astley lane, bedworthapps.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/bt_nbbc_planning... · astley lane, bedworth...

of 29/29
Astley Lane, Bedworth Ecological Appraisal A Report on behalf of the Arbury Estate February 2015 30 Brock Street Bath BA1 2LN tel: 01225 445548 fax: 01225 312387 [email protected] www.npaconsult.co.uk

Post on 19-Jul-2018

215 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Astley Lane, Bedworth Ecological Appraisal

    A Report on behalf of the Arbury Estate February 2015

    30 Brock Street Bath BA1 2LN tel: 01225 445548 fax: 01225 312387

    [email protected]

    www.npaconsult.co.uk

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    CONTENTS

    1.0 Introduction

    2.0 Appraisal

    2.1 Habitats

    2.2 Amphibians

    2.3 Reptiles

    2.4 Bats

    2.5 Water Vole & Otter

    2.6 Badgers

    2.7 Birds

    2.8 Invertebrates

    3.0 Conclusion

    Figures

    Nature Conservation Designations within 1km

    References

    Appendices

    I: Ecology Surveys of Land Off Astley Lane

    II: Biodiversity Impact Assessment

    III: Offsite Habitat Survey

    IV: Bat Internal/External Assessment

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 1/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    1.0 INTRODUCTION

    This document has been prepared by Nicholas Pearson Associates (NPA) on behalf of the

    Arbury Estate who propose to submit an outline planning application for up to 180

    residences (and related infrastructure) on approximately 11.6 ha of land (identified on the

    Location Plan, dwg No. 15 0076) to the north of Astley Lane, Bedworth.

    A report detailing the results of ecological surveys undertaken on Site has been prepared by

    Ecological Services Ltd (ESL) and should be read in conjunction with this appraisal. As such it

    is included in Appendix 1 for ease of reference. In addition two further ecological surveys

    have been carried out by NPA, namely off-Site habitat surveys to inform biodiversity

    offsetting proposals (see Appendix III) and bat internal/external inspections of properties on

    and near the south-east corner of the Site (see Appendix IV).

    This appraisal sets out a summary of the baseline conditions, the ecological mitigation and

    enhancements proposed, and how the proposals accord with national and local planning

    policy and legislation.

    2.0 APPRAISAL

    A number of valued ecological receptors were identified within the ESL report and this

    section outlines the proposed mitigation/approach to each.

    2.1 Habitats

    Baseline Summary

    The Site, with the exception of approximately 2ha of improved grassland that forms the

    western field (see Warwickshire Biological Records Centre nature conservation designation

    map in Appendix I), is part of the Newdigate Colliery Local Wildlife Site (LWS) (The nature

    conservation designations figure is provided in the figures section of this report for erase of

    reference). The LWS covers 34.9 ha in total and is designated for its large area of

    semi-improved grassland, pioneer habitats, scrub and plantation woodland.

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 2/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    In addition the following UK and/or Warwickshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats

    have been recorded on Site; Hedgerows, Ponds, Woodland, Neutral Grassland and Disused

    Industrial and Railway Land.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

    Whilst LWSs do not receive statutory protection, the policies in Table 1 below are included

    in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the emerging local plan.

    Table 1: Key Planning Policy relevant to Local Wildlife Sites

    Document Policy

    NPPF Paragraph 109:

    The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

    environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in

    biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Governments commitment to

    halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including establishing coherent ecological

    networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures

    Paragraph 1118:

    if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (thorough

    locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated,

    or as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be

    refused.

    Nuneaton and

    Bedworth

    Borough Plan:

    Preferred

    Options

    Env1-Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy

    Ecological Network

    Within locally designated sites show that the benefits of the development

    proposals outweigh the biodiversity or geodiversity value of the site, otherwise

    the development proposal will not be permitted.

    Ensure a net gain in biodiversity by firstly avoiding any adverse impacts, or,

    where this is not possible, ensure adverse impacts are mitigated.

    Biodiversity Mitigation

    Require developers to use the Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics to replace any

    loss of habitats due to their development. If the habitat loss cannot be replaced

    on site, the replacement habitat should, firstly, be provided on a biodiversity

    offsetting strategic location, secondly, where offset location buffers, links,

    restores or expands a habitat out a strategic location; and lastly, where the

    offset location does not contribute to the offsetting strategy.

