the HSI assessment methodology wasapplied to any ditches that were assessed.

2.7.3. Access to water body 5 was restricted due to health and safety issues (cattle in the fields associatedwith the pond) and was only accessed when either the cattle were not present or when bothecologists were comfortable proceeding with the survey, in addition access to water body 14 wasalso restricted due to the presence of cattle and no surveys of this pond could be carried out afterthe first presence/likely absence survey.

2.7.4. Access to water body 3 was also restricted. The fence bordering the pond was electrified and,although was not switched on, resulted in problems with access due to the nature and position of thefence.


2.7.5. Water body 6 dried up before all surveys were completed and could not be surveyed using any ofthe recommended techniques. Water body 12 had completely dried up at the time of survey and wastherefore not considered for further consideration.

2.7.6. A water shrew Neomys fodiens was recorded in the final survey of water body 11. Bottle trappingshould not be used where the presence of water shrews has been confirmed. However, as the watershrew was discovered in the final survey, this is not considered a limitation on the survey effort.

2.7.7. Water body 9 was surveyed with the use of a Dewsbury trap. The results of surveys conducted withDewsbury traps are not consistent with those done using traditional bottle traps. As a result,although Dewsbury traps can be used to deterime the presence or likely absence of GCN theycannot be used to carry out population estimate studies.

2.7.8. Finally, Water bodies 9 and 10; within the golf course were lined and bottle trapping was thereforenot possible. In view of this limitation, a Dewsbury box-trap was used to survey water body 9 only asthis pond was considered more suitable for GCN. The use of a Dewsbury box-trap was combinedwith torching, egg searches or netting techniques. Water body 10 was surveyed using torching,netting and a mixture of egg searches and refugia searches.


3. RESULTS AND EVALUATION

3.1. OVERVIEW3.1.1. Fifteen water bodies were subject to HSI assessments to determine their suitability to support GCN.

3.1.2. The presence of GCN was not recorded within any of the waterbodies surveyed in any of thepresence/absence surveys and are therefore considered likely absent from the Site.

3.1.3. Other amphibian species recorded during the surveys included smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris,common frog Rana temporaria and common toad Bufo bufo.

3.1.4. In addition, the invasive non-native plants species Himalayan balsam and New Zealand pygmyweedwere recorded in the area surrounding the Survey Area. Their locations are given in Figure 3.

3.1.5. A water shrew was recorded during the final presence/absence survey in water body 11.

3.2. HABITAT SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT (HSI)3.2.1. A summary of the HSI results and location information for the waterbodies is included in Table 2.

Water body numbers correspond to those in Figure 2, with photographs of each water body inAppendix A. The HSI calculation is included in Appendix B.

3.2.2. Following the HSI surveys, thirteen water bodies were subject to presence/ absence surveys forGCN. Water body 4 was scoped out as it was surrounded by sections of the River Nene, forming abarrier to great crested newt migration and isolating it from the Site. Water body 12 was scoped outas it was dry at the time of the HSI assessment.

3.2.3.

Table 2 - Summary of HSI Results

Water bodyRef.

Grid Reference Proximity toSite

HSIScore

HSI Category Photo Ref.

1 SP7201559849 305.8m NE 0.641 average 1

2 SP7387065377 431.07m NE 0.788 good 2

3 SP7378365712 450.86m NE 0.461 poor 3

4 SP7368065802 475.75m N N/A Scoped out. 4

5 SP7355065311 25.50m E 0.74 good 5

6 SP7322764187 37.57m W 0.523 Below average 6

7 SP7337364160 Within the Site 0.642 Average 7

8 SP7362564005 425.03m E 0.78 Good 8

9 SP7318465095 151.56m W 0.733 Good 9

10 SP7303564914 278.31m E 0.73 Good 10


11 SP7315564465 118.58 E 0.791 Good 11

12 SP7318364260 104.60m E N/A Scoped out. 12

13 SP7338264749 99.87m E 0.719 Good 13

14 SP7344964857 90.46m E 0.632 Average 14

15 SP7358264862 239.58m E 0.715 Good 15

3.3. PRESENCE / LIKELY ABSENCE SURVEY AND POPULATION SIZE CLASSASSESSMENT

3.3.1. The survey results identified the likely absence of GCN from the Site; no GCN or signs of theirpresence (i.e. eggs or larvae) were recorded during any of the surveys. The full survey results aregiven in Appendix C.

