preliminary ecological appraisal - crawley · 6.4 enhancement options 23 6.5 species licensing 24...

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal for

Three Bridges Road, Crawley

May 2017

The Landscape Partnership Ltd is a practice of Chartered Landscape Architects, Chartered Town Planners and Chartered Environmentalists, registered with the Landscape Institute and a member of the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment & the Arboricultural Association. The Landscape Partnership Limited Registered Office: Greenwood House 15a St Cuthberts Street Bedford MK40 3JG. 01234 261315 Registered in England No 2709001

Quality control

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

for

Three Bridges Road, Crawley

This report is certified BS 42020 compliant and has been prepared in accordance with

The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) Technical Guidance Series ‘Ecological Report Writing’ and Code of Professional Conduct.

Prepared by: Approved by:

Signature: Signature:

Name: Nick Trull Name: Dr Jo Parmenter

Title: Assistant Ecologist Title: Director

Date: 25 May 2017 Date: 25 May 2017

Client:

Robert West Consulting

Delta House

175-177 Borough High Street

London SE1 1HR

Contents

Non-technical summary

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Commission 1 1.2 Legislation and Policy background 1 1.3 Reporting standards 1 1.4 Site location and context 1 1.5 Acknowledgements 1 1.6 Description of the Project 2 1.7 Objectives of this appraisal 2 1.8 Previous ecological studies 2 1.9 Duration of appraisal validity 2

2 Methodology 4 2.1 Desk study methodology 4 2.2 Phase 1 habitat survey methodology 4 2.3 Preliminary bat roost assessment methodology: Trees 4 2.4 Preliminary bat roost assessment methodology: Buildings 6 2.5 Assessment methodology 8 2.6 Mitigation hierarchy 9

3 Results 10 3.1 Desk study results 10 3.2 Phase 1 habitat survey results 11 3.3 Preliminary bat roost assessment results: Trees 12 3.4 Preliminary bat roost assessment results: Buildings 13

4 Evaluation of conservation status and impact assessment 16 4.1 Assessment rationale 16 4.2 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of designated sites 16 4.3 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of habitats and green infrastructure 16 4.4 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of species 17 4.5 Cumulative impacts 19

5 Conclusions 20 5.1 Statutory and non-statutory designated sites 20 5.2 Habitats and species 20 5.3 Cumulative impacts 21 5.4 Overall assessment of value and impact 21

6 Recommendations 22 6.1 Avoidance measures 22 6.2 Proposed mitigation for known impacts 22 6.3 Compensation for ecological impacts 23 6.4 Enhancement options 23 6.5 Species licensing 24 6.6 Recommendations for further survey 24

7 References 25

Figures

1. Location

2. Phase 1 Habitat Survey 3. Preliminary bat roost assessment – trees

4. Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan

Appendices

1. Summary of relevant legislation

2. Impact and assessment methodology

3. Designated sites (information provided by Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre) 4. Details of proposed development

Non-technical summary

The Landscape Partnership was commissioned by Robert West Consulting to undertake a Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal comprising a desk study, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and an assessment of the potential of site features

to support bats, together with an assessment of impacts at Three Bridges Road, Crawley.

The objectives of the appraisal were to identify the habitats and species present or potentially present and

evaluate their importance, assess the impact of the development proposal and describe any measures necessary to avoid impacts, reduce impacts or compensate for impacts so that there is no net harm to

ecological features.

The survey involved classifying and recording habitat types and features of ecological interest, and identified

the potential for protected species to be present by assessing habitat suitability for those species. The survey

was undertaken by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel.

The site consists of three social housing dwellings and associated gardens comprising hardstanding, amenity

grassland, scattered mixed trees, hedgerow boundaries and ruderal vegetation. Collectively the habitats within

the proposed development site are assessed as being of Lower value at up to the Parish level.

Based on the habitat types present, and the age, construction type and condition of the three houses, it is considered that the site has potential to support the following protected species or groups of species:

amphibians (common toad and common frog), breeding birds, hedgehog and roosting bats.

In the absence of mitigation, the proposed development would give rise to a Minor Adverse impact upon habitats, amphibians, birds and hedgehog and an Unknown impact upon roosting bats. Further survey is

recommended in respect of roosting bats within the three buildings onsite, in order to understand the impact of the proposals upon these habitats. Mitigation has been proposed including replacement planting using

native berry bearing species, safeguarding the root protection zones of retained trees, working best practice

with regards to excavations, and provision of bird boxes on retained trees. This mitigation would reduce the impacts of the development proposals upon the habitats and species present to an overall Minor Adverse-

Neutral impact, other than for roosting bats which would remain Unknown subject to further surveys.

A number of ecological enhancements have been proposed, which would improve the quality of the site for

native flora and fauna, including creation of a new pond, dead-wood beetle habitat, habitat piles and bird and

bat boxes. Delivery of these enhancements would lead to an overall Neutral-Minor Beneficial impact.

Status: Issue Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Three Bridges Road, Crawley

© The Landscape Partnership

May 2017 Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Commission

1.1.1 The Landscape Partnership was commissioned by Paul Timmins and subsequently Cecilia

Thordardottir on behalf of Robert West Consulting Ltd to carry out a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), comprising a desk study, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and an assessment of the

potential of site features to support bats, together with an assessment of impacts of the proposed

development.

1.2 Legislation and Policy background

1.2.1 There is a range of protection given to sites and species. Sites may be designated at local, national, European or global importance for nature conservation. Species may be protected by

European-scale legislation or protected at varying levels of national protection.

1.2.2 The Local Planning Authority has policy to protect features of nature conservation value within

its Local Plan. Other regulators have policies relating to the consents issued by them.

1.2.3 Further information is given in Appendix 1.

1.3 Reporting standards

1.3.1 This report was written in compliance with British Standard 42020:2013 ‘Biodiversity — Code of practice for planning and development’ and the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management’s (CIEEM) Code of Professional Conduct.

1.3.2 This report was prepared in accordance with the CIEEM ‘Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing’

as updated December 2015.

1.3.3 The report was prepared by Nick Trull (Assistant Ecologist) and updated a previous report produced by Ben Jervis and Nick Aldus (Ecologists). All work was reviewed by Dr Jo Parmenter,

Director of The Landscape Partnership.

1.3.4 Assessment was undertaken against current legislation and planning policy, and in accordance

with standard guidance. Further information is given in Section 2 and Appendix 2.

1.4 Site location and context

1.4.1 The site lies close to the urban centre of Crawley, within the Three Bridges locale. Access is from

Three Bridges Road to the south. The site currently comprises three social houses with associated

gardens, and are owned and leased by Crawley Borough Council. The north, east and west boundaries all adjoin neighbouring gardens, whilst the southern boundary affronts Three Bridges

Road to the south.

1.4.2 The Ordnance Survey Grid Reference for the approximate centre of the proposed development

site is TQ 2778 3677. The location of the site is shown in Figure 01.

1.5 Acknowledgements

Surveyor Competencies

Survey(s) Surveyor(s) Experience

(years)

Licences

Phase 1 habitat survey

Ben Jervis MCIEEM

5+ Great crested newt Class Licence CL08 (Level 1)

Preliminary bat roost inspection: Trees and Buildings

Nick Aldus MCIEEM

10+ Great crested newt Class Licence CL08 (Level 1)



May 2017 Page 2

Other contributors

1.5.1 We acknowledge the input of:

• Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre for provision of data as reproduced in Appendices 3

and 4.

1.6 Description of the Project

1.6.1 The proposal involves the demolition of existing Local Authority hostel accommodation and erection of 10 x one bedroom (two person) and 4 x two bedroom (4 person) affordable flats with

associated parking and landscaping.

1.6.2 The development proposals are shown in Appendix 4.

1.7 Objectives of this appraisal

1.7.1 The aim of this appraisal is to inform a planning application for the proposed development, as

described above. Detailed objectives are;

• Identify the habitats and species present or potentially present and evaluate their

importance

• Identify any ecological constraints to development

• Assess the impact of the development proposal

• Identify any opportunities available for integrating ecological features within the

development

• Describe any measures necessary to avoid impacts, reduce impacts or compensate for impacts so that there is no net harm to ecological features

• Propose ecological enhancements

1.8 Previous ecological studies

1.8.1 There are no known previous ecological studies of the site.

1.9 Duration of appraisal validity

1.9.1 The assessment, conclusions and recommendations in this appraisal are based on the studies undertaken, as set out in this report, and the stated limitations. This appraisal is based on the

project as described and any changes to the project would need the appraisal to be reviewed.

