Queensway Gateway Road - Combe Haven Defenders · Applied Ecology Ltd Queensway Gateway Road – Baseline Ecology Report 1 01 October 2014 1 Introduction Background 1.1 Applied Ecology

Queensway Gateway Road

Baseline Ecology Report

Produced for Sea Change Sussex

By Applied Ecology Ltd

October 2014

Document Control:

Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

1.0 9 Sept 2014 Draft RJH/PTM/DP DP DP

2.0 1 Oct 2014 Final (updated with minor boundary change)

RJH DP DP

Prepared for: Sea Change Sussex

Title: Queensway Gateway Road – Baseline Ecology Report

Project number: 703

Document version: 2.0

Document status: Final (updated with minor boundary change)

Document date: 1 October 2014

Signed on behalf of Applied Ecology Ltd:

Dr Duncan Painter

Director

APPLIED ECOLOGY LTD

St. John's Innovation Centre Cowley Road Cambridge CB4 0WS Tel: 01223 422 116 Fax: 01223 420 844 Mobile: 07725 811 777 Email: [email protected]

Applied Ecology Ltd Queensway Gateway Road – Baseline Ecology Report

01 October 2014

Contents

1 Introduction 1 Background 1 2013 Survey Scope 1 2014 Survey Scope 1

2 Existing Information 4 Data Sources 4 Key Findings 4

3 Habitats and Plants 7 Approach 7 Survey Findings 7 Evaluation 10

4 Reptiles 12 Relevant Legislation 12 Survey Method 12 Survey Findings 13 Evaluation 13

5 Great Crested Newt 16 Relevant Legislation 16 Survey Methods 16 Survey Findings 17 Evaluation 17

6 Dormouse 19 Relevant Legislation 19 Survey Method 19 Survey Findings 19 Evaluation 20

7 Breeding Birds 23 Relevant Legislation 23 Survey Method 23 Survey Findings 24 Evaluation 24

8 Bats 26 Relevant Legislation 26 Survey Methods 26 Survey Findings 28 Evaluation 29


01 October 2014

9 Badger 32 Relevant Legislation 32 Survey Method 32 Survey Findings 33 Evaluation 33

10 Summary of Ecological Receptors 35

Appendix 1 37 Hollington Valley SNCI Citation 37

Appendix 2 38 Habitat target notes 38

Tables

Table 3.1: Habitat types and their coverage in hectares 8

Table 4.1: Reptile survey results 14

Table 7.1: Breeding bird survey results (with conservation status of red‐ and amber‐listed species highlighted) 25

Table 10.1: Summary of ecological receptors and associated value 35

Figures

Figure 1.1: Site location 3

Figure 2.1: Designated wildlife sites 6

Figure 3.1: Habitat map 11

Figure 4.1: Reptile survey locations 15

Figure 5.1: Pond locations 18

Figure 6.1: Dormouse nest‐tube locations 21

Figure 6.2: Dormouse habitat 22

Figure 8.1: Location of bat survey transects and automated detectors 30

Figure 8.2: Tree bat roost potential 31

Figure 9.1: Badger setts (Confidential figure) 34


1 01 October 2014

1 Introduction

Background

1.1 Applied Ecology Ltd (AEL) was appointed by Sea Change Sussex, in June 2013, to complete an extended phase 1 survey of an area of land off Queensway, Hastings (central grid reference TQ 79365 13065). The study area (11.7 ha) encompasses land between Queensway in the west and Sedlescombe Road North in the east as shown by Figure 1.1.

2013 Survey Scope

1.2 An extended phase 1 survey was undertaken on 4‐5 July 2013 and reported in August 2013. The 2013 report is provided in a separate Appendix to the Ecological Impact Assessment, and includes the following:

A review of biological records provided by Sussex Biological Records Centre (SxBRC);

A phase 1 habitat survey;

A breeding bird recording visit;

An amphibian funnel‐trapping visit to a single pond located within 100 m of the proposed development area;

An overnight automated bat detector survey, and

A general protected animal species walkover.

2014 Survey Scope

1.3 The following additional surveys have been undertaken by AEL during the 2014 survey season.

Dormouse survey – fifty dormouse tubes were installed in January 2014, with checks of the tubes completed between June and August 2014 until dormouse presence was verified.

Breeding bird survey – undertaken 1 and 21 May, and 11 June 2014.

Bat activity survey – automated detector and transect surveys in May and June 2014, and tree roost emergence survey in September 2014.

Tree inspections for bat roosting potential – undertaken in September 2014.

Reptile survey – 360 tins (felt mats) were placed out in areas of suitable grassland on 30 April 2014, with checks made 21 and 28 May; 11, 23, 24 and 27 June; and 9 July 2014.

Badger survey – a full search for badger setts and field signs was undertaken in January 2014, with a follow‐up survey of select areas in September 2014.

A watching brief for additional signs of badger activity and notable plants was maintained during the course of the 2014 survey work.

1.4 This baseline report provides details of the approaches and findings of the 2013/14 habitat and protected animal species surveys, and evaluates the value of the habitats and species present as ecological receptors that could be affected by future development. Details of


2 01 October 2014

relevant legislation and policy context can be found in the phase 1 report and are not repeated here, but details of the information review given in the 2013 report based on the SxBRC data search are reproduced in Chapter 2.

AELCB0703_006-03_fig1-1location_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:20,000

Site Location

Figure 1.1

Surveyed by: -Survey date: -Drawn by: RAHChecked by: RJHStatus: Final


Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data © Crown copyright 2013. All rights reserved.

0 0.50.25 km´

site boundary


4 01 October 2014

2 Existing Information

Data Sources

2.1 Existing biological data for the study area and surrounding land (1 km buffer), including information relating to statutory and non‐statutory sites, and protected and Biodviersity Action Plan (BAP) species, was requested by AEL from the Sussex Biological Records Centre (SxBRC). The SxBRC Desktop Biodiversity Report (ref: ESD/13/363) was received on 4 July 2013.

2.2 It is of note that AEL has undertaken a range of habitat, botanical and protected species animal surveys in relation to other nature conservation and development projects in the local area over the past 10 years and we are able to draw on significant local experience of ecology / biodiversity issues potentially pertinent to the study area.

Key Findings

Statutory and Non‐Statutory Wildlife Sites

2.3 The locations of statutory and non‐statutory wildlife sites, and Ancient Woodland, in relation to the study area are shown by Figure 2.1.

2.4 Two statutory Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are located within 1 km of the study area, namely Maplehurst Wood SSSI (535m to the east) and Marline Valley Wood SSSI (and Local Nature Reserve), 650m to the west.

2.5 The central section of the study area is designated as a non‐statutory Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and is part of Hollington Valley SNIC (see Appendix 1 for the SNCI citation). A small area of woodland within the study area and the SNCI is also designated as Ancient Woodland.

2.6 Three further SNCIs are located within 1 km of the study area, namely Beauport Park SNCI (80m to the north), Holmhurst St Mary SNCI (590m to the southeast) and Marline Valley Woods SNCI (650m to the west).

Protected and BAP Species Records

2.7 A large number of records of protected and BAP species were provided by SxBRC for land within the search area. The key records, either due to their location within or close to the study area, or because of the presence of potentially suitable on‐site habitat, can be summarised as follows:

Reptiles – Records of common lizard and slow‐worm, both species that are known to be widespread locally in suitable habitats.

Hazel dormouse – Records include from Marline Wood SSSI. This species is relatively widespread locally in broadleaved woodland and woody scrub.