3.3.2. All surveys were completed under appropriate conditions, with overnight minimum temperaturesranging between 5ºC and 14ºC and pond conditions suitable for methods used to be effective. Fulldetails of weather and pond conditions on each survey visit are included in Appendix D.

3.3.3. Water bodies 3 and 6 dried out after the third survey visit. In addition, the water levels in severalwater bodies across the Survey Area reduced throughout the survey visits indicating likely seasonaldrying.

3.4. EVALUATION OF THE SITE FOR GREAT CRESTED NEWTS3.4.1. Although the Site contains both suitable terrestrial and aquatic habitat for GCN within 500 m of the

Site, no GCN were recorded during any of the surveys. Great crested newts can therefore beconsidered likely absent from the Site and the Proposed Scheme will not affect GCN.


4. IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

4.1. OVERVIEW4.1.1. The survey results indicate that GCN are likely absent from the Site; therefore, there are no known

legal or planning constraints in relation to this species and no recommendations are given within thisreport with regards to this species. However, other amphibians were recorded during the surveysand planning constraints relating to these species are given in Section 4.2 below.

4.1.2. The legislation and national planning policy listed beneath is included for information only.

4.2. LEGAL COMPLIANCEGREAT CRESTED NEWTS

4.2.1. GCN are afforded a high level of protection under the Conservation of Habitats and SpeciesRegulations 2017 (the ‘Habitat Regulations’), the legislation means that it is an offence to:

§ Deliberately capture, injure or kill a wild GCN;§ Deliberately disturb wild great crested newts; ‘disturbance of animals includes in particular any

disturbance which is likely:

(a) to impair their ability —

(i) to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young; or

(ii) in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species, to hibernate or migrate; or

(b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.’

§ Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place used by this species.

4.2.2. Protection is also afforded under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) with respectto disturbance of animals when using places of shelter, and obstruction of access to places ofshelter.

4.2.3. Due to the high level of protection afforded to GCN and their habitat, mitigation for this species isgoverned by a strict licensing procedure administered by Natural England (normally, planningpermission must be obtained before a licence can be sought).

4.2.4. The great crested newt is also listed as a Species of Principal Importance (SPI) for the Conservationof Biodiversity in England in accordance with Section 41 of the Natural Environment and RuralCommunities (NERC) Act 2006. Under Section 40 of the NERC Act (2006) public bodies (includinglocal planning authorities) have a duty to have regard for the conservation of SPI when carrying outtheir functions, including determining planning applications.

OTHER AMPHIBIANS4.2.5. Whilst the smooth newt, palmate newt Lissotriton helveticus and common frog are protected from

sale and trade, these species are not afforded the high level of protection given to the GCN.

4.2.6. The common toad is also protected from sale and trade similar to other common amphibians: it isalso listed as a Species of Principal Importance (SPI) in accordance with Section 41 of the NERCAct 2006; therefore, public bodies, including local planning authorities, have a duty to have regardfor the conservation of this species when carrying out their functions.


4.2.7. The habitats on Site and surrounding the Site are suitable for common toads. Evidence of commontoads breeding, in the form of spawn and tadpoles, was observed in several water bodies surveyed.The life cycles of toads and other amphibians are similar to GCN. Adult toads spend most of theyear on land and return to water annually to breed. Following their spawning, toads then return toforage on land and hibernate over winter. Toads use regular migration routes to travel to and fromtheir foraging habitats to water bodies to allow annual breeding.

4.2.8. The Proposed Scheme is likely to intercept potential toad migration routes, including ditches,hedges and other linear features; in addition to the loss of suitable terrestrial habitat, the ProposedScheme is likely to result in an increase in road traffic mortalities and mortalities from animals fallinginto drains and crossing roads as toads attempt to continue to use their migration routes.