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 3/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    Whilst the UK BAP partnership no longer operates following the publication of the UK

    Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, the principles of the UK BAP still remain of use, for

    example the background information on UK BAP priority habitats and species which still

    form the basis of much biodiversity work at country level. The habitats and species listed as

    having principle importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity within the Natural

    Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 continue to be regarded as

    conservation priorities in the new Framework and these are the species and habitats

    requiring action under the UK BAP. As such, the species list on the UK BAP and LBAP list

    have been taken into consideration.

    Mitigation

    The proposals (see Illustrative Masterplan and Proposed Habitats Plan) have sought to

    avoid/minimise impacts on the LWS, and those considered to qualify as local/UK BAP

    habitats, as far as practicable. In addition the Masterplan has sought to maximise habitat

    enhancement and creation. As such the Masterplan proposals include the:

    Retention of all/ the vast majority of woodland, hedgerows, hardstanding associated

    with former colliery railway and ponds,

    Creation and/or enhancement of 6ha of semi-improved grassland to mitigate for the

    loss of 4ha of semi-improved grassland,

    Creation of three new ponds, and

    Enhancement of brook along the northern edge of the development

    In accordance with local planning policy the Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics were used to

    assess if the proposals would provide net gains in biodiversity. The assessment and results of

    the Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics are detailed within Appendix II. In summary they

    demonstrate that whilst there would be a loss of habitats from within the LWS, overall net

    gains in habitat biodiversity would be achieved through the mitigation measures outlined

    above. In addition the proposal would provide certainty that habitat would be managed in

    the long term for the benefit of biodiversity (as it is noted that currently the land owner is

    under no obligation to do so).

    The approach to the mitigation, including the location and proposals for the off Site

    mitigation, has been subject to consultation with the Local Planning Authority (Nuneaton

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 4/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    and Bedworth Borough Council, NBBC), Warwickshire County Council (WCC) and

    Warwickshire Wildlife Trust (WWT).

    The consultation focused on retention and/or enhancement of important habitats on Site

    and then sought to identify further areas off-Site which could be improved to achieve net

    biodiversity gains. The area chosen for off-site mitigation has been identified as it adjoins the

    northern boundary of the Newdigate Colliery LWS, is within 500m of the land to be

    affected, would provide buffer habitat to the adjacent woodland and would not fragment

    connectivity to other nature conservation designations in the area.

    It is considered that the mitigation measures outlined above, and detailed within the

    biodiversity impact assessment, together with the certainty of future land management,

    would increase the resilience of the LWS to current and future pressures.

    2.2 Amphibians

    Baseline Summary

    In 2007 prior to the development of the housing estate that adjoins the eastern boundary of

    the Site, Great Crested Newts Triturus cristatus (GCN) were recorded in ponds 6, 7 & 8 (see

    ESL Figure 2), with peak counts of 8, 8 and 3 recorded respectively in each pond, with a

    total peak count for the ponds of 11 GCN (i.e. just falling within the 11-100 category to be

    considered a medium population size class).

    A period of trapping and translocation under a Natural England EPS mitigation licence was

    then undertaken between 2007 and 2010, with at least 21 GCN translocated to a receptor

    site in the north eastern spur of the current application Site, with pond 5 created as part of

    the mitigation works.

    Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys of ponds 1-6 (see ESL Figure 2) in June 2014 recorded

    GCN present in each of ponds with the exception of pond 3. Ponds 7 & 8 could not be

    surveyed using the eDNA method due to their shallowness and high levels of organic

    matter.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 5/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    GCN receive protection under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat

    Regulations). As the proposals, in the absence of mitigation, could lead to the killing, injury

    and/or disturbance of GCN the local authority, and later Natural England licensing, will need

    to be confident that the following three tests of the Habitat Regs can satisfied:

    i. The development must meet a purpose of preserving public health or public safety, or

    other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or

    economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the

    environment; and

    ii. There is no satisfactory alternative, and

    iii. The action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of

    the species concerned as a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

    Natural Englands Standing Advice on GCN states that if habitat is to be affected

    compensation should ensure, once completed, there will be no net loss of breeding or resting sites.

    In fact where significant impacts are predicted there will be an expectation that compensation will

    provide an enhanced habitat (in terms of quality or area) compared with that to be lost.

    Mitigation

    The need for residential development in the area and the lack of satisfactory alternative sites

    are discussed within the Planning Statement that accompanies this application.