Unless otherwise stated, the assessment, conclusions and recommendations given assume that the site habitats will continue to be used for their current purpose without significant changes

until development takes place. However, changes in use or management may occur between the time of the survey and proposals being implemented. Ecological features may change

naturally at any time; for example species may be lost from existing sites or colonise new areas. Our knowledge of the ecology of the site enables us to provide an estimate of the duration of the

validity of the surveys carried out and hence the applicability of this appraisal, so that any future

need for review and update of this appraisal, or the surveys described within it, and the date by

which such updates would become necessary, can be identified.

1.9.2 The table below sets out the duration of validity of each element of each information source. If the proposed development is delayed beyond the stated timescale, update surveys or further

investigations would be required.

Duration of validity of information source

Information

source

Date undertaken

Duration of validity from date undertaken

Notes

Desk study May 2016 1 – 2 years Further data may become available

Phase 1 habitat survey

18 May 2016 2 years The habitats on site may change especially if management changes

Preliminary bat roost inspection: Trees

18 May 2016 2 years Storm damage, tree felling or other factors can change bat roost potential of trees



May 2017 Page 3

Duration of validity of information source

Information

source

Date undertaken

Duration of validity from date undertaken

Notes

Preliminary bat roost inspection: Buildings

18 May 2016 2 years Storm damage, maintenance, neglect or other factors can change bat roost potential of buildings



May 2017 Page 4

2 Methodology

2.1 Desk study methodology

2.1.1 Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre provided records of protected, rare and/or priority species and

details of statutory and non-statutory designated sites in May 2016, within a 2km radius of the

boundary of the site.

2.1.2 The Magic website (www.magic.gov.uk) was used to identify sites of European and national

importance within a 2km radius.

2.1.3 Review of the relevant 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey map sheet identified waterbodies within 250m of the site, to inform requirement for protected species scoping surveys such as great crested

newt Habitat Suitability Index survey. Consideration was also given to the green infrastructure of

the local area.

2.1.4 The potential for protected, rare and/or priority species to be present on site has been considered

in this assessment, taking into account the nature of the site and the habitat requirements of the species in question. Absence of records does not constitute absence of a species. Habitats on-

site may be suitable to support other protected species that have not previously been recorded

within the search area. Records of alien species, non-localised records (e.g. tetrad records) and records dated pre-1995 have not been described in detail, but are taken into account when

considering likely species presence or absence.

Limitations to desk study methodology

2.1.5 There were no significant limitations to the desktop study.

2.2 Phase 1 habitat survey methodology

2.2.1 The standard Phase 1 habitat survey methodology (JNCC, 2010) was followed. Phase 1 habitat

survey is a standardised system for surveying, classifying and mapping wildlife habitats including urban areas. Any habitats present and areas or features of ecological interest within such habitats

were recorded and mapped. The survey methodology facilitates a rapid assessment of habitats

and it is not necessary to identify every species on site.

2.2.2 The survey visit was also used to identify potential for protected, rare and/or priority species, for

example, bats, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, to occur on, or in the vicinity of, the proposed development site. Although the survey methodology is not intended for species survey, any

protected, rare and/or priority species which were incidentally seen during the survey were noted.

2.2.3 The survey was undertaken on 18 May 2016 and the weather conditions were cold and windy

with rain throughout.

Limitations to Phase 1 habitat survey

2.2.4 Weather conditions were sub-optimal during survey, although this is not considered to have had

a significant impact on the survey findings.

2.2.5 Part of the north-east of the site was not accessed due to a timber stake fence being present

with no obvious entry point, resulting in survey only being undertaken from beyond the fence.

This is not considered to have significantly affected the outcome of the survey.

2.3 Preliminary bat roost assessment methodology: Trees

Rationale

2.3.1 Bats are European Protected Species. Many roosts are within trees, and the protection given to

roosts means that the presence or absence of roosts within the trees on the proposed

development site needs to be understood.

Methodology

2.3.2 The standard preliminary ground level roost assessment (PRA) methodology for trees (Bat Conservation Trust, 2016) was followed. This aims to determine the actual or potential presence



May 2017 Page 5

of bats, by inspecting for potential roost features from the ground, and determines any need for

further survey and/or mitigation.

2.3.3 Trees within the proposed development area which could potentially be removed for the development were inspected for the presence of potential roost features which may have been

suitable for use by roosting bats, with particular attention given to older and mature trees. All

aspects of the trees were inspected, looking for features and signs indicative of bat roosts:

• Woodpecker holes

• Rot holes

• Hazard beams

• Other vertical or horizontal cracks and splits such as frost cracks in stems or branches

• Partially detached bark plates

• Knot holes arising from naturally shed branches, or branches previously pruned back to

the branch collar

• Man-made holes (such as cavities that have developed from flush cuts) or cavities created by branches tearing out from parent stems

• Cankers caused by localised bark death in which cavities have developed

• Other hollows or cavities including butt-rots

• Double-leaders forming compression forks with included bark and potential cavities

• Gaps between overlapping stems or branches

• Partially detached ivy with stem diameters in excess of 50mm

• Bat, bird or dormouse boxes

2.3.4 Signs of a bat roost, in addition to the visible presence of bats, include

• Bat droppings in or around a potential roost feature (PRF)

• Odour coming from a PRF

• Audible bat squeaks at dusk or warm weather in daytime

• Staining below the PRF

2.3.5 Some signs such as staining, odour or squeaking may originate from other species and staining may arise from wet rot which would preclude bat use. Bats or bat droppings are the only

conclusive evidence of bat use, but many bat roosts have no external signs.

2.3.6 Close-focusing binoculars were used to inspect trees from the ground to the canopy, from all

sides of the trees and from close to the trunk and further away. A high power torch (Cluson Clulite) was used to inspect cavities and shaded areas of the branch structure. A Ridgid SeeSnake

endoscope was available to inspect potential roost features within 1.5m of ground level to identify

signs of bats such as the bats themselves, droppings, or other signs.

2.3.7 The survey of trees included an assessment of their potential to support bat roosts using the

following categories:

Assessment of trees potential to support bat roosts

Category Description

Negligible Trees with no potential to support bats

Low A tree of sufficient size and age to contain potential roost features but with none seen from the ground or with features seen with only very limited roosting potential

limited potential to support bats

Moderate A tree with one or more potential roost features that could be used by bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status

High A tree with one or more potential roost sites that are obviously suitable for use by larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time bats due to their size, shelter, protection, conditions and surrounding habitat

Confirmed roost Trees with evidence of bats present

Unknown Unable to fully survey, for example because part of the tree is inaccessible

2.3.8 The assessment was undertaken on 18th May 2016 and the weather conditions were cold and

windy with rain throughout.



May 2017 Page 6

Limitations to preliminary bat roost assessment: trees

2.3.9 Weather conditions were sub-optimal during survey, although this is not considered to have had

a significant impact on the survey findings.

2.3.10 Access to the north-eastern corner of the site was restricted due to the presence of a low-timber

fence. Trees present in this area were mostly immature or semi-mature and of insufficient girth or of a species unlikely to provide potential roost features. Therefore, this restriction of access is

not considered to have affected the outcome of survey.

2.4 Preliminary bat roost assessment methodology: Buildings

Rationale

2.4.1 Bat survey is usually needed for the building types where bats are likely to be present, which

include the following types (Collins, 2016):

• Agricultural buildings (e.g. farmhouses, barns and outbuildings) of traditional brick or

stone construction and/or with exposed wooden beams

• Buildings with weatherboarding and/or hanging tiles which are within 200m of woodland

or water

• Pre-1960 detached buildings and structures within 200m of woodland or water

• Pre-1914 buildings within 400m of woodland or water

• Pre-1914 buildings with gable ends or slate roofs, regardless of location

• Located within or immediately adjacent to woodland or immediately adjacent to water

• Dutch barns or livestock buildings with a single skin roof and board-and-gap or Yorkshire boarding if, following a preliminary roost assessment the site appears

particularly suited to bats

• Churches and listed buildings

2.4.2 This list is a guide and may be varied where professional knowledge and local knowledge can be

used to justify variations.

Methodology

2.4.3 The standard Preliminary roost assessment (PRA) methodology for structures (Bat Conservation

Trust, 2016) was followed. This aims to determine the actual or potential presence of bats, by inspecting for potential roost features, and determines any need for further survey and/or

mitigation. In many situations it is not possible to inspect all locations where bats may be present

and an absence of bat evidence is not adequate evidence that bats are not present.

2.4.4 All three houses were inspected internally and externally. A search was made for direct evidence

of bat presence. A systematic search pattern was used in order to avoid missing parts of the building or built structure, although some may not be visible from accessible parts of the building.

During the survey, a search was made for live or dead bats, droppings, urine splashes, fur-oil staining and clean cobweb-free gaps around potential entrance points and crevice roost sites.