4.3. PLANNING POLICY COMPLIANCE4.3.1. At the national level the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2017) forms the basis for

planning system decisions with respect to conserving and enhancing the natural environment,including great crested newts. The ODPM circular 06/2005 also provides supplementary guidance,including confirmation that ‘the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planningauthority is considering a development proposal’.

4.3.2. The NPPF sets out, amongst other points, how at an overview level the ‘planning system shouldcontribute to and enhance the national and local environment by:

§ …recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; and§ 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 coherentecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures…’

A list of principles which local planning authorities should follow when determining planningapplications is included in the NPPF, and includes the following:

§ ‘- if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided…adequately mitigated, or, as a lastresort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

§ - …opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;§ - planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of

irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland…unless the need for, and benefits of, the developmentin that location clearly outweigh the loss…’

4.3.3. At a local level the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy states ‘biodiversity shall beincorporated into the development process to ensure that the requirements of legislation and policyare met’.

4.3.4. GCN and common toads are also priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP).


5. RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION MEASURES5.1.1. Where possible, the Proposed Scheme should avoid the severance of linear features that are likely

to be used by migrating toads and other amphibians. This can be achieved by methods such asculverting running water ditches/drains. In addition, the provision of amphibian/mammalunderpasses should be incorporated into the design of the scheme at strategic points to allowanimals to pass under the road and avoid attempting to cross the road leading to potential roadtraffic casualties.

5.1.2. The Proposed Scheme should also incorporate the use of wildlife kerbs into roadside drains toensure that amphibians are able to avoid roadside drains whilst attempting to commute acrossroads.

5.2. ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT MEASURES5.2.1. National and local planning policy requires ecological enhancement measures to be designed into

new development schemes. It is recommended, that enhancement measures are incorporated intothe proposals which seek to achieve net gain in habitat available to amphibians on site, and ensurehabitat connectivity with adjacent land.

5.2.2. The following measures are recommended:

§ Creation of suitable habitats such as ponds and wetlands with appropriate roadside planting tocompensate for the loss of suitable habitat and to enhance connectivity

§ Incorporation of animal underpasses into the scheme design; and§ Incorporation of wildlife kerbs.


6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1.1. Great crested newts were not recorded in any of the presence/ absence surveys and as a result areconsidered likely absent from the Site. As a result, the Proposed Scheme is not anticipated to affectGCN.

6.1.2. Other amphibians including smooth newts, common frogs and common toads were recorded duringthe surveys. The Proposed Scheme has the potential to impact upon common toad migration routesand avoidance and ecological enhancement methods as detailed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of thisreport.

6.1.3. The invasive non-native plant species Himalayan balsam and New Zealand pygmy weed wererecorded in the wider area surrounding the Site. A summary of all invasive non-native speciesidentified on site is provided in the invasive non-native species constraints plan (WSP, 2018).

6.1.4. A water shrew was recorded in one of the water bodies during the presence/ likely absence surveys.Any landscaping of the Proposed Scheme that is completed as part of the amphibian mitigationstrategy, will also benefit water shrew.


7. REFERENCES

7.1. PROJECT REFERENCES§ WSP (2017). 70032086 Northampton North West Relief Road Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.§ WSP (2018). NWRR-WSP-EBD-0000-DR-LE-00002. Northampton North-West Relief Road.

Invasive Non-native Species Constraints Plan.

7.2. TECHNICAL REFERENCES§ Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom (ARG UK) (2010) ARG UK Advice Note 5:

Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. ARG UK, UK§ CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom and Ireland,

Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal.§ Department for Communities and Local Government (2017), National Planning Policy

Framework. Department for Communities and Local Government, London.§ English Nature (2001). Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough.§ Gent, A and Gibson, S. (1998) Herpetofauna Workers Manual, Joint Nature Conservation

Committee, Peterborough.§ Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO) (1981). Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended by the

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000)§ HMSO (2017) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.§ HMSO (2006) Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act.§ Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2005). Government Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity

and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impacts within the PlanningSystem.

§ Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S., and Jeffcote M. (2000) Evaluating the suitability of habitatfor the great crested newt. Herpetological Journal 10: 143-155

§ UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species List. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5717.Accessed 02.08.2018.