5 01 October 2014

Bats – Off site records (mainly from bat detectors) provided by SxBRC include pipistrelle species Pipistrellus sp. (7 records, of which four are unidentified roosts in three different buildings), common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus (2 records), soprano pipstrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus (1 record), brown long‐eared bat Plecotus auritus (2 records, plus a possible building based summer roost), noctule bat Nyctalus noctula (4 records), serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus (2 records), and an unidentified Myotis bat (1 record).

Birds – The SxBRC bird records were almost exclusively from Marline Valley and Woods. The only record that could be from the current study area is a 2007 record of tree sparrow from ‘Hollington’. The notable birds from Marline Valley and Woods include hobby, lesser spotted woodpecker and willow tit.

AELCB0703_007-02_fig2-1desigsites_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:20,000

Designated Wildlife Sites

Figure 2.1

Surveyed by: -Survey date: -Drawn by: RAHChecked by: RJHStatus: Final



0 0.50.25 km´

site boundarySSSISNCI

Ancient & Semi-Natural WoodlandAncient Replanted Woodland

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

LNR

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text

Rob Hutchinson

Typewritten Text


7 01 October 2014

3 Habitats and Plants

Approach

3.1 A Phase 1 habitat survey of the study area was undertaken by AEL on 4 July 2013. All habitats present were classified and mapped according to standard phase 1 habitat survey categories

1

.

3.2 Frequent botanical target notes were made of a representative range of habitats, and where appropriate a list of the plant species present and an estimate of their individual relative abundance was recorded according to the DAFOR scale. Target notes were used to record land areas of typical and unique botanical character, and areas or features too small to map accurately in the field. The habitat map has been digitised and presented using a Geographical Information System (ArcView GIS).

Survey Findings

3.3 The phase 1 habitat survey map is shown by Figure 3.1, and accompanying habitat target notes are provided in Appendix 2.

3.4 The study area supported a mix of unmanaged, mainly semi‐natural habitats, including semi‐improved neutral grassland, broadleaved woodland, and woody and bramble scrub. Historic maps of the area indicate that the land was previously characterised by more open, probably stock or horse grazed, small‐scale fields with small blocks and belts of woodland. The existing scrub component has probably expanded in the absence of active management over recent decades, perhaps since construction of the Queensway road some 30‐40 years ago. Land within the study area has also been affected by recent development‐related activity, including a waste management depot and a nearby Sainsbury’s supermarket.

3.5 The site comprises a mix of mainly semi‐natural habitats and includes an area of Hollington Valley SNCI. A breakdown of the habitat types and their extent within the study area is provided in Table 3.1.

Grassland

3.6 Two fields of open grassland occur along the site’s western‐side (target note 1), with smaller patches also remaining amongst bramble and woody scrub to the east. The sward was tall and relatively uniform in structure and species composition throughout, being dominated by a range of common grasses, including Yorkshire‐fog Holcus lanatus, red fescue Festuca rubra, creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, rough meadow‐grass Poa trivialis and sweet vernal‐grass Anthoxanthum odoratum.

3.7 A variety of other grasses and forbs were also present and contribute to the sward’s moderate overall diversity. Species present included Timothy Phleum pratense, common

1 JNCC (1993) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for Environmental Audit. JNCC. Peterborough.


8 01 October 2014

bent Agrostis capillaris, common couch Elytrigia repens, perennial rye‐grass Lolium perenne, smooth meadow‐grass Poa pratensis, meadow barley Hordeum secalinum, black bent Agrostis gigantea, soft‐rush Juncus effusus, bramble Rubus agg., broadleaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, silverweed Potentilla anserina, curled dock Rumex crispus, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, hoary ragwort Senecio erucifolius, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, greater bird's‐foot‐trefoil Lotus pedunculatus, red clover Trifolium pratense, common fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica, selfheal Prunus vulgaris, meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris, white clover Trifolium repens, common bird's‐foot‐trefoil Lotus corniculatus, common knapweed Centaurea nigra, thyme‐leaved speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia, daisy Bellis perennis, cut‐leaved cranesbill Geranium dissectum, oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare, lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea and yarrow Achillea millefolium.

3.8 A number of flowering spikes of common spotted‐orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsia (a widespread a relatively common orchid species) were present in the north grassland meadow on 28 May 2014.

Table 3.1: Habitat types and their coverage in hectares

Habitat type Hectares % of study area

Amenity grassland 0.25 2.2

Bramble scrub 0.78 6.7

Broad‐leaved plantation woodland 0.48 4.1

Broad‐leaved semi‐natural woodland 2.84 24.2

Buildings 0.13 1.1

Coniferous plantation woodland 0.03 0.3

Continuous bracken 0.20 1.7

Hard standing, roads and tracks 2.33 19.9

Introduced shrubs 0.05 0.4

Mixed plantation woodland 0.70 5.9

Private gardens 0.02 0.2

Semi‐improved neutral grassland 2.06 17.6

Swamp 0.06 0.5

Tall ruderal (and TR / bracken mosaics) 0.50 4.3

Woody scrub 1.28 10.9

Grand Total 11.72 100


9 01 October 2014

Woodland and Scrub

3.9 The majority of the woodland within the study area was of semi‐natural broadleaved character.

3.10 A small stand of mature broadleaved woodland that is classified as Ancient Woodland was located towards the south of the study area. Part of this woodland was located in a shallow valley and was dominated by locally abundant alder Alnus glutinosa and downy birch Betula pubescens – both species indicative of wet woodland habitat (target note 8). The valley sides supported drier woodland of oak Quercus robur and ash Fraxinus excelsior with an understorey of coppice hazel Corylus avellana and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, and a varied ground layer of broad buckler‐fern Dryopteris dilatata, bluebell Hyacinthoides non‐scripta, hedge woundwort Stachys sylvatica, red campion Silene dioica, pendulous sedge Carex pendula, wood sorrel Oxalis acetosella, wood anemone Anemone nemorosa, enchanter's‐nightshade Circaea lutetiana, wood sedge Carex sylvatica and ramsons Allium ursinum.

3.11 A block of open woodland dominated by sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, and a few mature oak trees and an evergreen oak Quercus ilex, was present close to Queensway (target note 3). This woodland area lacked understorey shrubs and had poor structural diversity, but supported a range of typical woodland plants, including bluebell, ramsons, wood sedge and broad‐leaved helleborine Epipactis helleborine.

3.12 Other areas of semi‐natural broadleaved woodland typically comprised linear stands along earth bank features and are dominated by a canopy of oak, ash and sycamore, and a varied understorey including hazel coppice and holly Ilex aquifolium.

3.13 An area of semi‐mature structurally‐poor mixed plantation woodland was present along an embankment on the northern edge of the Sainsbury’s car‐park.

3.14 Large patches of woody scrub were present across the study area and have probably expanded in recent years due to a lack of active management. Scrub types included dense blackthorn Prunus spinosa thickets, damp willow scrub and bramble Rubus agg. scrub. Species‐rich hedgerows flanked both sides of the southwest to northeast footpath which crosses the study area.

Tall Ruderal

11.1.1 Occasional patches of tall ruderal vegetation (target note 5) were present along scrub and woodland edges, and within grassland meadows, and are typically dominated by dense beds of nettle Urtica dioica and creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, and often with some sprawling bramble.