The sound of bats was listened for. Feeding remains such as moth wings were also searched for, particularly internally. Potential access points and roosting sites were recorded even if there was

no direct evidence of use by bats. The inspection was thorough and a consistent search effort

was applied to all accessible parts of the buildings. Sometimes bats leave no visible signs of their

presence in or outside a building and rain can remove external signs.

2.4.5 The external search included the ground particularly beneath potential access points, any windowsills, window panes, wall, behind peeling paint or lifted render, hanging tiles,

weatherboarding, eaves, soffit boxes, fascias, lead flashing, gups under felt including flat roofs,

under tiles/slates, gaps in brickwork or stonework, and in bat boxes where these features were

present, and all other relevant external features.

2.4.6 A high power torch was used to survey the internal and external parts of the building, so that no evidence of bats was missed because of poor illumination. Close-focusing binoculars were used

when inspecting the external parts of the building from the ground, in order to view features

which might may be used by bats to gain access to the building



May 2017 Page 7

2.4.7 The internal search included the floor and surfaces of furniture and other objects, behind wooden

panelling, in lintels above doors and windows, behind window shutters, curtains and boarded up

windows, behind pictures, posters, furniture, peeling paintwork or wallpaper, behind lifted plaster, inside cupboards and in chimneys accessible from fireplaces where these features were present,

and all other relevant internal features. A search of the loft void, where present, included the top of gable end or dividing walls, top of chimney breasts, ridge and hip beams and other roof

beams, mortise and tenon joints, all beams, the junction of roof timbers, behind purlins, between

tiles and the roof lining, and under flat felt roofs, where these features were present. The roof void search also paid attention to the floor, water tanks, stored materials and other surfaces to

look for evidence of bats, under and around the edges of recently laid insulation, and internal

access to cavity walls were also inspected where present.

2.4.8 Features given particular attention, where present, included

• Gaps between ridge tiles and ridge and roof tiles, usually where the mortar has fallen out or the tiles are broken or lifted

• The ridge area of the roof, particularly between the ridge beam and roofing material

• Lifted lead flashing associated with roof valleys, ridges and hips, or where lead flashing

replaces tiles

• Spaces between external weatherboarding/cladding and the timber frame or wall

• Gaps behind window frames, lintels and doorways including the main doors

• Tenon and mortise joints between truss beams and braces and the principal support

columns

• Cracks and crevices in timber

• Gaps between stones or bricks, especially where purlins enter the wall and by the wall plate,

• Surfaces such as the floor, ledges, windows, sills or walls, machinery or stored materials

within the barn which might have bat droppings or urine stains.

2.4.9 Close inspection of cavities and behind timbers was aided by use of an endoscope, close-focusing

binoculars, a powerful torch and may have included use of a short ladder to reach some cavities.

The roof was inspected from ground level only.

2.4.10 The buildings which were inspected for their potential to support roosting bats are summarised

in the table below.

Summary of preliminary bat roost assessment

Building No.

Name Survey undertaken?

External survey

Internal survey

1 Number 83 Y ✓ ✓*

2 Number 85 Y ✓ ✓*

3 Number 87 Y ✓ ✓*

* Survey undertaken from loft hatch only

2.4.11 The assessment was undertaken on 18 May 2016 and the weather conditions were cold and

windy with rain throughout.

Limitations to preliminary bat roost assessment: buildings

2.4.12 The roof voids could only be inspected from the loft hatch due to the presence of asbestos, and therefore a comprehensive search for droppings and roosting bats could not be undertaken.

However, potential access to roof voids by bats was confirmed as daylight could be seen in a

number of locations.

2.4.13 As it is considered likely that the building exteriors provide greater roosting potential, this

limitation is not thought to have significantly impacted the outcome of the survey.



May 2017 Page 8

2.5 Assessment methodology

2.5.1 The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management’s (CIEEM) Professional Guidance Series ‘Guidelines for Ecological

Impact Assessment [EcIA] in the UK and Ireland’ (Second Edition January 2016).

2.5.2 More details of the assessment methodology are provided at Appendix 2, but in summary, the

impact assessment process involves

• identifying and characterising impacts;

• incorporating measures to avoid and mitigate (reduce) these impacts;

• assessing the significance of any residual effects after mitigation;

• identifying appropriate compensation measures to offset significant residual effects; and

• identifying opportunities for ecological enhancement.

2.5.3 The hierarchical process of avoiding, mitigating and compensating ecological impacts is explained

further below.

2.5.4 In EcIA it is only essential to assess and report significant residual effects (those that remain after

mitigation measures have been taken into account). However, it is considered good practice for the EcIA to make clear both the potential significant effects without mitigation and the residual

significant effects following mitigation, particularly where the mitigation proposed is experimental,

unproven or controversial; or to demonstrate the importance of securing the measures proposed

through planning conditions or obligations.

2.5.5 Assessment of the potential impacts of the application takes into account both on-site impacts and those that may occur to adjacent and more distant ecological features. Impacts can be

positive or negative. Negative impacts can include

• direct loss of wildlife habitats;

• fragmentation and isolation of habitats through loss of connectivity;

• disturbance to species from noise, light or other visual stimuli;

• changes to key habitat features; and

• changes to the local hydrology, water quality, nutrient status and/or air quality.

2.5.6 Negative and positive impacts on nature conservation features are characterised based on

predicted changes as a result of the proposed activities. In order to characterise the impacts on

each feature, the following parameters are considered

• the magnitude of the impact;

• the spatial extent over which the impact would occur;

• the temporal duration of the impact and whether it relates to the construction or operational phase of the development;

• the timing and frequency of the impact; and

• whether the impact is reversible and over what timeframe.

2.5.7 Both short term (i.e. impacts occurring during the site clearance and construction phases) and

long term impacts are considered.

Conservation status

2.5.8 The extent to which the application may have an effect upon ecological features should be

determined in the light of its expected influence on the integrity of the protected site or

ecosystem. The integrity of protected sites is considered specifically in the light of the site’s conservation objectives. Beyond the boundaries of designated sites with specific nature

conservation designations and clear conservation objectives, the concept of ‘conservation status’ is used. Conservation status should be evaluated for a study area at a defined level of ecological

value. The extent of the area used in the assessment relates to the geographical level at which

the feature is considered important.

• for habitats, conservation status is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the habitats and its typical species that may affect its long-term distribution, structure



May 2017 Page 9

and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within a given

geographical area; and

• for species, conservation status is determined by the sum of influences acting on the

species concerned and inter-relationships that may affect the long-term distribution and

abundance of its populations within a given geographical area.

Confidence in predictions

2.5.9 It is important to consider the likelihood that a change or activity will occur as predicted and also

the degree of confidence in the assessment of the impact on ecological structure and function.

• Certain probability estimated at above 95%

• Probable probability estimated above 50% but below 95%

• Possible probability estimated above 5% but below 50%

• Unlikely probability estimated as less than 5%.

Cumulative impacts

2.5.10 Consideration is also given to the potential for the development proposal to give rise to significant

negative impact in combination with other proposed development in the local area.

Overall assessment

2.5.11 An overall assessment of value and impact is provided, and this is based upon the highest level of value of any of the features or species present or likely to be present on the site, and similarly

the overall assessment of impact would be the impact of greatest significance.

2.6 Mitigation hierarchy

2.6.1 The following principles underpin EcIA and have been followed, where applicable, in this

assessment:

• Avoidance Seek options that avoid harm to ecological features (for example, by locating the proposed development on an alternative site or

safeguarding on-site features within the site layout design).

• Mitigation Adverse effects should be avoided or minimised through mitigation

measures, either through the design of the project or subsequent measures that can be guaranteed – for example, through a condition

or planning obligation.

• Compensation Where there are significant residual adverse ecological effects despite the mitigation proposed, these should be offset by appropriate

compensatory measures.

• Enhancement Seek to provide net benefits for biodiversity over and above

requirements for avoidance, mitigation or compensation.



May 2017 Page 10

3 Results

3.1 Desk study results

Sites of European importance

3.1.1 There were no sites of European importance in the search area.

Sites of national importance

3.1.2 There were no sites of national importance in the search area.

Sites of local importance

3.1.3 There were 9 sites of local importance within the search area:


Site Distance from Site (approx.)

Direction Key habitat/ features of interest

The Hawth Local

Wildlife Site (LWS) and Ancient Woodland (AW)

400m S Ancient woodland dominated by birch, with a dense shrub layer and rich ground flora

Worth Way LWS 1.1km E Disused railway comprising a range of habitats, including woodland, grassland, scrub and marshy areas

Ewhurst Wood LWS 1.4km NW Urban woodland dominated by oak, ash and birch with a diverse ground flora

Tilgate Park LWS 1.4km S Managed country park containing a diversity of habitats, including woodland, parkland, grassland, lakes and heathland

Grattons Park Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

1.5km NE Site comprising broadleaved woodland, a stream and meadows, of recreational value

Tilgate Forest LNR 1.6km SE Site comprising broadleaved and coniferous woodland, lowland heathland, and tall herbs and ferns.