8. FIGURES

Figure 1 - Site Location Plan


Figure 2 - Route Options and Area of Impact


Figure 3 - Pond HSI Survey Results


Figure 4 - GCN Presence/ Absence Survey Results

IMAGES



Table 3 - PhotographsFF

WaterbodyRef.

Image Description / Comment

1 Small Wildlife Pond within NCC wildlifesite. Pond 100% shaded by trees.Deemed too shallow to trap.

2 Large pond built on the edge of semiimproved grassland/ wildlife site.Limited macrophyte cover butduckweed present


3 Field ditch which has been infilled atwestern end to create standing water.On edge of wildlife site and horsepaddock.

4 Large engineered ornamental lakeconnected to river Nene at 2 points.Large fish populations and predatorybirds including heron, cormorant, egretand kingfisher. No further surveysrequired.



5 One pond in a cluster of 3 ponds allinter-connected to tributary to riverNene, creating mixture of runningwater ditches and standing water.Picture shows only one of the three.

6 Small area of standing water in ditchconnected to tributary to river Nene.Woodland of golf course on westernside,

7 Field ditch/ drain with slight water flowfrom west to east. Areas of standingwater suitable for trapping.


8 Field ditch forming tributary to RiverNene. Well vegetated with areas ofstanding water suitable for greatcrested newts

9 Recently dug pond; approximately 2years old in golf course. No vegetationor shade. It has a geotextile lining andthe banks are graded with no raisedbank.

10 New pond, less than 1 year old in golfcourse. No vegetation or shade.



11 Large pond on golf course with islandin centre. Canada Goose present withpotential to support fish populations.Newts confirmed although species notknown before surveys.

12 Ditch/ Drain which has partially driedout. No further surveys were requiredas not suitable.

13 River meander which has formed anarea of standing water. Heavilyshaded by willow and aquaticvegetation.


14 River meander, which has formed anarea of standing water. Heavilyshaded and grown over by trees.

15 Ditch/ collection of flood wateralongside of field. Heavily vegetatedwith bur reed species and willow herb.

HSI CALCULATIONS



Table 4 - HSI Calculations

WaterbodyRef.

S1:G

eogr

aphi

clo

catio

n

S2:W

ater

body

area

S3:W

ater

body

perm

anen

ce

S4:W

ater

qual

ity

S5:%

Shad

e(1

mfr

omba

nk)

S6:I

mpa

ctof

wat

erfo

wl

S7:F

ish

stoc

ks

S8:N

umbe

rofw

ater

bodi

es<1

km

S9:T

erre

stria

lhab

itat

S10:

Mac

roph

yte

cove

r(%

cove

r)

HSI

SCO

RE

HSI

CA

TEG

OR

Y

1 A 75m2 Rare Good 90 Abs Abs 3 good 0.0% 0.641 Average

2 A 525m2 Never Moderate 0 Minor Abs 3 Good 5 0.788 Good

3 A 25m2 Sometimes Moderate 100 abs Abs 3 mod 0 0.461 Poor

4 A 1700m2 Never Moderate 0 Major Major 3 Mod 0 0.32 Poor

5 A 1100m2 never Good 30 minor Possible 3 good 0 0.74 Good

6 A 45m2 sometimes Good 100 Absent Possible 7 Good 0 0.523 BelowAverage

7 A 300m2 Sometimes Good 100 Absent Possible 7 Moderate 5 0.642 Average

8 A 1000m2 sometimes Good 100 Minor Possible 6 Moderate 40 0.78 Good

9 A 216m2 Never Good 0 Minor Absent 7 Moderate 0 0.733 Good

10 A 200m2 Never Good 0 Minor Absent 8 Moderate 0 0.73 Good

11 A 740m2 Never Good 30 Minor Possible 8 Moderate 10 0.791 Good

12 A 44m2 Annually Good 20 Minor Possible 8 Moderate 30 0.519 BelowAverage

13 A 215m2 Never Good 80 Minor Possible 8 Good 10 0.719 Good

14 A 138m2 Never Moderate 90 Minor Possible 3 Moderate 5 0.632 Average

15 A 50m2 Sometimes Good 30 Absent Absent 3 Moderate 80 0.715 Good

PRESENCE / LIKELY ABSENCESURVEY RESULTS



Table 5 – Water body 1 Survey Results

Pond Reference 1

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount

GCN Eggsor Larvaepresent

AirTemperature(oC)