Swamp

3.15 A small area of swamp vegetation was present along the course of a spring‐fed in‐filled field drain (part of Hollington valley stream) and supported a range of tall herbs, ruderals and damp ground species (target note 9). The plants present included hemlock water‐dropwort Oenanthe crocata, great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum, nettle, water figwort Scrophularia auriculata, creeping thistle, hemp agrimony Eupatorium cannabinum, floating sweet‐grass


10 01 October 2014

Glyceria fluitans, jointed rush Juncus articulatus, plicate sweet‐grass Glyceria notata and marsh foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus.

Evaluation

3.16 All land located within the SNCI should be considered of County value in habitat terms. Semi‐natural broadleaved woodland located beyond the SNCI is considered to be of Local value, and all other non‐SNCI habitats are considered to be of Neighbourhood or less than neighbourhood value.

9

8

76

5

4

3

2

1

16

1514

13

12

11

10

AELCB0703_008-02_fig3-1phase1map_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Habitat Map

Figure 3.1

Surveyed by: RJHSurvey date: 4 July 2013Drawn by: RAHChecked by: RJHStatus: Final



0 6030 metres´

site boundaryecology study area

Habitats:broad-leaved semi-natural woodlandbroad-leaved plantation woodlandconiferous plantation woodlandmixed plantation woodlandwoody scrubbramble scrub

S SISI semi-improved neutral grasslandcontinuous brackentall ruderalswampAA Aamenity grasslandprivate gardensintroduced shrubstall ruderal/bracken mosaichard standing, roads and tracksbuildingsw species-rich defunct hedge

! ! line of treesx scattered scrub! individual tree (indicative), target notes


12 01 October 2014

4 Reptiles

Relevant Legislation

4.1 All UK native reptile species are protected by law. The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981(and later amendments) provides the legal framework for this protection. Sand lizard Lacerta agilis and smooth snake Coronella austriaca are rare species that have restricted distributions in the UK and the greatest level of legal protection.

4.2 The more widespread and common reptile species, namely common lizard, slow‐worm, grass snake and adder are protected against deliberate or reckless killing and injury. Natural England (formerly English Nature) guidelines2 state that reptiles are likely to be threatened and the law breached by activities such as the following:

Archaeological and geotechnical investigations;

Clearing land, installing site offices or digging foundations;

Cutting vegetation to a low height;

Laying pipelines or installing other services;

Driving machinery over sensitive areas;

Removing rubble, wood piles and other debris.

4.3 Under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, a conviction can result in a fine, and/or up to six months imprisonment for each offence. Harm to more than one animal may be taken as separate offences.

Survey Method

4.4 A seven‐visit reptile presence/absence survey of all suitable areas of on‐site habitat was undertaken by AEL in‐line with guidelines provided by the Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland

2

(HGBI), as per the current recommendation provided on the Natural England website, as well as advice provided by Froglife (1999)

3

.

4.5 The optimal months for reptile survey are April, May and September and during these months the recommended times to check artificial refuges are from 8.30 am to 11.00 am in the morning, and from 4.00 pm to 6.30 pm in the evening, to avoid the heat of the midday sun. Note that checking at other times is acceptable providing weather conditions are suitable. Survey should also ideally take place when the air temperature is between 9°C and 18°C. However, changes in weather type can also influence the results, with the likelihood of seeing reptiles increasing, for example, on hot days following a cooler spell; or in showery weather conditions following a prolonged dry spell.

2 Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland (1998). Evaluating local mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining best practice and lawful standards. HGBI advisory notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARGs). HGBI, c/o Froglife, Halesworth. Unpubl. 3 Froglife (1999) Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth.


13 01 October 2014

4.6 In terms of the current survey, 360 artificial reptile refugia (roofing felt) measuring 0.5 x 0.5 m were placed out in areas of suitable reptile habitat across the site on 30 April 2014 as shown by Figure 4.1.

4.7 The refugia were left in situ for three weeks to allow any reptiles present sufficient time to locate them prior to the first survey visit on 21 May 2014. The remaining six visits were undertaken on 28 May; 11, 23, 24 and 27 June; and 9 July 2014.

4.8 During each visit, all refugia were checked for reptiles basking on or sheltering underneath them and the number, age category, species and location of any reptiles found was recorded.

Survey Findings

4.9 According to the definitions provided by Froglife (1999), the site was found to support a ‘good’ population of common lizard (maximum daily adult count 6) and a ‘low’ population of slow‐worm (maximum daily count 2), with all areas of suitable habitat found to support reptiles. It should be noted however that more than 10 refugia per ha were used to survey the site (a maximum of 10/per ha is suggested by Froglife when using their size class classification) and therefore the population classifications given above are likely to be over‐estimates of the actual population size classes present. A breakdown of the results is provided in Table 4.1.

Evaluation

4.10 Areas of grassland and bramble scrub were found to support a good population of common lizard and a low population of slow‐worm. None of the reptile species present on site have high individual levels of legal protection under EU legislation, and are all relatively common in a range of habitat types in southern England. As highlighted previously, they are however, protected against deliberate or reckless killing or injury.

4.11 Overall, the site is currently considered to be of Local importance for reptiles.


14 01 October 2014

Table 4.1: Reptile survey results

Date in 2014

Time Temp (C)

Cloud cover (%)

Weather Reptiles seen Sex Location (Figure 4.1)

21 May 10:00 18.5 100 Cloudy, dry No reptiles seen

28 May 17:00 18.0 100 Cloudy, dry Slow‐worm F 1

Slow‐worm F 2

Common lizard F 2

Common lizard ‐ 2

11 June 10:00 18 50 Sunny intervals, dry

No reptiles seen

23 June 17:00 17 0 Sunny, dry Common lizard ‐ 2

Slow‐worm Juv 3

24 June 07:30 17 15 Sunny, dry No reptiles seen

27 June 13:00 18 100 Overcast, dry Common lizard F 2

Slow‐worm Juv 3

Slow‐worm Juv 3

09 July 14:45 23 80 Sunny intervals, dry

Common lizard ‐ 2

Common lizard ‐ 2

Common lizard ‐ 2

Common lizard ‐ 2

Common lizard ‐ 2

Common lizard F 3

Common lizard Juv 3

1

2 3

AELCB0703_009-02_fig4-1reptilesurvey_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Reptile Survey Locations

Figure 4.1

Surveyed by: AELSurvey date: April-July 2014Drawn by: RAHChecked by: RJHStatus: Final



0 6030 metres´

site boundaryecology study areareptile survey locations

Area 1: 300 tinsArea 2: 40 tinsArea 3: 20 tins


16 01 October 2014

5 Great Crested Newt


5.1 Great crested newt (GCN) is fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, (as amended and as strengthened by the CROW Act, 2000) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 that implements the EC Directive 92/43/EEC in the UK. It is an offence, with certain exceptions, to:

Intentionally or deliberately capture, kill, or injure GCN;

Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy, and disturb GCN in a place used for shelter or protection, or obstruct access to such areas;

Damage or destroy a GCN breeding site or resting place;

Possess a GCN, or any part of it, unless acquired lawfully; and

Sell, barter, exchange, transport, or offer for sale GCN or parts of them.

5.2 The legislation covers all newt life stages such that eggs, tadpoles and adult newts are all equally protected. Actions that are prohibited can be made lawful by a licence issued by the appropriate statutory authority.

Survey Methods

5.3 Five ponds are shown to occur within 500 m of the study area according to the 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map. Three of these ponds are located between 350‐450m away to the north of The Ridgeway West (A2100) – a busy road that represents a significant barrier to the movement of great crested newt (GCN).