    The proposals, as shown in the Illustrative Masterplan and Proposed Habitats Figure,

    incorporate the following key mitigation measures to avoid detrimental affecting the GCN

    conservation status.

    Development within the eastern Public Open Space (POS)/Persimmon GCN receptor

    area avoided/minimised as far as practicable,

    o Proposals in this area would be limited to upgrading of the existing footpath to a cycle way and creation of a short length of new sewer.

    o Existing ponds in the area which appear to have been neglected would be subject to enhancement measures that would be detailed within a Site

    management plan (e.g. thinning/removal of over-shading vegetation, removal of

    encroaching vegetation and removal of accumulated silt).

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 6/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    Provision of optimal GCN habitat corridor to the north of the proposed residential

    area.

    o This corridor would link existing GCN habitat in the east to that proposed in the west, through the retention/enhancement of terrestrial habitat and creation

    of a pond specifically designed for GCN.

    Creation of optimal GCN habitat in the western field.

    o Habitat to include an additional two ponds specifically designed for GCN, dense and scattered scrub, log piles, hibernacula and long grassland.

    o The proposed ponds would act as stepping stones so the GCN population would have connectivity to additional woodland habitat outside their recognised

    range of 500m and potentially to GCN populations to the north-west (Ponds 1

    & 2, ESL Figure 2) and south-west (Pond 4, ESL Figure 2). The brook to the

    north of the western field is not considered a barrier to GCN movement given

    its slow flow and relatively narrow (approx. 3m) width. Astley Lane is not

    considered an absolute barrier to GCN movement given the absence of kerbs in

    some locations and only low kerbs present elsewhere.

    Whilst the proposals would damage/destroy approximately 4ha of semi-improved grassland

    (considered to provide foraging habitat for GCN), and 1ha of broad-leaved plantation, scrub,

    tall ruderal and gardens which (considered to provided foraging and resisting habitat for

    GCN) the mitigation strategy would lead to:

    No loss of existing core GCN habitat (i.e. habitat within 50m of existing GCN pond).

    Creation of:

    o an additional 1.9ha of core habitat, suitable for breeding, resting and foraging (around three proposed ponds), leading to an increase of breeding and resting

    sites.

    o approximately 0.7ha of scrub, which would provide resting and foraging habitat, and include hibernacula and log piles,

    o approximately 1.2ha grassland to be managed as a hay meadow, which would provide foraging habitat,

    o 3 ponds, specifically designed for GCN, within 250m of each other and/or existing GCN ponds, providing GCN with connectivity to two additional GCN

    populations and significant additional terrestrial habitat.

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 7/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    To avoid the potentially killing or injury of GCN a trapping programme would be

    undertaken prior to construction to trap GCN out of suitable habitat which would be

    affected and/or isolated. Trapping would utilize exclusion fencing and pitfall traps (in

    accordance with the designs given in Natural Englands GCN Mitigation Guidelines) and

    habitat manipulation. Captured GCN and other herpetofauna would either be translocated

    to the existing receptor area or adjacent to ponds in the western field.

    Construction boundary exclusion fencing would remain in place throughout construction to

    avoid the killing and/or injury of GCN. Regular visits would be undertaken throughout the

    construction period by a suitably licensed GCN ecologist and post construction monitoring

    would be undertaken in accordance with the guidance within Natural Englands GCN

    Mitigation Guidelines.

    It is considered that the existing survey information and the detail provided regarding the

    proposals and mitigation is sufficient to determine that the proposals will not be detrimental

    to the favorable conservation status of the GCN population and indeed would provide

    significantly enhanced habitat. However it is recognised that to apply for a Natural England

    EPS mitigation licence, Natural England will require update population size class assessments

    survey data to inform the licence, in particular to ascertain the number of appropriate

    trapping days required and the appropriate level of post construction monitoring.

    2.3 Reptiles

    Baseline Summary

    The reptile surveys recorded a Grass Snake Natrix natrix, on two occasions, approximately

    20m from pond 5. However the baseline survey report does note that some of the surveys

    were carried out in sub-optimal months and may have resulted in an under recording of

    reptiles at the Site.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

    Common reptile species (Grass Snake, Slow-Worm, Common Lizard and Adder) are

    protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) against killing and injury.