Punch Copse AW 750m N Ancient and/or semi-natural woodland

Unnamed AW 625m N Ancient and/or semi-natural woodland

Unnamed AW 900m SE Ancient and/or semi-natural woodland

3.1.4 No ponds or waterbodies were found within 250m of the site.

3.1.5 Further information and site locations relative to the proposed development site are shown in

Appendix 3.

Protected, rare and/or priority species

3.1.6 A large number of species records were returned for the search area including plants,

invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

Veteran trees

3.1.7 No veteran tree records were returned.

Plants

3.1.8 Records for a number of notable and/or rare plant species were returned with the data search. These included shepherd’s-needle, bladderwort, annual beard-grass, orange foxtail, green-

flowered helleborine, stinking hellebore, and tall ramping-fumitory.

Invertebrates

3.1.9 A small variety of invertebrate species were returned including brilliant emerald and downy emerald dragonfly, brown hairstreak, white admiral and purple emperor butterflies, and cypress

carpet, dusky brocade and small phoenix moths.



May 2017 Page 11

Amphibians including great crested newts

3.1.10 A number of great crested newt records exist approximately 2km northeast of the site. There are

also records of common toad within the area.

Reptiles

3.1.11 A number of records of slow worm, common lizard, grass snake and adder were returned within the search radius, although they were mostly focussed upon a few key sites well over 1km from

the site.

Birds

3.1.12 A wide variety of bird species were returned with the data search, with most notable species,

such as kingfisher, little egret, osprey, hobby and peregrine, occurring within the nearby designated wildlife sites. The site is likely to be visited by more common recorded species, such

as robin, dunnock, woodpigeon and collared dove.

Dormouse

3.1.13 Hazel dormouse records were returned within the search area, although these were centred upon

Tilgate Park and/or beyond the railway line 1km east of the site.

Terrestrial Mammals including badgers

3.1.14 A number of hedgehog records were returned with the data search.

Aquatic Mammals including water voles and otters

3.1.15 Water vole have been recorded from the local area, though there is no suitable habitat for these

species at the site.

Bats

3.1.16 Records of barbastelle, Bechstein’s, Daubenton’s, Natterer’s, whiskered, brown long-eared bat, common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Nathusius’ pipistrelle, noctule and serotine were returned,

with the nearest records approximately 250m south of the site.

3.2 Phase 1 habitat survey results

3.2.1 Nine Phase 1 habitat categories were identified during the Phase 1 habitat survey and are shown

on Figure 02.

Management, setting and green infrastructure

3.2.2 The site is situated within the Three Bridges area of urban Crawley, lying close to a range of local

amenities, such as County Mall Shopping Centre and Commonwealth Drive Commercial Park. Overall, the area has a lot of trees creating a network of green corridors across the Three Bridges

area and connecting to public greenspace such as the Three Bridges and Northgate Playing Fields. Adjacent habitats are limited to other gardens with Three Bridges Road immediately to the south

of the site.

3.2.3 The habitats present are typical of an urban garden, comprised of amenity grassland, ornamental

plants, hedgerows, and some mature and semi-mature trees scattered throughout. The rear

gardens were open to each other with no boundaries between houses.

3.2.4 Figure 02 shows the habitats present. Each habitat is described below.

A3.3 Scattered mixed trees

3.2.5 A number of scattered trees are present throughout the site, with a higher density in the

northwest of the site creating a dense canopy. Species recorded include oak Quercus robur, Norway maple Acer platanoides, apple Malus domestica, Norway spruce Picea abies, Prunus sp., silver birch Betula pendula, ash Fraxinus excelsior and copper beech Fagus sylvatica f. purpurea.

It is understood from the client representative that 3 trees were removed subsequent to the site

visit. This change does not affect the outcome of the assessment.



May 2017 Page 12

C3.1 Tall ruderal

3.2.6 An area of tall ruderal vegetation was present beneath trees in the northwest of the site. Species

recorded include creeping thistle Cirsium arvense, greater plantain Plantago major, ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolate, fat hen Chenopodium album, cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris, field

forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis, bramble Rubus fruticose, wood avens Geum urbanum, cleavers

Galium aparine and broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius.

G1 Standing water

3.2.7 A small ornamental pond considered to have low ecological value, and of minimal suitability for

great crested newt, was present in the northeast corner of the site.

J1.2 Amenity grassland

3.2.8 The majority of the rear gardens were comprised of amenity grassland with perennials and some

ornamental planting and/or escapees present throughout. Species present included red fescue Festuca rubra, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, annual meadow grass Poa annua, creeping thistle,

white clover Trifolium repens, curled dock Rumex crispus, creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens, green alkanet Pentaglottis sempervirens, dandelion Taraxacum officinale agg., daisy Bellis perennis, field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis, greater plantain, ribwort plantain, bindweed

Calystegia spp. ground elder Aegopodium podagraria, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium, tulip

Tulipa gesneriana and cleavers.

J1.4 Introduced shrub

3.2.9 A number of ornamental plants were scattered about the garden, although most lied within the ‘enclosed’ garden to the northeast of the site. Species included daffodil, Mediterranean spurge,

cherry laurel, rose, and other ornamental species.

J2.1.2 Species-poor intact hedge

3.2.10 There are species-poor intact hedgerows along the eastern and southern site boundaries. Dominant hedgerow species recorded include privet Ligustrum sp., cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus, field maple Acer campestre and holly Ilex sp.

J2.3.2 Species-poor hedge with trees

3.2.11 The western and northern boundaries consist of species-poor hedgerow with a number of semi-

mature and mature trees present throughout. Dominant hedgerow species recorded include

privet, cherry laurel, field maple and holly, with tree species

J2.4 Fence

3.2.12 A timber stake fence enclosed the northeast corner of the garden. Closed panel timber fencing

was recorded along the north, east and west boundaries.

J3.6 Buildings and hardstanding

3.2.13 A large portion of the site comprised three residential buildings and associated areas of

hardstanding, including driveways and patio areas.

3.3 Preliminary bat roost assessment results: Trees

3.3.1 The results of the survey are shown in the table below and the location of the trees is shown in

Figure 03. Trees of insufficient size and/or maturity are not included in the results. The tree numbers correspond with those in the Arboricultural report, provided by Broad Oak Tree

Consultants Limited.

Tree Roost Suitability

Comments No. Species

T3 Cherry Low Semi-mature with some ivy cover.

T4 Sweet Chestnut

Low Semi-mature with some ivy cover.

T5 Red Oak Low Semi-mature with some ivy cover.

T6 Sweet Chestnut

Low Semi-mature with some ivy cover.



May 2017 Page 13

Tree Roost

Suitability Comments

No. Species

T8 Ash Negligible Mature with dead ivy coverage and no obvious PRFs .

T10 Sweet Chestnut

Negligible Semi-mature with no obvious PRFs.

T14 Ash Low Mature with dense ivy cover.

T16 Silver Birch Low Mature with some ivy cover.

T34 Norway Maple

Low Mature with some dense dead ivy cover.

T35 Apple Low Dead stem with some cracks of insufficient depth for roosting bats.

T39 Common Oak

Negligible Mature with no obvious PRFs.

T45 Copper Beech

Negligible Mature with no obvious PRFs.

T49 Tulip Tree Low Mature with dense ivy cover.

3.3.2 The majority of trees at the site have negligible potential for roosting bats, although a small

number of trees were considered to have ‘Low’ potential, largely due to the presence of ivy coverage. None of the trees surveyed were considered to provide sufficient roosting opportunities

to warrant further detailed survey.

3.4 Preliminary bat roost assessment results: Buildings

Plans of the buildings surveyed

3.4.1 The buildings which were surveyed are shown on Figure 02.

3.4.2 All three buildings were of similar date (estimated to be 1920-1930’s), in a similar condition, of

similar construction type and at time of survey were all in use as social housing.

3.4.3 Due to the known presence of asbestos internal inspection was limited to views obtained from

loft hatches in all three buildings. There was otherwise full access to the buildings exteriors.

No.83 Exterior

3.4.4 No. 83 was a rendered and painted brick built house with a simple square-hipped peg tile roof.

Solar water heating panels were fixed to the south-facing (front) roof plane.