5.4 The two remaining ponds are located around 50 m to the south of the study area as shown by Figure 5.1. One (referred to as Pond 1) is a medium‐sized pond (30 x 20 m) located immediately west of a public footpath that connects Beauharrow Road to Whitworth Road, and the other (Pond 2) is a large pond / lake (85 x 25 m) that is enclosed by residential properties.

Pond 1

5.5 Pond 1 was subject to visual inspection and a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment, together with and an over‐night funnel‐trapping visit on the 4‐5 July 2013. Funnel‐traps were set around the accessible margin of the pond at approximately 2 m spacing at 22:30 hrs on the evening of the 4 July 2013. The minimum night‐time temperature was 12˚C. The traps were retrieved at 05:30 hrs on the 5 July 2013.

Pond 2

5.6 Pond 2 was not accessible in 2013 as the pond was found to be locked within residential housing and the owners could not be identified at the time. The pond was confirmed as


17 01 October 2014

belonging to three adjoining households in 2014 and was subject to visual inspection on 30 April 2014.

Survey Findings

Pond 1

5.7 The HSI score for Pond 1 was calculated as 0.49 – poor suitability4

.

5.8 The results of the 2013 over‐night funnel‐trapping visit confirmed that Pond 1 supported a large population of three‐spined stickleback, with over 700 individuals caught in the funnel traps overnight. No evidence of any amphibian species was found.

5.9 It is acknowledged that the single survey visit was undertaken well outside the GCN survey window. However, the confirmed presence of a large population of sticklebacks, a species which is a particularly harmful predator of GCN larvae, significantly reduces the value of a pond for GCN.

5.10 Given the large number of sticklebacks present and the low overall HSI score, the pond is considered unsuitable for breeding GCN.

Pond 2

5.11 Discussions with the owners of the pond have confirmed that Pond 2 contains a range of coarse fish species including carp, tench, rudd, perch, roach and pike. On this basis, the water‐body is considered to be unsuitable for breeding GCN.

Evaluation

5.12 The two ponds that are located within 250 m of the study area in positions free from significant barriers to GCN movement, are considered unsuitable or breeding GCN, and this species is considered to be absent.

4 ARG UK Advice Note 5 – Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index. May 2010.

12

AELCB0703_010-02_fig5-1pondlocations_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Pond Locations

Figure 5.1

Surveyed by: RJHSurvey date: n/aDrawn by: RAHChecked by: RJHStatus: Final



0 5025 metres´

site boundaryecology study areaponds


19 01 October 2014

6 Dormouse


6.1 Dormice are given full protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Protection to the species is also afforded by Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations, 1994, making the hazel dormouse a European Protected Species. These two pieces of legislation operate in parallel, although there are some small differences in scope and wording. Under the provisions of Section 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, it is an offence to:

Intentionally kill, injure or take a dormouse;

Possess or control and live or dead specimen or anything derived from a dormouse (unless it can be shown to have been legally acquired);

Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection by a dormouse;

Intentionally or recklessly disturb a dormouse while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose.

6.2 Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations, 1994 make it an offence to:

Deliberately capture or kill a dormouse;

Deliberately disturb a dormouse;

Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a dormouse;

Keep transport, sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange a live or dead dormouse or any part of a dormouse.

6.3 The dormouse is a Priority Species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), and has been adopted as a Species of Principal Importance in England under section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 (section 42 in Wales).

Survey Method

6.4 A total of 50 dormice nest‐tubes were installed in sequential order in potentially suitable habitats (i.e. broadleaved semi‐natural woodland, mixed plantation woodland, dense woody scrub and bramble scrub) around the study area in January 2014 as shown by Figure 6.1.

6.5 Checks of the nest‐tubes have been completed on the 11 June and 27 August 2014.

Survey Findings

6.6 A single complete and intact, but unoccupied, dormouse nest was found within broadleaved woodland (tube no. 15) on the 27 August 2014.


20 01 October 2014

Evaluation

6.7 The nest tube survey has verified the presence of dormouse within the study area with a dormouse nest having been found in a nest‐tube located in mature semi‐natural broadleaved woodland habitat. It is reasonable to assume that this species is widespread across the study area in optimal habitats.

6.8 Dormouse nest‐tube and nest‐box surveys completed in similar habitats to the current site on the northern side of Queensway over the period 2006‐12 have verified that the most frequently used and optimal dormouse habitats are structurally diverse semi‐natural woodland and dense woody scrub. For the purposes of the current assessment, it is reasonable to assume that the same habitat types are likely to be of similar value to dormouse within the current study area and the extent of this optimal habitat is shown by Figure 6.2.

6.9 Transient seasonal use (late summer/autumn) of bramble scrub in response to the seasonal presence of blackberries has also been confirmed within the local area, and a similar pattern of use of bramble scrub by dormouse within the current site is anticipated.

6.10 In contrast, no evidence of dormice has been found in association with structurally poor woodland, including plantation and semi‐natural stands.

6.11 The study area is considered to be of County importance for dormice.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!!!

!!

!!!

!

9 87 6 5 4 3 2 150

4948 47

46 4544 43

4241

4039

38

37 36 3534

33 3231

3029

2827

2625 24

2322

2120 19

18 17

16

15 14 13 12 11 10

AELCB0703_013-03_fig6-1dormousetubes_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Dormouse Tube Locations

Figure 6.1

Surveyed by: RJHSurvey date: Jan-Sept 2014Drawn by: RAHChecked by: RJHStatus: Final



0 5025 metres´

! dormouse tube locationssite boundaryecology study area

!

AELCB0703_016-02_fig6-2dormousehabitat_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Dormouse Habitat

Figure 6.2

Surveyed by: DPSurvey date: 1 Sept 2014Drawn by: RAHChecked by: DPStatus: Final



0 6030 metres´

site boundary

!dormouse nest found in nest-tube (Aug 2014)areas of woodland and scrub with structure of value to dormice

ecology study area


23 01 October 2014

7 Breeding Birds


7.1 The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended) gives blanket protection to all wild birds, making it an offence (with certain exceptions) to:

kill injure or take any wild bird species; and

take, damage or destroy its nest or eggs.

7.2 Some species, listed in Schedule 1 of WCA 1981, have additional protection, which makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb them at the nest.

Survey Method

7.3 A repeat three visit breeding bird survey (BBS) of the study area was conducted on 1 and 25 May, and 11 June 2014 by an experienced ornithologist from AEL.

7.4 A standardised BBS methodology5

was used as the basis for the survey. The survey route was planned to bring the surveyor to within at least 50 m, and typically 5 m or less, of all wooded and scrub‐covered parts of the locations to be surveyed. Approach to within this distance of more open areas of grassland was deemed to be less critical because birds in such conditions are more easily seen and heard than those in more enclosed habitats and many bird species are more often seen during the breeding season in association with woodland and scrub vegetation.

7.5 The survey route followed footpaths and internal perimeters of the scrub and woodland which delineated both external and internal boundaries of the study area such that total coverage of the study area was achieved.

7.6 Each survey visit commenced within an hour of sunrise in order to coincide with the main period of bird activity each day. Weather conditions during the surveys were generally cool or warm and sunny, and except for very brief periods, free of rain. Visibility was good and these were suitable conditions for bird surveying. The route was walked slowly, with frequent stops, and all species seen and heard were identified and recorded on field maps using the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) two‐letter code nomenclature.

7.7 Every effort was made, using the surveyor’s judgement and the BTO field recording methodology, to record any individual bird once only, and from where the survey route passed closest to the bird’s observed position.

5 Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. & Evans, J (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods: a manual of techniques for key UK species. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire.