    Mitigation

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 8/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    The proposals (see Illustrative Masterplan and Proposed Habitats Plan) have sought to avoid

    and minimise impacts on areas considered suitable for reptiles. The terrestrial habitat

    requirements for common reptiles are very similar to those required by GCN (with the

    notable exception that reptiles require areas for basking). As such it is considered that the

    avoidance and mitigation measure described for GCN above will avoid the killing and/or

    injury of reptiles and provide them with significant habitat enhancements, especially Grass

    Snake for which waterbodies are an important habitat.

    2.4 Bats

    Baseline Summary

    Bat surveys recorded at least six different species of bat (Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus

    pipistrellus, Soprano Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus, Noctule Nyctalus noctula, Brown

    Long-eared Plecotus Auritus, Leislers Nyctalus leisleri and at least one species of Myotis bat

    Myotis sp.) foraging across the Site, with the majority of activity being associated with the

    vegetated Site boundaries. Building inspections undertaken on Police Cottage and Colliery

    Cottages (see Appendix IV) have recorded the presence, confirmed by DNA analysis of

    droppings, of Brown Long-eared and Whiskered Bat Myotis mystacinus roosts respectively at

    these properties.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

    All bats receive protection under the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. This protection

    includes making it an offence to disturb them (in particular any disturbance which is likely to

    impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or hibernate), significantly affect their

    local distribution or damage/destroy their roosts.

    Mitigation

    Given that a bat roost has been recorded at Police Cottage, this dwelling is proposed to be

    retained along with Colliery Cottages. In addition the network of proposed vegetated

    corridors in the Masterplan, which will allow for bat commuting across the Site and the

    wider landscape, includes a strong vegetated corridor from Police Cottage and Colliery

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 9/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    Cottages to the woodland in the north and to the enhanced habitat in the western field and

    beyond.

    To ensure the continued suitability of these corridors for bats, no lighting is proposed in the

    POS in west, east and along the northern corridor, and the design allows for darkened bat

    corridors from the bat roosts identified in/near the south east of Site. Section B-B in the

    Design and Access Statement shows how retention of the southern hedgerow and a

    proposed hedge with trees would form a darkened bat corridor along this boundary.

    It is considered that the measures above and the proposed creation of significant areas of

    optimal bat habitat (including ponds, hedgerows, diverse grassland and scrub) on and off Site

    would provide an enhanced habitat for bats.

    2.5 Water Vole and Otter

    Baseline Summary

    As the lower banks of the brook are devoid of vegetation and are of a stony substrate the

    brook is considered generally unsuitable for Water Vole.

    As the brook does not have close connectivity to any rivers or major watercourses and

    appears to lack food resources for Otter, it is considered to be of low biodiversity value for

    this species.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

    Otter are a European Protected Species and receive the same legal protection as bats and

    GCN.

    Water Vole are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which includes

    making it an offence to disturb, damage, destroy or block access to their places of shelter.

    Mitigation

    The proposals allow for a 20-30m buffer from the brook to the nearest proposed road or

    housing parcel and as such the majority of potential direct impacts on the brook would

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 10/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    avoided. Best practice measures would be implemented to avoid pollution events during

    construction and/or operation to the watercourse.

    In addition it is proposed to enhance the biodiversity value of the brook through

    thinning/removal of over shading scrub/trees to allow more light to reach the brook and it

    banks, and through the addition of in-channel features (e.g. faggots, small boulders) to keep a

    reasonable flow in the brook even in low flow conditions.

    2.6 Badger

    Baseline Summary

    No evidence of Badgers was recorded on or adjacent to the Site during the Extended Phase

    1 Habitat Survey.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

    Badgers are protected by the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which protects their setts

    from damage or destruction.

    Mitigation

    The proposals retain large areas of habitat suitable for sett building and foraging, and allow

    for Badger movement across the Site. Although no badger setts were identified on Site,

    given the presence of habitat on and adjacent to Site suitable for future sett creation, further

    checks would be undertaken prior to construction.

    2.7 Birds

    Baseline Summary

    No birds listed on Schedule 1 of the of Wildlife and Countryside Act or Section 41 of the

    Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act were returned from the local

    biological record centre. Incidental sightings of a range of common and widespread species

    were made during various other surveys undertaken on Site, but no breeding bird surveys

    have been undertaken to date.

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 11/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    Anecdotal records from people visiting the Site include S41 and Local BAP species Reed

    Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, Song Thrush Turdus philomelos and Yellow Hammer Emberiza

    citrinella.