3.4.5 The roof was in generally good condition with tiles noted as being level with minimal gaps noted. Small areas of damage were noted on the north-eastern and north-western hips where tiles were

damaged and missing. Guttering was present at eaves on all aspects and soffits were presumed to be timber throughout. This area of the roof was obscured by guttering but there was no

evidence to suggest that the roof had received remedial or modernisation work in recent years

to suggest the use of uPVC.

3.4.6 All walls were rendered which remained in good condition throughout with no cracking or loose

sections noted. All windows were of uPVC and well-sealed into surrounding brickwork.

3.4.7 The front of the house featured an area of hanging tiles between ground and upper storey bay

windows which featured a number of gaps and crevices. A small timber open porch was also present over the main entrance door and a lean-to garage was sited along the western wall of

the house. No features were noted within these two structures likely to be of interest to roosting

bats.

No.83 Interior

3.4.8 The roof structure was of pantiles on plain sawn timber battens and rafters. No sarking felt was present beneath the roof tiles. A limited search for signs of bats was undertaken from the access

hatch. A light scatter of older rodent droppings was noted surrounding the hatch and were

considered to be of mouse in origin. Light was observed entering the roof space at several places

throughout the roof structure, principally at eaves level and a number of places beneath tiles.



May 2017 Page 14

No signs to indicate the presence of bats were noted.

No.85 Exterior

3.4.9 Number 85 was constructed of red brick with a roughcast render to the upper storey. The roof was of peg tiles in a multi-planed pitched arrangement with one hipped roof lying east-west with

two projecting gable ended roofs on a neighbouring north-south alignment. A small single storey

hipped roof extension was sited to the rear of the building.

3.4.10 All roof tiles were present where the roof could be observed; areas of the valley between the

front two roofs could not be seen from the ground. Two chimneys were present and these were

sealed into surrounding tiles with lead flashing. No gaps could be observed around these features.

3.4.11 Guttering was present at the eaves and soffits and fascias were noted as being of timber with no

gaps noted.

3.4.12 Windows were uPVC throughout and all in good condition with no gaps noted and well-sealed

into surrounding masonry.

3.4.13 The south-facing front of the house featured double gale ends with decorative hanging tiles on

the upper gables, between the upper and ground floor bay windows and also peg tiles covering

a large open timber porch. A number of gaps and crevices were noted throughout these features.

No.85 Interior

3.4.14 The roof structure was of pantiles on plain sawn timber battens and rafters. No sarking felt was

present beneath the roof tiles. A limited search for signs of bats was undertaken from the access

hatch. A light scatter of older rodent droppings was noted surrounding the hatch and were considered to be of mouse in origin. Light was observed entering the roof space at several places

throughout the roof structure, principally at eaves level and a number of places beneath tiles. A

significant amount of cobwebbing was present over all timbers.

3.4.15 No signs to indicate the presence of bats were noted.

No.87 Exterior

3.4.16 No.87 was of identical construction to No.85 although of a different layout comprising a main

north-south pitched gable ended roof with a pitched gable ended wing aligned to the west.

3.4.17 A small number of missing tiles were recorded to the western edge of the south facing roof plane

otherwise all other roof tiles were present with minimal gaps noted. Two chimneys were present, projecting through each ridge line and these were sealed into surrounding tiles with lead flashing.

No gaps could be observed around these features.

3.4.18 Guttering was present at the eaves and soffits and fascias were noted as being of timber with no

gaps noted.

3.4.19 Windows were uPVC throughout and all in good condition with no gaps noted and well-sealed

into surrounding masonry.

3.4.20 Hanging tiles were present to the front and west facing upper gables and a small number of gaps

and crevices were noted within these features. Peg tiles were also present above a projecting lower bay window to the front of the house but all tiles were noted as being present with minimal

gaps recorded.

No.87 Interior

3.4.21 The roof structure was of pantiles on plain sawn timber battens and rafters. No sarking felt was present beneath the roof tiles. A limited search for signs of bats was undertaken from the access

hatch. A light scatter of older rodent droppings was noted surrounding the hatch and were

considered to be of mouse in origin. Light was observed entering the roof space at several places throughout the roof structure, principally at eaves level and a number of places beneath tiles. A

small amount of cobwebbing was present over all timbers.

3.4.22 No signs to indicate the presence of bats were noted.



May 2017 Page 15

Summary of preliminary bat roost assessment

Building Feature Potential roost features

83

Roof Missing damaged tiles

Wall Hanging tiles to front of building

Windows None

Doors None

Interior Interior roof structure

85

Roof Loose tiles

Wall Hanging tiles to gable ends

Windows None

Doors None


87

Roof Loose tiles

Wall Hanging tiles to gable ends

Windows None

Door None




May 2017 Page 16

4 Evaluation of conservation status and impact assessment

4.1 Assessment rationale

4.1.1 The assessment is based on the ecological data presented within this report. Future changes in

the wildlife present on site after a period of time has elapsed are outwith the scope of this report,

unless specifically stated.

4.2 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of designated sites

4.2.1 The ecological value of the site is considered below and evaluated using the methodology set out

in Appendix 2 and in accordance with species legislation and planning policy as outlined in

Appendix 1.

Sites of European importance

4.2.2 There are no sites of European importance within the search area. The impact of the proposed

development upon European designated sites is therefore assessed as Neutral.


4.2.3 There are no sites of national importance in the search area. The impact of the proposed

development upon nationally designated sites is therefore assessed as Neutral.


4.2.4 Four Local Wildlife sites, 2 Local Nature Reserves, and multiple stands of ancient and semi-natural

woodland lie within 2km of the site. These sites are assessed as being of Medium importance

for wildlife at the County scale.

4.2.5 The proposed small-scale residential development would cause disturbance in the form of visual,

noise and air pollution during construction within a 100-200m radius of the site. The nearest site of local importance, The Hawth LWS, lies approximately 400m from the site, and would therefore

not be affected during construction. Post-construction disturbance may occur with increased foot traffic in and around the woodlands, such as dog walkers, though any increase in disturbance is

likely to be negligible.

4.2.6 Impacts on all locally/regionally important sites within 2km of proposed development is assessed

as being Neutral.

4.3 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of habitats and green infrastructure

Habitats

4.3.1 Habitats of higher ecological value include the hedgerows and mature/semi-mature trees, which are likely to be of use to birds for nesting and foraging, and small mammals such as hedgehog

may forage along hedge bases. It is recommended that these are retained, and incorporated into

the development as part of the site’s green infrastructure.

4.3.2 Habitats of lower value include the amenity grassland and hardstanding, which are of little interest

to most species. These habitats are provisionally assessed as being of Lower value at the Parish

scale.

4.3.3 Impacts of the proposed development upon the site habitats are considered to be Minor Adverse, due to overall habitat loss. However, hedgerows and the majority of mature/semi-

mature trees are to be retained and wildlife friendly replacement planting post-construction would

help to reduce impacts to Neutral.

Green infrastructure

4.3.4 The site plays a role in maintaining a strong local hedgerow network. Boundary hedgerows and trees should remain in situ and be protected during development through safeguarding of root

protection areas.



May 2017 Page 17

4.4 Evaluation of conservation status and assessment of species

Veteran trees

4.4.1 There are no veteran trees on-site. The impact of the proposed development upon this group is

therefore Neutral.

Plants

4.4.2 Given the nature of the habitats recorded at the site and the plant records returned for the local

area, it is not considered that the site has potential to support protected, rare and/or priority

plants. A number of records of uncommon plant species were returned with the data search, although these were focussed upon the nearby Local Wildlife Sites which have habitats of

significantly higher value than those present at the site.

4.4.3 The value of the proposed development site for this group is Negligible and the impact of the

proposed development is Neutral.

Invertebrates

4.4.4 Given the nature of the habitats recorded at the site and the invertebrate records returned for

the local area, it is not considered that the site has potential to support protected, rare and/or priority invertebrates. The value of the proposed development site for this group is Negligible

and the impact of the proposed development is Neutral.


4.4.5 Records exist for great crested newt and common toad, though the majority are towards the

upper extent of the 2km search radius. Habitats onsite are sub-optimal for amphibians, though it is possible common toad and common frog may forage within hedgerow bases and use the site

if a network of garden ponds exist within 100-200m of the site. The value of the site for this group is considered to be Lower at the Parish scale. The impact of the proposed development

is Minor Adverse due to the expected loss of the small ornamental pond. Should the pond be

retained and enhanced, the mitigated impact would be Neutral-Minor Beneficial.

Reptiles

4.4.6 Records for the four ‘common’ reptile species were returned with the data search, though the majority occurred on sites over 1km from the proposed development site. Habitats onsite are of

low suitability for reptiles, and the urban nature of the local area suggests connectivity to more

optimal sites is likely to be poor. The site is therefore considered to be of Lower value at the

Parish scale for reptiles, and the impact of the proposed development is Neutral.