24 01 October 2014

Survey Findings

7.8 A total of 26 bird species were recorded during the survey as listed in Table 7.1. Most of the bird interest was found in association with tree lines, scrub and woodland, with very little bird activity found in association with areas of open grassland.

7.9 Of the 26 species recorded, herring gull was not considered to be breeding within the study area and was recorded only as overflying, foraging or commuting individuals. All other species were considered breeding or potentially breeding on‐site.

7.10 A total of one Red‐listed species (song thrush) and four Amber‐listed species (bullfinch, dunnock, green woodpecker and whitethroat) were confirmed or suspected to be breeding within the study area.

7.11 Based on the habitats present, a number of additional bird species of particular conservation interest were considered unlikely, but possible, breeders within the study area, namely nightingale, spotted flycatcher, lesser spotted woodpecker and hawfinch. No evidence of these species was recorded during any survey visit.

Evaluation

7.12 Fuller (1980) devised standard procedures for evaluating breeding bird communities on sites. Recording the number of species on a site can provide a simple measure of species diversity from which to confer a level of conservation importance to a site. For breeding birds, the standard qualifying levels provided by Fuller are as follows:

National Importance, 85+ species;

Regional Importance, 70‐84 species;

County Importance, 50‐69 species;

Local Importance, 25‐ 49 species.

7.13 The species list for the whole site numbered 26, of which 25 were considered likely breeding species, placing the site within the range for Local importance.

7.14 In spite of the presence of Red‐ and Amber‐listed species, none of the species recorded on the study area can be considered especially scarce or unexpected. They are a typical population, in terms of diversity and density, of birds to be found in southern England, in the mosaic of habitats present.


25 01 October 2014

Table 7.1: Breeding bird survey results (with conservation status of red‐ and amber‐listed species highlighted)

Common name Scientific name

Visit number

Peak count

1 2 3

Wren Troglodities troglodities 11 15 15 15

Blackbird Turdus merula 10 13 13 13

Blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus 2 12 3 12

Wood pigeon Columba palumbus 7 9 12 12

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla 9 9 10 10

Robin Erithacus rubecula 6 10 3 10

Great tit Parus Major 7 5 9 9

Long‐tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus 2 4 8 8

Magpie Pica pica 2 2 6 6

Dunnock Prunella modularis 5 4 5 5

Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita 3 3 4 4

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs 2 3 2 3

Greenfinch Carduelis chloris 1 3 3

Great spotted woodpecker Dendrocarpus major 1 3 1 3

Song thrush Turdus philomelos 2 1 3 3

Whitethroat Silvia communis 1 3 3

Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula 1 2 1 2

Green woodpecker Picus viridis 2 2

Nuthatch Sitta europaea 2 2

Carrion crow Corvus corone 1 1 1 1

Coal tit Periparus ater 1 1

Goldcrest Regulus regulus 1 1 1

Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 1 1

Herring gull Larus argentatus 1 1 1

Jay Garrulus glandarius 1 1

Jackdaw Corvus monedula 1 1


26 01 October 2014

8 Bats


8.1 In Britain all bat species and their roosts are legally protected, by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the 2010 Habitats Regulations meaning that you will be committing a criminal offence if you:

Deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;

Intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat in its roost or deliberately disturb a group of bats;

Damage or destroy a bat roosting place (even if bats are not occupying the roost at the time);

Possess or advertise/sell/exchange a bat (dead or alive) or any part of a bat;

Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to a bat roost.

8.2 Licences to permit illegal activities relating to bats and their roost sites can be issued for specific purposes and by specific licensing authorities in each country. These are sometimes called 'derogation licences' or 'European Protected Species' licences, and are issued under the 2010 Habitats Regulations. It is an offence not to comply with the terms and conditions of a derogation licence. If you carry out work affecting bats or roosts without a licence, you will be breaking the law.

Survey Methods

Bat Roosts

8.3 The assessment of potential bat roost features has been focussed entirely on the tree resource located within the proposed development construction working area.

8.4 A survey visit to identify trees that were suitable for roosting bats was carried out in September 2014 (using tree survey information completed as part of the assessment by a professional arborist) using binoculars and an endoscope to inspect trees from ground‐level for potential features that could be used by roosting bats. All trees with features of potential value to roosting bats were classified in accordance with Hundt 2012

6

and were surveyed by a licenced bat worker.

8.5 A single modern car‐showroom building lies within the footprint of the proposed road at the eastern end of Whitworth Road. An external inspection of this building (from distance using binoculars) was completed in September 2014. The building is a flat‐roofed fabricated unit that appears to be of negligible value to roosting bats. However, a more detailed inspection of the building will be undertaken to confirm its value to bats prior to demolition.

6 Hundt L (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.


27 01 October 2014

Bat Activity

8.6 Bat activity across the study area was assessed using a combination of overnight automated bat detectors surveys completed 28‐29 May and 23‐24 June 2014 (from dusk and until dawn) and two evening transect surveys completed by two ecologists on 28 May and 23 June 2014.

Automated Survey

8.7 Bat activity across the study area was monitored using between six and seven static electronic bat detectors (Anabat Express models) positioned in different locations within the study area between surveys ‐see Figure 8.1. Each detector was mounted on a 1.5 m high tripod and was time synchronised to record bat calls from 15 minutes before dusk until 15 minutes after dawn.

Transect Surveys

8.8 In order to help assess bat numbers and their use of the study area by foraging and commuting bats, two transect routes were walked by two experienced surveyors on the evenings of 28 May and 23 June 2014.

8.9 During the each survey, both surveyors were equipped with a hand‐held Pettersson D230 bat detector set in frequency division mode with ear‐phones, and a time synchronised Anabat SD2 detector that passively recorded all bat calls heard. The transect routes are shown by Figure 8.1.

8.10 The transect walks commenced at 15 minutes before sunset and lasted for 90 minutes past sunset. Weather conditions during the May and June surveys were suitable for bats to be active. During the May survey air temperature was 21.0oC at the start and 17.2oC at the end, and was dry with a gentle breeze. During the June survey air temperature at the start was 18.7oC at the start and 15.0oC at the end, and was dry with a gentle breeze. No rain fell at any point during either survey.

8.11 All bats seen and heard and their activity and direction of flight were noted.

Bat Roost Emergence Survey

8.12 All trees with confirmed multiple potential bat roost features (Category 1* trees) following the tree inspection survey were subject to a bat roost emergence survey on the evening of 1 September 2014. A total of four Category 1* trees were identified by the tree survey and included in the emergence survey. All four trees had four tripod mounted Anabat Express detectors set out around their bases to record bat calls from 15 minutes before sunset to 90 minutes after sunset.

8.13 The two most likely looking trees to support roosting bats in terms of their size, type and extent of potential bat roost features and their location in the landscape were each assigned a single surveyor in addition to the four detectors to watch for bats emerging from them during the survey. These were a large evergreen oak Quercus ilex tree (tree survey number T280), and a large ash Fraxinus excelsior (T1). Weather conditions were suitable for bats to be active at the start of the survey with an air temperature of 22.0oC and a


28 01 October 2014

gentle breeze, but heavy rain 45 minutes after sunset meant that the survey was stopped prematurely. Bats were active during the survey and the rainfall is not considered to have significantly reduced the value of the survey.

Survey Findings

Bat Roosts

8.14 A total of four Category 1*, five Category 1, and two Category 3 trees were recorded during the survey – see Figure 8.2 for details. None of the trees had any obvious physical signs of recent bat use.