    It is considered that the various habitats across Site are likely to support a broad assemblage

    of birds.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

    Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act it is an offence to damage or destroy an active

    birds nest.

    Species listed on Section 41 of the NERC Act and Local BAP are conservation priorities.

    Mitigation

    The proposals allow for the retention and creation of significant areas of suitable habitat.

    Habitats to be created include ponds, semi-improved grassland, scrub, hedgerows and trees.

    It is considered that the habitats created (most notably in the western field and off Site)

    would be of benefit to the bird population present.

    Disturbance to and displacement of breeding birds would be avoided by undertaking

    vegetation clearance outside of the bird breeding season (March September inclusive) or

    with a prior check for active birds nests.

    Whilst the above measures are considered sufficient to demonstrate the bird assemblage

    present will not be detrimentally affected, it is recommended that breeding bird surveys are

    undertaken to inform detailed mitigation measures (e.g. bird box specification, proposed

    plant species).

    2.8 Invertebrates

    Baseline Summary

    Local record centre returned on Site records for Dingy Skipper (UK and LBAP), Small Heath

    (UK BAP) and Latticed Heath (UK BAP). The locations for the Dingy Skipper records are

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 12/12 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    from an old pit siding in the north east of the Site and a spoil bank between the two main

    fields.

    Key Legislation and Planning Policy

    Species listed on the UK and Local BAP are conservation priorities.

    Mitigation

    The Masterplan retains areas where Dingy Skipper have been recorded and proposes the

    enhancement and creation of grassland areas, which would contain the larval foodplants and

    nectar sources of the Dingy Skipper.

    It is considered that the retention, enhancement and creation of significant habitat areas

    (including ponds, semi-improved grassland, scrub, hedgerows, trees and south facing scallops

    in the woodland to the north of the brook) would also benefit a wide range of other

    invertebrate species.

    3.0 CONCLUSION

    The proposals have sought to avoid and minimise impacts on the LWS as far as practicable

    and maximise habitat enhancement and creation. As such the proposals include the key

    mitigation measures below:

    Retention of existing GCN core habitat and creation of additional ponds and terrestrial

    habitat to maintain the favourable conservation status of the newts.

    Retention of on Site roost for bats and provision of a network of darkened vegetated

    corridors to maintain connectivity across the Site and to the wider landscape.

    Creation/enhancement of 6ha of semi-improved grassland to mitigate for loss of 4ha of

    existing semi-improved grassland, as well creating/enhancing a range of other habitats, to

    provide a net biodiversity gain.

    The above measures, and those detailed within the report, would ensure that net

    biodiversity gains would be achieved, favourable conservation status of species would be

    maintained and the proposal accord with all relevant legislation and planning policy.

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    APPENDIX I: ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS OF LAND OFF ASTLEY LANE

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    APPENDIX II: BIODIVERISTY IMPACT ASSESSMENT CALCUALTIONS

  • v. 18.3 08/08/2014Amendment from v18.2 only affects green roofs, for otPlease fill in both tables

    KEYNo action requiredEnter valueDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookupResult

    T. Note code Phase 1 habitat descriptionHabitat area (ha) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Area (ha) Existing value Area (ha) Existing value Area (ha) Existing value

    Direct Impacts and retained habitats A B C A x B x C = D E A x B x E = F G A x B x G = HB22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 4.80 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.44 3.52 0.23 1.84 4.13 33.04B6 Grassland: Poor semi-improved grassland 0.08 Medium-Low 3 Moderate 2 0.04 0.24 0.04 0.24B4 Grassland: Improved grassland 1.92 Low 2 Poor 1 0.16 0.32 1.43 2.86 0.33 0.66A111 Woodland: Broad-leaved semi-natural woodland 0.66 High 6 Moderate 2 0.66 7.92A112 Woodland: Broad-leaved plantation 1.54 Medium 4 Moderate 2 1.24 9.92 0.06 0.48 0.24 1.92A21 Woodland: Dense continuous scrub 1.19 Medium-Low 3 Moderate 2 0.85 5.10 0.34 2.04A22 Woodland: Scattered scrub 0.29 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.29 2.32G2 Wetland: Running water 0.23 High 6 Poor 1 0.23 1.38G1 Wetland: Standing water 0.08 High 6 Poor 1 0.08 0.48C31 Other: Tall ruderal 0.23 Medium-Low 3 Moderate 2 0.08 0.48 0.15 0.90n/a Built Environment: Gardens (lawn and planting) 0.51 Low 2 Poor 1 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.20 0.35 0.70n/a Built Environment: Buildings/hardstanding 0.01 none 0 Moderate 2 0.01 0.00J4 Other: Bare ground 0.01 Low 2 Good 3 0.01 0.06B4 Grassland: Improved grassland 5.01 Low 2 Poor 1 5.01 10.02