VegetationCover (0-5)

Turbidity (0-5)

OtherAmphibiansRecorded

GCNPopulationSize Class

18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 3 0 SmoothNewt

02/05/2018 No 0 No 5 3 1 SmoothNewt


30/05/2018 No 0 No 13 4 1 SmoothNewt


Pond Reference 2

Date GCNdetected

Peakadultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 4 0 Smooth Newtand Toad

02/05/2018 No 0 No 7 4 0 Toad(tadpole),Smooth Newt

09/05/2018 No 0 No 8 5 1 Smooth Newt

30/05/2018 No 0 No 13 5 1 Smooth Newt/Palmate

Pond Reference 3 Dried out after third survey

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 2 0 N/a

02/05/2018 No 0 No 7 1 0 n/a

09/05/2018 No 0 No 8 5 2 n/a

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



Pond Reference 4 No Surveys; Scoped out

Date GCNdetected

Peakadultcount


Air Temperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)







Pond Reference 5

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



25/04/2018 No 0 No 6.8 3 2 SmoothNewt

02/05/2018 No 0 No 5 3 3 n/a

30/05/2018 No 0 No 14 4 4 Toad tadpole

14/06/2018 No 0 No 11 4 3 Toad tadpole


Pond Reference 6

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 0 0 N/a

03/05/2018 No 0 No 7 1 0 N/a

09/05/2018(dry)

N/a n/a N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a


Pond Reference 7

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 1 1 frog

03/05/2018 No 0 No 7 3 0 n/a

10/05/2018 No 0 No 8 1 2 n/a

31/05/2018 No 0 No 14 1 1 n/a



Pond Reference 8

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 4 0 SmoothNewt

03/05/2018 No 0 No 7 4 0 n/a

10/05/2018 No 0 No 8 2 1 n/a

31/05/2018 No 0 No 14 2 1 SmoothNewt

Pond Reference 9

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



25/04/2018 No 0 No 6.8 0 5 n/a

03/05/2018 No 0 No 5 1 4 SmoothNewt, frogtadpole


30/05/2018 No 0 No 14 1 4 SmoothNewt


Pond Reference 10

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



25/04/2018 No 0 No 6.8 0 5 n/a

03/05/2018 No 0 No 5 0 4 n/a

10/05/2018 No 0 No 8 0 3 n/a

30/05/2018 No 0 No 14 0 3 n/a



Pond Reference 11

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



25/04/2018 No 0 No 6.8 2 3 SmoothNewt

02/05/2018 No 0 No 5 2 1 SmoothNewt, toadtadpoles

10/05/2018 No 0 No 10.3 3 2 SmoothNewt

30/05/2018 No 0 No 14 3 1 SmoothNewt

Pond Reference 12 No Surveys; Dry

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)








Pond Reference 13

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



25/04/2018 No 0 No 6.8 4 2 n/a

02/05/2018 No 0 No 5 3 2 n/a

08/05/2018 No 0 No 10.5 4 3 n/a

30/05/2018 No 0 No 14 3 4 n/a

Pond Reference 14 No access after second survey

Date GCNdetected

Peak adultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 1 2 Frog

03/05/2018 No 0 No 7 0 0 n/a





Pond Reference 15

Date GCNdetected

Peakadultcount


AirTemperature(oC)


Turbidity (0-5)



18/04/2018 No 0 No 12 4 0 Smooth Newt

02/05/2018 No 0 No 7 3 0 Smooth Newt,Frog

09/05/2018 No 0 No 8 5 1 n/a

30/05/2018 No 0 No 13 4 1 n/a

Documents

NORTHAMPTON NORTH-WEST RELIEF ROAD€¦ · of Northampton. This will involve the construction of a brand-new dual carriageway from A5199 Welford Road to A428 Harlestone Road, which