Birds

4.4.7 The site will be used by common breeding bird species, both for nesting and foraging, with the

hedgerows and trees being of greatest value in this respect. It is considered that the value of the site to breeding birds is Lower at the Parish scale. The scheme is likely to give rise to

disturbance impacts on birds nesting in the gardens, although the hedgerows and majority of

trees are to be retained. There would be a minor loss of nesting habitat due to removal of trees and vegetation. The unmitigated impact is considered to be Minor Adverse. Mitigation has been

proposed to reduce impacts to Neutral.

Dormice

4.4.8 A known population of dormice exists at Tilgate Park, although this is over 1km from the site and

beyond a railway line. Hedgerows present onsite, and likely those within the garden hedgerow network in the wider area, are species-poor and do not provide the structural complexity

associated with dormouse habitats.

4.4.9 The site is therefore considered to be of Negligible value for this species and the impact of the

proposed development is Neutral.

Aquatic mammals including water voles and otters

4.4.10 There are no habitats onsite suitable for aquatic mammals. The site is therefore considered to be

of Negligible value for these species, and the impact of the proposed development is Neutral.



May 2017 Page 18

Terrestrial mammals including badgers

4.4.11 A number of hedgehog records were returned with the data search and habitats onsite, hedgerow

bases in particular, could be used by the species for foraging. Onsite habitats are unsuitable for badger. The site is considered to be of Lower value at the Parish scale for hedgehog. The

development would cause disturbance during construction and the unmitigated impact would be

Minor Adverse. Suggested mitigation would reduce the impact to Neutral.

Bats

Roosting potential - trees

4.4.12 Records for a wide variety of bats, including the rare barbastelle and Bechstein’s bats, were

returned with the data search, with the nearest records being approximately 250m from the site.

4.4.13 Of the thirteen trees which could possibly offer some bat roost potential, nine were assessed as

having low roosting potential and four as having negligible potential. The roosting opportunities these trees provide are sub-optimal and few in number, and it is therefore considered unlikely

these would play an important role for bats roosting in the area. Therefore, the trees onsite are

deemed to be of Lower importance for roosting bats at the Parish level.

4.4.14 Based on current designs, a number of trees are likely to require removal, including five trees

considered to have low potential. This provisionally includes the removal of the large copper beech tree to the rear of the central building. The impact of development upon these trees,

however, is considered to be Minor Adverse based upon possible future bat roost potential

rather than current actual potential. Provision of bat boxes would reduce this impact to Neutral.

4.4.15 Should a significant period of time elapse between this survey and when the trees are to be

removed, i.e. over 2 years, or a significant change in the condition of trees is observed, an update preliminary roost assessment should be undertaken to ensure further potential roosting features

have not been created and risk to bats remains minimal.

Roosting potential - buildings

4.4.16 The three buildings surveyed offer multiple opportunities for roosting bats in the form of hanging

tiles, loose tiles and missing and/or damaged tiles. Access by bats into the roof void is possible and, whilst the roof voids were moderately cobwebbed, they could not be comprehensively

inspected due to the presence of asbestos. All three buildings are therefore considered to have

moderate roost suitability.

4.4.17 The value of the buildings for roosting bats is Unknown subject and the impact of the proposed

development is to be determined by bat emergence/re-entry surveys.

4.4.18 A summary of the findings of buildings survey are provided in the table below.

Summary of building survey

Building number

Identified bat use Potential roost present Emergence/re-entry survey needed?

83 No

Yes – moderate potential beneath missing tiles, hanging tiles to gable ends

and within roof void

Yes – one dusk emergence and one dawn re-entry survey

85 No

Yes – moderate potential beneath loose tiles, hanging tiles to gable ends and within roof void

Yes– one dusk emergence and one dawn re-entry surveys

87 No

Yes – moderate potential beneath loose tiles, hanging tiles to gable ends and within roof void

Yes– one dusk emergence and one dawn re-entry surveys



May 2017 Page 19

Foraging/commuting potential

4.4.19 Based on the evidence gained during the Phase 1 survey, the Site is likely have some use by

commuting and foraging bats, due to hedgerow connectivity and the number of semi-mature/mature trees. However, activity levels are unlikely to be significantly higher than would

be expected for an urban garden.

4.4.20 The value of the Site to foraging and commuting bats is Lower at the Parish value. The impact

of the development is considered to be Neutral due to the retention of hedgerows and the

majority of larger trees.

4.5 Cumulative impacts

4.5.1 There are no known cumulative impacts.



May 2017 Page 20

5 Conclusions

5.1 Statutory and non-statutory designated sites

5.1.1 There are no statutory designated sites within the search area. Accordingly, the impact of the

scheme upon statutory designated sites is Neutral.

5.1.2 There are a number of non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site, with the closest

being The Hawth LWS lying approximately 400m from the site. It is considered there are not likely to be any foreseeable impacts upon these sites and therefore the proposed development

would have a Neutral impact.

5.2 Habitats and species

Habitats

5.2.1 Overall, the habitats on site are assessed as Lower value at the Parish scale for this group. The main habitats of interest are the hedgerows and trees, most of which will be retained during the

development. Hedgerow bases will offer foraging and hibernation opportunities for small

mammals including hedgehog, and hedgerows and trees provide a nesting and foraging resource for birds. The removal of trees would lead to a Minor Adverse impact, though suggested

mitigation would yield an overall Neutral impact.

Veteran trees

5.2.2 There are no veteran trees onsite. The impact of the proposed development upon this group is

therefore Neutral.

Plants

5.2.3 Overall, the site is assessed as of Lower value at the Parish scale for this group. The impact of

the scheme is Negligible.

Invertebrates

5.2.4 Overall, the site is assessed as of Lower value at the Parish scale for this group. The impact of

the scheme is Negligible.


5.2.5 Overall, the habitats on site are assessed as Lower value at the Parish scale. The main habitats

of interest are the pond and hedgerow bases which offer some low-level breeding and foraging potential. The impact of the scheme is Minor Adverse, though retention and enhancement of

the pond, or creation of a wildlife pond of equal or greater size, would provide a Neutral-Minor

Beneficial impact.

Reptiles

5.2.6 Overall, the habitats on site are assessed as of likely Lower value at the Parish scale for this

group. Habitats onsite are of low suitability for reptiles. The impact of the scheme is Neutral.

Birds

5.2.7 Overall, the habitats on site are assessed as Lower value at the Parish scale for this group. The

main habitats of interest are the hedgerows and trees which will offer nesting and foraging

potential for birds. Some trees will be lost to the development and the unmitigated impact of the

scheme is considered Minor Adverse. Mitigation would reduce impacts to Neutral.

Dormice

5.2.8 Overall, the habitats on site are considered unsuitable for dormice and the site is assessed as

Negligible for this species.


5.2.9 There are no habitats present on site which might support these species. Accordingly, the impact

of the scheme is Negligible.



May 2017 Page 21


5.2.10 Overall, the habitats on site are assessed as Lower value at the Parish scale for these species.

Hedgerow bases provide suitable foraging habitat for hedgehog. The impact of the scheme is

Minor Adverse, reduced to Neutral with the mitigation suggested below.

Bats

5.2.11 The habitats onsite are considered to be of Lower value at the Parish scale for

foraging/commuting bats. The hedgerows and trees connect the site to the local hedgerow

network and are likely to receive some use by common and widespread species of bats.

5.2.12 The trees onsite are considered to be of Lower value at the Parish scale for roosting bats, with

a number of trees having minimal numbers of sub-optimal potential roost features. Mitigation

would reduce impacts of vegetation removal to Neutral.

5.2.13 The three buildings onsite are considered to have moderate potential for roosting bats. It is understood that the recommended emergence survey work has been undertaken by another

consultancy and reported upon separately.

5.3 Cumulative impacts

5.3.1 There are no known cumulative impacts.

5.4 Overall assessment of value and impact

5.4.1 The Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan (Figure 04) provides a detailed overview of

areas of wildlife importance at the proposed development site.

5.4.2 A summary of assessments of value and the impact of the proposed development without

mitigation and the residual significant effects following mitigation is provided in the table below.

Summary of assessment of value and impact

Feature Level of value

Scale Unmitigated impact

Confidence level

Mitigated impact

Sites of European

importance Very High European Neutral Certain


High National Neutral Certain

Sites of local importance Medium County Neutral Certain

Habitats Lower Parish Minor Adverse Probable Neutral

Veteran trees Negligible

Plants Negligible

Invertebrates Negligible


Lower Parish Minor Adverse Probably Neutral-Minor Beneficial

Reptiles Lower Parish Neutral Certain

Birds Lower Parish Minor Adverse Probable Neutral

Dormice Negligible


Negligible


Lower Parish Minor Adverse Probable Neutral

Bats Unknown# Unknown# Unknown#

# It is understood that the recommended emergence survey work has been undertaken by another consultancy and reported upon separately.