    Total 16.56 Total 3.84 30.00 7.14 17.26 5.58 39.50D + F + H

    86.76Indirect Negative Impacts Value of loss from indirect impactsIncluding off site habitats

    KK x A x B= Li, Lii Li - Lii

    Before After

    Before After

    Before After

    Before After

    Before After

    Total 0.00 M 0.00 HIS = J + M39.50

    Nuneaton & BedworthLocal Planning Authority:

    Habitats to be retained with no change within

    development

    Date:

    Existing habitats on sitePlease enter all habitats within the site boundary Habitat distinctiveness Habitat condition

    Before/after impact

    Site name:To condense the form for display hide vacant Please do not edit the formulae or structure

    Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull - Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator

    Astley LanePlanning application reference number:

    rows, do not delete themIf additional rows are required,or to provide feedback on the calculatorplease contact WCC Ecological Services

    Habitat Biodiversity Value

    Site habitat biodiversity value

    Habitats to be lost within development

    Assessor:

    Habitat Impact Score (HIS)

    Habitats to be retained and enhanced within

    development

  • T. Note code Phase 1 habitat description Area (ha) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Time (years) Score Difficulty ScoreHabitat Creation

    N O P Q R(N x O x P) /

    Q / RB22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 0.40 Medium 4 Moderate 2 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 1.52J12 Grassland: Amenity grassland 0.50 Low 2 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.83n/a Built Environment: Gardens (lawn and planting) 1.21 Low 2 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 2.02n/a Built Environment: Buildings/hardstanding 3.24 none 0 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.00G1 Wetland: Standing water 0.11 High 6 Good 3 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 0.94J4 Other: Bare ground 0.12 Low 2 Poor 1 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.20

    Total 5.58Habitat Enhancement Existing value

    S ( = F )(( N x O x P) - S) /

    Q / RB22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 0.23 Medium 4 Good 3 1.84 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.77B22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 0.76 Medium 4 Good 3 1.52 20 years 2 Low 1 3.80A22 Woodland: Scattered scrub 0.67 Medium 4 Moderate 2 1.34 10 years 1.4 Low 1 2.87G2 Wetland: Running water 0.23 High 6 Good 3 1.38 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 1.31G1 Wetland: Standing water 0.08 High 6 Good 3 0.48 10 years 1.4 Medium 1.5 0.46A112 Woodland: Broad-leaved plantation 0.10 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.20 10 years 1.4 Low 1 0.43A112 Woodland: Broad-leaved plantation 0.06 Medium 4 Good 3 0.48 5 years 1.2 Low 1 0.20B22 Grassland: Semi-improved neutral grassland 5.01 Medium 4 Good 3 10.02 15 years 1.7 Low 1 29.47

    Total 7.14 Trading down correction value -1.69Habitat Mitigation Score (HMS) 43.14

    HBIS = HMS - HISHabitat Biodiversity Impact Score 3.64

    Percentage of biodiversity impact loss

    KEYNo action requiredAction requiredDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookup

    Loss to biodiversityGain to biodiversity

    Proposed habitats on site(Onsite mitigation)

    Overall Result

    Time till target conditionHabitat

    biodiversity value

    Difficulty of creation / restorationTarget habitats distinctiveness Target habitat condition

  • ther habitats v18.2 still usable.

    Comment

    The 0.44ha retained is the GCN receptor area.