8.15 The bat roost emergence survey verified the roost of a single common pipistrelle bat in the T280 (evergreen oak) with a single bat emerging from an unknown location about the tree at 19.48 (four minutes after sunset).

8.16 The roost of a single soprano pipistrelle was also verified in T1 (ash) with the bat emerging from somewhere on the south side of the tree at 19.51 (seven minutes after sunset).

8.17 The detectors positioned around the oaks T9 and T10 recorded the call of a common pipistrelle at 19.57 (13 minutes after sunset) and it is possible (but not possible to verify) that the bat could have also emerged from one of the two trees.

Automated Survey

8.18 A minimum total of six bat species were recorded foraging and commuting within the study area by the automated bat detector surveys. In decreasing order of recorded call file frequency these were:

Common pipistrelle (73% of call files in May, 83.4% in June)

Soprano pipistrelle (16.8% & 13.4%)

Nycatalus species (6.3% and 3.0%)

Myotis species (2.8% & 0.2%)

Barbastelle (0.7% and not recorded in June)

Plecotus species (0.4% in May and not recorded in June)

8.19 According to Wray et al (2010) 7

common and soprano pipistrelles, and Plecotus species (assumed to be brown long‐eared bat) are all classified as common bat species in England having a population thought to be over 100,000 individuals. Nycatalus species (namely noctule and Leisler’s bats) are both classified as rarer bat species (popn 10,000‐100,000), and barbastelle bat is a rarest bat species (popn under 10,000).

8.20 Barbastelle was recorded only in May by two detectors ‐ one set of calls was recorded at 23.35 (158 minutes after sunset) and a second set by a different detector at 23.44. This suggests that the bat(s) were commuting through or foraging within the study area, and does not indicate roosting on site or nearby.

7 Wray S, Wells D, Long E & Mitchell‐Jones T (2010) Valuing Bats in Ecological Impact Assessment. In Practice December 2010.


29 01 October 2014

Transect Survey

8.21 The transect survey recorded bat activity across the entire site with up to four pipistrelle bat species seen in the air together at any one time foraging along woodland edges and tree lines. No commuting bats were seen during the survey by either surveyor.

Evaluation

8.22 Wray et al (2010) sets out an objective approach to assessing the value of sites for bats in ecological impact assessment. By applying this approach, the study area is valued at Regional importance for foraging and commuting bats, with scores of 32 (foraging) and 33 (commuting) being achieved based on the presence of one of the rarest UK bat species (Barbastelle; score 20), individual bats (score 5), a moderate number / not known number of nearby roosts (score 4), and well grown and well‐connected hedgerows, small field size (commuting, score 4) and isolated woodland patches, less intensive arable and/or small towns and villages (foraging, score 3).

8.23 For reference purposes scores of 21‐30 achieve county importance, scores of 11‐20 represent local value, and scores of 41‐50 are of national importance.

8.24 The confirmed presence of individual tree roosting bats (common and soprano pipistrelle) within the site constitutes a roost type of no more than Local value in accordance with Wray et al (2010).

!!!

! !!!!! !!!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!

!

! !! !!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!! !!! ! !! ! !!! !!! !!!! !!! !!!! ! !

!

!!!!!

!!!

! !!!!! !!!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!

!

! !!!! !!! !!! !!!! ! ! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !

AELCB0703_011-02_fig8-1battransects_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Bat Activity Surveys

Figure 8.1

Surveyed by: RJHSurvey date: May & June 2014Drawn by: RAHChecked by: DPStatus: Final



0 5025 metres´

!! !! bat transect route! Anabat Express locations (May)! Anabat Express locations (June)

site boundaryecology study area

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

T9

T1 T53

T75T10

T159

T175

T258 T186

T176T280

AELCB0703_015-01_fig8-2treeBRP_20140908 A4 08/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Tree Bat Roost Potential

Figure 8.2

Surveyed by: DPSurvey date: 1 Sept 2014Drawn by: RAHChecked by: DPStatus: Final


0 5025 metres´

site boundary

Bat Roost Potential:! confirmed roost! category 1*! category 1! category 2


32 01 October 2014

9 Badger


9.1 The badger is listed under Appendix III of the Bern Convention, as a species that is in need of protection but may be hunted or otherwise exploited in exceptional instances. Individual badgers and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which makes it illegal to kill, injure or take badgers or to interfere with a badger sett. Badgers are also protected under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) in England, Scotland and Wales; Schedules 5, 6 and 7 of the Wildlife Order 1985 in Northern Ireland; and under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1976 (as amended) in the Republic of Ireland.

9.2 Only setts that are currently in use are covered by wildlife legislation. Licences for badgers are therefore only likely to be required when works will occur at or near a sett showing clear signs of current use and the sett will be damaged or destroyed; or when there will be fairly extreme noise or ground disturbance in close proximity to the sett.

Survey Method

9.3 A badger sett and activity survey of the study area was undertaken by AEL in January 2014 with a follow‐up investigation of specific badger related features in September 2014.

9.4 Signs of badger activity such as the presence of sett holes, dung pits, latrines, snuffle holes, tracks, hair, prints and scratch marks were noted where appropriate. If holes were discovered these were categorised into sett types using the following criteria, based on Natural England guidance

8

.

Main sett – Usually appearing well‐used, well established and having a large number of holes with big spoil heaps, often with piles of old bedding outside. Main setts tend to have well‐worn paths between the sett and foraging areas, and between sett holes. They are generally considered to be breeding setts (i.e. where cubs are most likely to be born) and are more often than not in use all year round. A social group of badgers will only have one main sett within their territory.

Annexe sett – Annexe setts are always close to a main sett and are usually connected by one or more obvious well‐worn paths. They consist of several holes but are not necessarily in use the whole time, even if the main sett is very active. Should a second litter of cubs be born within the social group, they are likely to be raised within an annexe sett.

Subsidiary setts – Often these have very few holes, are usually at least 50m from a main sett and do not have an obvious path connecting them with another sett. Subsidiary setts are not continuously active.

8 Badgers and Development: A Guide to Best Practice and Licensing. Natural England.


33 01 October 2014

Outlying setts – Usually comprising one or two holes with very little spoil outside (thus indicating that the tunnel system underground is not extensive), outlying setts have no obvious path connecting them with another sett and are used only sporadically.

9.5 Levels of associated badger activity for each sett were recorded by noting whether each hole was well‐used, partially‐used or disused.

Survey Findings

9.6 A single active badger sett (a five active hole subsidiary sett) was recorded in the southwest corner of the study area (on the western side of Queensway) as shown by the confidential badger sett figure (Figure 9.1).

9.7 A possible former badger sett was also located along a woodland bank with topography indicative of consolidated historic badger excavations. In January and September 2014 the former sett was occupied by rabbits only, and possessed no holes of a size large enough to indicate recent use by badger.

9.8 Very little badger field evidence (paths, foraging, dung and latrines) has been recorded within the site and overall levels of badger activity are low.

Evaluation

9.9 A single subsidiary badger sett is present within the site, and overall the site is considered to be of Neighbourhood importance for badgers.

!(

!(

AELCB0703_014-02_fig9-1badger_20140915 A4 15/09/2014

Map Scale @ A4: 1:4,000

Badger Setts

Figure 9.1

Surveyed by: RJHSurvey date: Jan 2014Drawn by: RAHChecked by: RJHStatus: Final



0 5025 metres´

CONFIDENTIAL

site boundary

!( 5 hole subsidiary sett

!(suspected former badger sett with no evidence of recent badger use

Figure to be removed from report if circulated to third parties.