May 2017 Page 22

6 Recommendations

6.1 Avoidance measures

6.1.1 The following impact avoidance measures have been identified and will be delivered:

• The majority of hedgerows and trees at the periphery of the site, especially those in the

rear garden, should be protected where possible in the built scheme to continue their

contribution to the local hedgerow network.

6.2 Proposed mitigation for known impacts

6.2.1 The following mitigation is required to reduce the impacts of the scheme to within acceptable

limits.

6.2.2 Protected species surveys are required as set out in Section 6.6 below. Until these surveys have been undertaken, it is not possible to accurately identify the likely mitigation requirement in

respect of these species.

Habitats

• Ensure a minimum 5m working offset from retained habitats.

• To mitigate for loss of vegetation, semi-natural planting should include berry bearing

native trees and shrubs to enhance food availability for wildlife. The proposed planting should be structurally diverse with tree, shrub and ground layers with areas of dense

scrub as well as more open areas.

• Ornamental planting should constitute at least 50% by area of native species or species

of known value to wildlife, such as fruiting/berrying species and species known to provide a good nectar source. All ornamental planting should be structurally diverse with

tree, shrub and ground layers with areas of dense planting as well as more open areas.

• Retained trees should have their root protection zones safeguarded during construction.

Amphibians

• The pond in the northeast corner of the site should be retained and enhanced, or

replaced with a wildlife friendly pond of equal or greater size in another part of the site.

• Trenches should be filled in prior to the end of the working day, or a plank left leaning

up from the base of the trench to the surface so animals falling in can exit the excavation.

• Pipework should be closed off at the end of each working day to avoid hedgehogs and

other animals becoming trapped.

Breeding birds

• Retention of areas of hedgerows and trees wherever possible throughout the site to

allow nesting and foraging activity to continue.

• Reduction in nesting opportunities as a consequence of vegetation removal can be offset by provision of 7 No. bird boxes which could be erected on retained standard

trees on site.

• Vegetation removal required for the construction phase should take place outside of the

breeding bird season to prevent disturbance to birds nesting on site within retained hedgerows and trees. Harm to active birds’ nests during site clearance would be

avoided by this work taking place outside the bird nesting season of March to August

inclusive.

Bats

• Retention of areas of hedgerows and trees wherever possible throughout the site to

allow foraging and nesting activity to continue.

• Reduction in nesting opportunities as a consequence of tree removal can be offset by provision of 7 No. bat boxes which could be erected on retained standard trees on site.



May 2017 Page 23

Hedgehog

• Trenches should be filled in prior to the end of the working day, or a plank left leaning

up from the base of the trench to the surface so animals falling in can exit the

excavation.

• Pipework should be closed off at the end of each working day to avoid hedgehogs and

other animals becoming trapped.

6.3 Compensation for ecological impacts

6.3.1 No compensatory habitat creation or management is proposed.

6.4 Enhancement options

6.4.1 Ecological enhancements aim to improve the quality of the site and the immediate vicinity for

native flora and fauna. These enhancements can also provide aesthetical appeal and can add

value to the proposed development.

6.4.2 Possible enhancement opportunities specific to the development proposals for this site are

provided below. It is not anticipated that all these options would be utilised. The options are listed in order of priority, with habitat enhancements having most benefit to wildlife. Small-scale

enhancements targeted at individual species, whilst valuable, are generally of less overall benefit

than habitat enhancement measures. Many of these enhancements are shown on Figure 04

Ecological Constraints and Opportunities.

Habitat enhancements

6.4.3 Wherever possible, planting should use native species, which support biodiversity significantly

better than non-native plants, this is due to the number of flowers, fruits, seeds and berries that are produced on our native species and their different flowering and fruiting times throughout

the year.

6.4.4 Potential habitat enhancements include:

• Creation of a new wildlife pond in a secluded corner of the site

• The boundary vegetation should be strengthened by further planting, including berry bearing species to provide for bird foraging, and native species to attract insects. A

structurally diverse range of plants should be used, including shrubs large enough to support nesting birds.

• Implementation of good practice with regard to hedgerow maintenance, such as leaving

one side of the hedgerow uncut, and the cutting of one side of hedgerow on alternate

years, will benefit hedgerow species such as breeding birds, small mammals and bats.

6.4.5 These enhancements would benefit common invertebrates, breeding birds and bat foraging.

Small-scale species enhancements

6.4.6 Potential small-scale enhancements to benefit individual species/species groups would include

• Erect 7No. bat boxes (e.g. Schwegler) suitable for a range of bat species, on retained

standard trees or buildings in unlit parts of the site

• Erect 7No. bird boxes (e.g. Schwegler) suitable for a range of bird species, on retained standard trees or buildings in undisturbed parts of the site

• Creation of up to 3 habitat piles, using woody arisings (brash) from site clearance.

These should be stacked in a quiet, sheltered corner of the site to form piles measuring

approximately 1m x 1m x 1m.

• Retain up to 3 logs from felled trees, and partly bury them in a quiet, sheltered corner of the site to provide dead-wood beetle habitat e.g. for stag beetle



May 2017 Page 24

6.5 Species licensing

6.5.1 Should it be determined during further survey that the buildings on site are used by roosting bats,

a European Protected Species mitigation licence would be needed to undertake works which

would otherwise commit an unlawful act.

6.6 Recommendations for further survey

6.6.1 It is recommended that the following survey work be undertaken in order to establish whether protected habitats or species are present at the site. The seasons in which species may reliably

be surveyed are given in the table below.

Recommended further survey

Survey type Season for survey Survey required?

Phase III NVC habitat survey May to September X

Hedgerow survey May to October X

Rare plant survey April to September (depending upon species) X

Invertebrate survey April to September (depending upon species) X

Great crested newt survey March to June X

Reptile survey April to June and September to October X

Breeding bird survey April to June X

Wintering bird survey December to February X

Dormouse survey April to November X

Badger survey Year round (Spring/Autumn are optimal) X

Water vole survey April to October X

Otter survey Year round (Spring is optimal) X

Bat activity survey April to October X

Bat emergence/re-entry survey May to September ✓#

6.6.2 Following current Bat Conservation Trust guidelines, the survey effort required for structures of moderate roost potential is one dusk emergence and one dawn re-entry survey between May and

September. Due to the size and roof complexity of the buildings, a minimum of three surveyors

per building would be required to provide sufficient coverage. If a bat roost is identified during

the surveys a European Protected Species development licence will need to be sought.

# It is understood that the recommended emergence survey work has been undertaken by

another consultancy and reported upon separately.



May 2017 Page 25

7 References

Collins J (ed.) (2016) Bat surveys for professional ecologists: good practice guidelines, 3rd edition. Bat

Conservation Trust, London.

DEFRA (2016) Magic Map Application. Available from: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx [Accessed 20

April 2016]

JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey - a Technique for Environmental Audit. Reprinted by JNCC,

Peterborough.

http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx

Figures

E16824 Three Bridges Road, Crawley

Location Plan

Figure 01

Scale NTRS

June 2016

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Offi ce. Licence number: AL 100002205. © CROWN COPYRIGHT.

KEY:

Location of Site

0km 1km

91

44

422222222

89a

11

THREE BRIDGES ROAD


Phase 1 Habitat survey

Figure 02

Scale: NTRS

June 2016

The location of habitats and features on this drawing are indicative only and should not be used for scaling.

KEY

Site Boundary

Buildings / Hardstanding

Amenity Grassland

Tall Ruderal

0m 10m

Introduced Shrub

Scattered Mixed Trees

Standing Water

Species-poor Hedge

Fence

83 8587


Preliminary Roost Assessment - Trees

Figure 03

Scale: NTRS

June 2016

The location of habitats and features on this drawing are indicative only and should not be used for scaling. Base map “Site Map As Existing”, dated August 2015, as provided by client.

KEY

Site Boundary

Negligible Potential

0m 10m

Low Potential

91

44422222222

89a

11

THREE BRIDGES ROAD

83 8587

T45

T39

T10

T8

T3

T49

T35

T34

T16

T14

T6

T5T4


Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan

Figure 04

Scale NTRS

May 2017

The location of habitats and features on this drawing are indicative only and should not be used for scaling. Base map “Site Map As Existing”, dated August 2015, as provided by client.

KEY

Site Boundary

Habitats of higher ecological value

0m 10m

Buildings requiring detailed bat survey

91

44422222222

89a

11

THREE BRIDGES ROAD


Phase 1 Habitat survey

Figure 02Scale: NTRSJune 2016

The location of habitats and features on this drawing are indicative only and should not be used for scaling.