    0.16ha to be retained around NEAP and LEAP

    Ponds 1,2, 5 & 6

    Bare ground considered in Good condition for it's importnace to Dingy SkipperOff site mitigation fieldsJ

  • Comment

    Around boundary of main development and in SUDs feature

    45% of housing blocks (2.68ha * 0.45) likely to be lawn/planting. Adjacent development measured at ~47% planting/lawn1.62ha of roads plus remaining 55% housing block (0.55 * 2.68)

    Area enhanced to north and west of main dev through annual hay cut & collectionIn western improved field. Through cessation of fertiliser input, hay cut and collectionIn western improved field.Through allowing more light to stream and improving flowOpen water areas created in Ponds 1,2, 5 & 6 and more light allowed to reach pondsTree and shrub planting in south east corner of SiteWoodland scallops created north of the brookOff site mitigation fields. Aim to achieve target in 10 years, but allow 15 as a safety factor.

    Gain

  • Please fill in both tables

    KEYNo action required Linear FeaturesEnter valueDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookupResult

    T. Note code Phase 1 habitat descriptionFeature length (km) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Length (km) Existing value Length (km) Existing value Length (km) Existing value Comment

    Direct Impacts and retained features A B C A x B x C = D E A x B x E = F G A x B x G = HJ21 Hedges: Intact hedge 0.45 Medium 4 Moderate 2 0.43 3.47 0.02 0.12J26 Ditches: Dry ditch 0.20 Low 2 Poor 1 0.09 0.18 0.11 0.22

    Total 0.65 Total 0.52 3.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.34 JD + F + H

    3.99Indirect Negative Impacts Value of loss from indirect impacts

    KK x A x B= Li, Lii Li - Lii

    Before After

    Before After

    Before After

    Before After

    Before After

    Total 0.00 M 0.00 HIS = J + M0.34

    CAUTION - Destruction of features of medium or high distinctiveness, e.g. hedgerows and streams, may be against local policy. Has the mitigation hierarchy been followed, can impact to these habitats be avoided?Any unavoidable loss of valuable habitats must be replaced like-for-like. E.G. Loss of hedgerows must be replaced with similar or better hedgerows. All newly planted hedges should be native species-rich hedgerows.

    T. Note code Phase 1 habitat description Length (km) Distinctiveness Score Condition Score Time (years) Score Difficulty Score CommentLinear Creation

    N O P Q R(N x O x P) /

    Q / RJ23 Hedges: Hedge with trees 0.10 Medium-High 5 Moderate 2 10 years 1.4 Low 1 0.71 On eastern boundary, adjacent to Persimmon development

    Total 0.10Linear Enhancement Existing value

    S ( = F )(( N x O x P) - S) /

    Q / R

    Total 0.00 Trading down correction value 0.00Linear Mitigation Score (LMS) 0.71

    LBIS = LMS - LISLinear Biodiversity Impact Score 0.37 Gain

    Percentage of linear impact loss

    KEYNo action requiredAction requiredDrop-down menuCalculationAutomatic lookup

    Loss to biodiversityGain to biodiversity

    Linear biodiversity value

    Overall Result

    Hedges and other linear features can offer a higher biodiversity value per length than a standard area of habitat due to factors such as connectivity and must therefore be compensated for in parallel to the standard metric.

    Linear Impact Score (LIS)

    Proposed linear features on site(Onsite mitigation) Target linear distinctiveness Target linear condition

    Before/after impact

    Linear Biodiversity Value

    Existing linear features on site Linear distinctiveness Linear features to be lost within development

    Time till target condition

    Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull - Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator - Linear Features

    Site Linear Biodiversity Value

    Difficulty of creation / restoration

    Linear conditionLinear features to be retained

    with no change within development

    Linear features to be retained and enhanced within

    development

    Please do not edit the formulae or structureTo condense the form for display hide vacant

    or to provide feedback on the calculatorplease contact WCC Ecological Services

    rows, do not delete themIf additional rows are required,

  • Site name:Planning reference number:

    Habitats Area (ha)Habitat

    Biodiversity Value

    16.56 86.76

    5.58 39.50

    12.72 43.14

    3.64

    Linear features Length (km)Linear

    Biodiversity Value

    0.65 3.99

    0.13 0.34

    0.10 0.71

    0.37

    email: [email protected]: 01926 418060

    email: [email protected]: 01926 412772

    Habitats negatively impacted by development Habitat Impact Score

    Total existing area onsite

    Total existing length onsite

    Percentage of biodiversity impact

    Habitat Biodiversity Impact Score If -ve further compensation required

    On site habitat mitigation Habitat Mitigation Score

    For any questions with regard to biodiversity impact and this development please contact Warwickshire County Council Ecological Services:

    If there is an anticipated loss to biodiversity and no further ecological enhancements can be incorporated within the development it may be possible to compensate for this loss through a biodiversity offsetting scheme.