35 01 October 2014

10 Summary of Ecological Receptors

10.1 A summary of the value of habitats and species present within the study area is provided in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1: Summary of ecological receptors and associated value

Ecological receptor Ecological value

Hollington Valley SNCI and Ancient Woodland County

Habitats – semi‐natural broadleaved woodland Local

Habitats – all other habitats Neighbourhood

Reptiles Local

Great crested newt ‐

Dormouse County

Breeding birds Local

Bats (commuting and foraging) Regional

Bats (tree roosting) Local

Badgers Neighbourhood


01 October 2014

Appendix 1 Hollington Valley SNCI Citation

SITE OF NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE (SNCI)

East Sussex

Site Name: Hollington Valley

Site Ref: Ha14

District: Hastings

National Grid Ref: TQ793127

Size (ha): 12.00

Date: Identified April 1998. Revised Sept 2008.

Habitat: Semi-natural woodland with associated stream and meadows

INTRODUCTION

Situated between Sedlescombe Road North and Battle Road, the habitat forms part of the significant Hollington Valley habitat complex which runs continuous with the Hollington Stream and forms one of the most significant valley corridors in the Borough.

The area supports a range of complimentary and continuous habitats which include ancient semi-natural woodland, meadow with willow carr, secondary semi-natural woodland, an excellent pond feature, and open running water by way of the Hollington Stream.

Such a large corridor system and habitat matrix form the essential elements of the green network of the borough and provide a unique countryside experience within the town. Access to the area extends from the Ridge in the north to Hollington in the south.

SITE NOTES

A path leads into the site from the Ridge and cuts through remnant ancient woodland, the eastern side of which has a canopy of predominantly oak and ash with an understorey of blackthorn and hawthorn. There is good regeneration of the canopy trees, with little evidence of much sycamore. The woodland floor supports wood avens, wood dock and large patches of wood speedwell. The western part of the wood supports a greater variety of tree species including horse chestnut, sycamore and hornbeam as well as oakand ash and field maple. This part of the wood borders the Ridge and adjacent farmland.

The footpath itself supports a rich variety of path edge species, including wood dock, ox-eye daisy, herb robert, a variety of rose species, red campion and wood avens along with a variety of plants such as hop trefoil, brambles, stitchwort, clovers, meadow buttercup. Of special note is the presence of pyramidal orchid and green flowered helleborine, both of which are particularly unusual in Hastings. The path is integral to the entire site, as it provides walkers with a countryside experience and leads into the rest of the SNCI. It is a particularly well used path for local residents.

The path leads to an enclosed meadow area which is bounded on all sides by a mature and diverse hedge line with trees.

The meadow is bisected by an open drain which feeds the pond in the southern adjacent woodland. The northern part of the drain provides an excellent environment for the growth of a dense willow scrub resulting in a carr habitat. This gives way to the wet margins of the drain which support a valuable and dense growth of hemlock water dropwort and great willowherb for the entire length of this wetland feature. Within this wet habitat there is profuse growth of soft rush, silverweed and fleabane with aquaticfigwort, hemp agrimony and water pepper. The drain provides an unusual habitat and one that would appear to be fairly unique in its abundance and diversity of vegetation. The shallow nature and width of the wet area supports plants best suited to this environment such as the water dropwort, a plant of unusual character and relatively rare within Hastings, found in few other sites. The relative scarcity of the plant, and other damp and wetland species is undoubtedly due to the absence of good quality damp and wet marginal habitats in the Borough.

The meadow edge supports a mature woodland edge composition with ash, oak, sycamore, blackthorn,

birch, elder, holly, bramble, bracken and rose species in an excellent habitat structure. Lesser trefoil, common cat's ear, beaked and marsh hawksbeard, nipplewort, common field speedwell, yellow rattle and foxglove are all part of the dynamic mix at the meadow edge.

The main meadow area is characterised by a variety of grassland species with cut-leaved geranium, fleabane, common field speedwell, pignut, germander speedwell and creeping cinquefoil all found in the grassland habitat. There are areas of bramble and bracken clumps which further diversify the habitat structure and provide additional food and shelter for wildlife. Other meadow species which can be found are common knapweed, stitchwort, yellow rattle, birds-foot trefoil and meadow vetchling.

The meadow represents one of the few remaining and certainly one of the best examples of this habitat type, with associated habitat complexes, left in the Borough. The rich variety of meadow flowers are the primary food source for an array of butterfly species, insects and moths. Notable on site is the abundance of ant hills.

The adjacent Willows Wood is situated to the south of the main meadow area. It is predominantly birch and sycamore wood of an open aspect, with hazel, holly and hawthorn growing and a wet flush area supporting a dense area of alder carr.

There is no rank vegetation or extensive bramble thickets. The ground flora forms a carpet of bluebells and wood anemone in the spring. Where the woodland opens out close to the stream the floral diversity increases with wood sorrel, wild celery, woodrush, opposite-leaved golden saxifrage and cuckoo flower. Where there are wet margins to the stream water mint and great willowherb extend into the pond area. The pond is used by anglers and has a good coverage of reedmace with marginal vegetation.

The public footpath which leads down Beauharrow Lane, skirting the outside edge of the wood, has a typically disturbed flora of cow parsley, hedge mustard and ground elder. Interestingly, dog's mercury is found at this edge environment but not as part of the main woodland flora. The path leads into and through Willows Wood which forms a continuous belt of semi-natural habitat.

The edge graduates from the disturbed ground flora at the path side to a typical shrubby edge of blackthorn and hawthorn, interspersed with ivy and bramble thickets. The Hollington stream runs down the western edge of the path. The stream side vegetation is particularly dense with abundant ramsons and wood anemone and regeneration of sycamore, holly, hawthorn, elder and ash alongside alder. Some gooseberry bushes are also growing beside the stream.

Further south, where the stream meanders, there are obvious signs of occasional flooding. Woodrush, equisetum and opposite leaved golden saxifrage can be found along most of the streamside. The stream is crossed by a bridge which leads out to either Battle Road or Sedlescome Road North. A large number of semi-mature alder trees are present at this part of the wood.

The main woodland belt between the path and stream consists of a ground flora of wood anemone and ramsons with associated black nightshade and hemp agrimony with rose spp. The wood is characterised by birch, willow, alder, ash and gean, particularly at the southern end.

The eastern side of the path has a sparser ground flora with less prolific tree regeneration. The wood here is dominated by mature gean and some of the oldest stands of mature blackthorn bushes seen anywhere in the Borough. There are also less bramble thickets.

Across the bridge on the western side of the stream lies an area of disused allotments which now provides an excellent dense bramble habitat with regenerating trees.

DISCUSSION

The site represents an excellent matrix of wildlife habitats which form part of the greater Hollington Valley which has the Hollington Stream and associated woodlands running its course. The valley forms a very major wildlife corridor and one of the best wildlife habitats within the Borough.

The open meadow area together with the unique carr habitat graduating into woodland with woodland pond make the area not only a valuable wildlife complex but an open countryside experience within the town for local residents. With the development of land adjacent to Beauharrow Lane and the destruction of a large area of blackthorn habitat it is essential the SNCI is recognised as an invaluable and irreplaceable habitat of excellent quality and an asset for the people of Hastings to enjoy.

The entire site has obvious potential for management as a community resource where paths, signposts and way marking could contribute to the site. As a large matrix of complimentary habitats, the SNCI has

few rivals in the Borough, and the potential for creating and promoting a green network of footpaths for local residents and visitors should be a strong management objective.

Borough Plan ConsiderationsPart of the site is identified as employment land and land required for the proposed bypass.