    Please contact The Environment Bank for discussions on potential receptor sites in your area:

    Biodiversity Impact Assessment Summary

    Percentage of linear biodiversity impact

    Linear Biodiversity Impact ScoreIf -ve further compensation required

    On site linear mitigation Linear Mitigation Score

    Linear features negatively impacted by development Linear Impact Score

    Astley Lane

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 App 111/1 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    APPENDIX III: OFF SITE HABITAT SURVEY

    A walkover survey of the fields identified as potentially available to provide biodiversity offsetting

    mitigation was undertaken in November and December 2014. Habitats were classified according to

    the Joint Nature Conservation Committees Phase 1 Habitat Survey methodology (JNCC, 2010) and

    a condition assessment following the guidance in Natural Englands Higher Level Stewardship Farm

    Environment Plan (FEP) Manual (2010). This involved determining whether any of the habitats within

    the survey area corresponded to the handbooks features (generally a Biodiversity Action Plan

    (BAP) priority habitat or other habitat of high ecological value). Such features were then assessed

    against a number of criteria to determine its condition.

    Survey results for the two fields which have been identified to provide off-site mitigation are

    provided below. Locations of Fields A & are shown in the Existing Habitats figure.

    Field A Field B

    Approximate size (ha)

    Species list Notes

    Field A

    2.6 Perennial Rye-grass, White Clover, Cock's-foot, Creeping Buttercup, Yorkshire-fog, Meadow Grass sp., Red Clover Trifolium pratense.

    Mixture of grasses with up to 30% herb cover, dominated by White Clover. Sward 5-10cm, evidence of cutting (hay) and cattle grazing.

    Field B

    2.4 Perennial Rye-grass, Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus, White Clover Trifolium repens, Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens.

    Sward dominated by Perennial Rye-grass with limited (

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 App 111/2 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    Using the FEP grassland key 2a, both fields can be categorised as species-poor improved

    grassland, having two or more of the following attributes:

    Cover of Rye-grasses and White Clover >30%;

    Species-poor sward (up to 8 species/m2); and/or

    Low wildflower cover (

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 App 1V/1 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    APPENDIX IV: BAT INTERNAL/EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT An external and internal assessment of Colliery Cottage and Police Cottage to assess their

    potential to support roosting bats was undertaken in December 2014. The location of the

    properties is shown on the Red Line Plan.

    During the external building survey, the perimeter of the buildings were walked and the exterior

    assessed for features that could provide roosting features for bats and/or features that could allow

    bats access to the building.

    The internal building survey searched through the roof spaces for evidence of bats (e.g. droppings,

    feeding remains, scratch marks, staining and sightings), features suitable for roosting bats and

    potential access points for roosting bats.

    Colliery Cottages (no.s 1, 2 & 3)

    External

    Redbrick, two storey building with pitched roof. Brick work in good condition. UPVC windows with concrete and brick lintels. Clay tiles. Two chimney breasts with lead flashing. Wooden fascia boards and open eaves. Roof in average condition with numerous slipped tiles (in particular on the southern aspect). Two single storey out buildings to the north with pitched tiled roofs.

  • Arbury Estates Ecological Appraisal Astley Lane, Bedworth

    AE/NPA/10747 App 1V/2 NICHOLAS PEARSON ASSOCIATES Astley Lane Ecological Appraisal.doc

    Internal Open to the tile and batten. Ridge height approx. 4m. Roof void width approx. 9m. Patchy insulation (fibre glass). Large wooden ridge and purlins. Uncluttered with no trusses. Droppings recorded within roof void of number 1 below ridge (confirmed as Whiskered Bat

    via DNA analysis). Draughty due to numerous slipped tiles. Large jackdaw nest within roof spaces of number 1 & 3. Access to roof void under tiles and eaves. Access for bats between all three roof voids.

    Confirmed Whiskered Bat Roost

    Police Cottage

    External One property but similar age and construction to Colliery Cottages Police Cottage has three chimneys, each with lead flashing (raised in areas) and hanging tiles. Numerous slipped tiles present.

    Internal Construction and condition as Colliery Cottages. Clustered bat dropping at each gable end and scattered under ridge. Droppings confirmed as

    Brown Long-eared via DNA analysis. Confirmed Brown Long-eared Bat Roost