01 October 2014

Appendix 2 Habitat target notes


01 October 2014

Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes (July, 2013)

1. Semi‐natural broadleaved woodland on road embankment supporting a canopy dominated by

young ash Fraxinus excelsior, occasional sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus and rare pedunculate

oak Quercus robur. The understorey supports sparse field maple Acer campestre, and the

ground layer consists of abundant bramble Rubus agg. and nettle Urtica dioica, frequent

cleavers Galium aparine, occasional herb‐Robert Geranium robertianum, wood avens Geum

urbanum, male‐fern Dryopteris filix‐mas, and rare hart’s‐tongue Phyllitis scolopendrium, wood

dock Rumex sanguineus and creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens.

2. Unmanaged, but locally rabbit‐grazed, semi‐improved neutral grassland with patches of tall

ruderals around the edges, but relatively free from bramble Rubus agg. encroachment and/or

dominance by robust aggressive grasses. The sward is dominated by Yorkshire‐fog Holcus

lanatus. Other frequent grasses include rough meadow‐grass Poa trivialis, creeping bent

Agrostis stolonifera, common bent Agrostis capillaris, sweet vernal‐grass Anthoxanthum

odoratum and Timothy Phleum pratense. A range of other grasses and forbs also occur

including broadleaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, silverweed Potentilla anserina, curled dock

Rumex crispus, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata, hoary ragwort Senecio erucifolius,

creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, common couch

Elytrigia repens, common bird’s‐foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus, red clover Trifolium pratense,

greater bird's‐foot‐trefoil Lotus pedunculatus, common knapweed Centaurea nigra, thyme‐

leaved speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia, daisy Bellis perennis, cut‐leaved crane’s‐bill Geranium

dissectum, oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare, lesser stitchwort Stellaria graminea, yarrow

Achillea millefolium, meadow barley Hordeum secalinum, black bent Agrostis gigantea,

smooth meadow‐grass Poa pratensis and perennial rye‐grass Lolium perenne.

3. Semi‐natural broadleaved woodland with a canopy dominated by semi‐mature sycamore Acer

pseudoplatanus, occasional beech Fagus sylvatica and turkey oak Quercus cerris, and a single

very mature standard holm oak Quercus ilex. The understorey is very sparse, with locally

abundant snowberry Symphoricarpos albus. The ground layer is largely of bare and trampled

ground with local patches of nettle Urtica dioica, a few plants of wood dock Rumex

sanguineus, broad‐leaved helleborine Epipactis helleborine, wood sedge Carex sylvatica,

enchanter's‐nightshade Circaea lutetiana, ramsoms Allium ursinum and bluebell Hyacinthoides

non‐scripta, and occasional ash Fraxinus excelsior and sycamore seedings.

4. Broadleaved plantation woodland on road embankment dominated by beech Fagus sylvatica.

5. Tall ruderal vegetation along woodland edge dominated by nettle Urtica dioica, with

occasional broadleaved dock Rumex obtusifolius, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, curled dock

Rumex crispus, bramble Rubus agg., Yorkshire‐fog Holcus lanatus, cleavers Galium aparine,

burdock Arctium sp. and silverweed Potentilla anserina.


01 October 2014

6. Linear belt of mature broadleaved woodland along earth bank dominated by sycamore Acer

pseudoplatanus, together with rare sweet chestnut Castanea sativa, ash Fraxinus excelsior,

holly Ilex aquifolium, pedunculate oak Quercus robur and turkey oak Quercus cerris. Some

young holly and sycamore is present in the understorey, together with a few coppice hazel

Corylus avellana. Ground layer species include ivy Hedera helix, hard shield‐fern Polystichum

aculeatum, wood speedwell Veronica montana, honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum, male

fern Dryopteris filix‐mas, red campion Silene dioica and wood anemone Anemone nemorosa.

7. Dense bramble Rubus agg. scrub with occasional creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, hogweed

Heracleum sphondylium, nettle Urtica dioica and ash Fraxinus excelsior saplings.

8. Small stand of semi‐natural broadleaved woodland, included on the Ancient Woodland

Inventory, dominated by mature alder Alnus glutinosa, including some coppice, and frequent

downy birch Betula pubescens. Some hazel Corylus avellana and hawthorn Crataegus

monogyna are present as understorey shrubs. The ground layer supports occasional

pendulous sedge Carex pendula, broad buckler‐fern Dryopteris dilatata, bluebell Hyacinthoides

non‐scripta, hedge woundwort Stachys sylvatica and red campion Silene dioica. This damp

woodland grades into pedunculate oak Quercus robur and ash Fraxinus excelsior dominated

woodland on drier slightly elevated margins with characteristic ground flora here including

wood sorrel Oxalis acetosella, wood anemone Anemone nemorosa, Enchanter's‐nightshade

Circaea lutetiana and ramsons Allium ursinum.

9. Shallow field drain in late stage of hydrosere and supporting a range of tall herb and damp

ground plants. Species present include hemlock water‐dropwort Oenanthe crocata, great

willowherb Epilobium hirsutum, nettle Urtica dioica, creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, hemp‐

agrimony Eupatorium cannabinum, floating sweet‐grass Glyceria fluitans, jointed rush Juncus

articulatus, plicate sweet‐grass Glyceria notate, marsh foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus, creeping

buttercup Ranunculus repens and silverweed Potentilla anserina.

10. Linear earth bank 1.5‐2m high with old hedgerow / former woodland boundary supporting

mature pedunculate oak Quercus robur, coppice ash Fraxinus excelsior, hazel Corylus avellana,

holly Ilex aquifolium and turkey oak Quercus cerris.

11. Very dense blackthorn Prunus spinosa scrub with bare ground beneath.

12. Mature grey willow Salix cinerea scrub on damp ground with occasional hawthorn Crataegus

monogyna and elder Sambucus nigra. Species in the ground layer include enchanter's‐

nightshade Circaea lutetiana, nettle Urtica dioica, broad buckler‐fern Dryopteris dilatata and

wavy‐bittercress Cardamine flexuosa.

13. Parallel hedgerows with central footpath. The hedges support a range of woody species

including ash Fraxinus excelsior, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, sycamore Acer


01 October 2014

pseusoplatanus, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, bramble Rubus agg., dog‐rose Rosa canina, field

maple Acer campestre, spindle Euonymus europaeus and a cherry Prunus sp.

14. Semi‐natural broadleaved woodland with a canopy dominated by sycamore Acer

pseudoplatanus and occasional turkey oak Quercus cerris, with some younger ash Fraxinus

excelsior and holly Ilex aquifolium in the understorey. There is also the remnant of an old

hawthorn Crataegus monogyna dominated hedgerow. The ground layer is species‐poor and

dominated by ivy Hedera helix, together with some bramble Rubus agg., nettle Urtica dioica

and cleavers Galium aparine.

15. Young mixed plantation of Corsican pine Pinus nigra, rowan Sorbus aucuparia, pedunculate

oak Quercus robur, ash Fraxinus excelsior, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and blackthorn

Prunus spinosa, with a sparse and species poor ground layer of ivy Hedera helix, hogweed

Heracleum sphondylium, bramble Rubus agg. and cleavers Galium aparine.

16. Stand of Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica along edge of footpath.

© Applied Ecology Ltd, 2014

Documents

Queensway Gateway Road - Combe Haven Defenders · Applied Ecology Ltd Queensway Gateway Road – Baseline Ecology Report 1 01 October 2014 1 Introduction Background 1.1 Applied Ecology