KEYSite Boundary

Buildings / Hardstanding

Amenity Grassland

Tall Ruderal

0m 10m

Introduced Shrub

Scattered Mixed Trees

Standing Water

Species-poor Hedge

Fence

83 8587

Pond enhancements

Location examples for installation of

bird and bat boxes

Appendix 1

Legislative and policy context There are a number of pieces of legislation, regulations and policies specific to ecology which underpin this

assessment. These may be applicable at a European, National or Local level. References to legislation are

given as a summary for information and should not be construed as legal advice.

Birds Directive

The European Community Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC), normally known

as the Birds Directive, sets out general rules for the conservation of all naturally occurring wild birds, their

nests, eggs and habitats. It was superseded by the ‘new’ Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) which generally

updated the previous directive.

These requirements are interpreted into English law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) with regard to protection of birds, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 with regard

to the registration and regulation of Special Protection Areas.

Habitats Directive

The European Community Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora

(92/43/EEC), normally known as the Habitats Directive, aims to protect the European Union's biodiversity. It requires member states to provide strict protection for specified flora and fauna (i.e. European Protected

Species) and the registration and regulation of Special Areas of Conservation.

These requirements are interpreted into English law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

2010 with regard to European Protected Species and the registration and regulation of Special Areas of

Conservation.

Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 interpret the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive into English and Welsh law. For clarity, the following paragraphs consider the case in England only, with

Natural England given as the appropriate nature conservation body. In Wales, the Countryside Council for

Wales is the appropriate nature conservation body.

Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation are defined in the regulations as a ‘European site’.

The Regulations regulate the management of land within European sites, requiring land managers to have the consent of Natural England before carrying out management. Byelaws may also be made to prevent damaging

activities and if necessary land can be compulsorily purchased to achieve satisfactory management.

The Regulations define competent authorities as public bodies or statutory undertakers. Competent authorities are required to make an appropriate assessment of any plan or project they intend to permit or carry out, if

the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect upon a European site. The permission may only be given if the plan or project is ascertained to have no adverse affect upon the integrity of the European site.

If the competent authority wishes to permit a plan or project despite a negative assessment, imperative reasons of over-riding public interest must be demonstrated, and there should be no alternatives to the

scheme. The permissions process would involve the Secretary of State and the option of consulting the

European Commission. In practice, there will be very few cases where a plan or project is permitted despite a negative assessment. This means that a planning application has to be assessed by the Local Planning

Authority, based on information provided by the applicant, and the assessment must either decide that it is likely to have no significant effect on a European site or ascertain that there is no adverse affect upon the

integrity of the European site.

Government policy is for Ramsar sites (wetlands of global importance) to be treated as if they were European

sites within the planning process.

Appropriate Assessment

Appropriate Assessment is required in certain instances under the Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010. Regulation 61 says that

61.—(1) A competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for, a plan or project which-

(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site

(either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and

(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site's conservation objectives.

(2) A person applying for any such consent, permission or other authorisation shall provide such information as the competent authority may reasonably require for the purposes of the assessment or to enable them to determine whether an appropriate assessment is required.

(3) The competent authority shall for the purposes of the assessment consult the appropriate nature conservation body and have regard to any representations made by that body within such reasonable time as the authority may specify.

(4) They must also, if they consider it appropriate, take the opinion of the general public, and if they do so, they must take such steps for that purpose as they consider appropriate.

(5) In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 62 (considerations of overriding public interest), the competent authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site or the European offshore marine site (as the case may be).

(6) In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the site, the authority must have regard to the manner in which it is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which they propose that the consent, permission or other authorisation should be given.

The competent authority is typically the local planning authority. The Appropriate Assessment contains the

information the council require for the purposes of their assessment under the Habitat Regulations.

The Habitat Regulations also are applicable to local authority land use plans and policies. If a policy or plan is likely to have a significant effect upon a European site, the permission may only be given if the policy or

plan is ascertained to have no adverse affect upon the integrity of the European site. This approach gives rise to a hierarchy of plans each with related appropriate assessments. For example, the appropriate assessment

of a Regional Spatial Strategy will affect policies within a Core Strategy, which will then need its own

appropriate assessment, and so on.

European Protected Species

European Protected Species of animals are given protection from deliberate capture, injuring, killing, disturbance or egg taking / capturing. Their breeding sites or resting places are also protected from damage

or destruction, which does not have to be deliberate. A number of species are listed as European Protected

Species, with those most likely to be considered in planning applications being bats, dormouse, great crested newt and otter. Natural England may give a licence for actions that are otherwise illegal, subject to them

being satisfied on the three tests of no alternatives, over-riding public interest, and maintenance of the species

in favourable condition.

European Protected Species of plant are also listed and given protection. These species are generally very

rare and unlikely to be present in proposed development sites.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has been amended many times, including by the Countryside and Rights of Ways Act 2000. It contains provisions for the notification and regulation of Sites of Special Scientific

Interest, and for protected species.

The Regulations regulate the management of land within Sites of Special Scientific Interest, requiring land

managers to have the consent of Natural England before carrying out management.

All public bodies are defined as ‘S28G’ bodies, which have a duty to further the nature conservation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the undertaking of their functions. In practice, this prevents planning

applications being permitted if they would harm a Sites of Special Scientific Interest as it would be a breach

of that duty.

The Act makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure, or take any wild bird, take, damage or destroy the nest

of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built, or take or destroy an egg of any wild bird. Special

penalties are available for offences related to birds listed on Schedule 1, for which there are additional offences

of disturbing these birds at their nests, or their dependent young.

The Act makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild animal listed on Schedule 5, and prohibits interference with places used for shelter or protection, or intentionally disturbing animals occupying

such places. Some species have lesser protection under this Act, for example white-clawed crayfish, common frog and toads are protected from sale only, and reptile species other than smooth snake and sand lizard are

protected from intentional killing or injury but they are not protected from disturbance and their habitat is not

protected. It is also an offence to intentionally pick, uproot or destroy any wild plant listed in Schedule 8.

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework dated March 2012 (NPPF) replaces previous Government Policy in relation to nature conservation and planning, which was set out in Planning Policy Statement 9. Paragraph

109 of the NPPF says that 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.

Paragraph 113 describes policy for designated sites, where Local Planning Authorities should set criteria based

policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged. Further policy is within paragraph 118, where Local Planning Authorities

should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity when determining planning applications by applying the

following principles:

• if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an

alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort,

compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

• opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged;

• planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found

outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

• Paragraph 115 adds protection to biodiversity within areas designated for their landscape

value. It says that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest

status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife

and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.

Government circular ‘Biodiversity And Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact Within the Planning System’ referenced ODPM 06/2005 and Defra 01/2005 has not been replaced and remains valid.

It sets out the legislation regarding designated and undesignated sites and protected species, and describes

how the planning system should be take account of that legislation. It does however pre-date the NERC Act 2006 (see below) which includes a level of protection for a further list of habitats and species regardless of

whether they are on designated sites or elsewhere.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

This Act includes a list of habitats and species of principal importance in England. Local Authorities are required

to consider the needs of these habitats and species when making decisions such as on planning application.

Local Planning Authority’s planning policy

The Local Planning Authority has policies relating to biodiversity conservation.

Species Legislation

The following table provides an overview of legislation with regard to species.

Protected Species

Legislation

Wildlife & Countryside Act,

1981

The Conservation of

Habitats and Species

Regulations, 2010

Natural Environment &

Rural Communities (NERC) Act,

2006

Protection of Badgers Act,

1992

Plants (certain ‘rare’ species) ✓ ✓1 ✓

Invertebrates (certain ‘rare’ species)

✓ ✓2 ✓

White-clawed Crayfish ✓ ✓

Great Crested Newt, Natterjack Toad, Pool Frog

✓ ✓ ✓

Other amphibians ✓3 ✓

Sand Lizard, Smooth Snake ✓ ✓4 ✓

Other reptiles ✓5 ✓

Breeding Birds ✓ ✓ ✓

Wintering Birds (certain ‘rare’ species)

✓ ✓ ✓

Bats ✓ ✓ ✓

Dormouse ✓ ✓ ✓

Water Vole ✓ ✓

Otter ✓ ✓ ✓

Badger ✓

1 Nine species present in the UK with very specialised habitat requirements are European Protected Species 2 Fisher’s Estuarine Moth, Large Blue Butterfly and Lesser Whirlpool Ram’s-horn Snail are European Protected Species 3 The four other native amphibian species (smooth and palmate newts, common frog and common toad) are protected against trade

only under this act. 4 Smooth Snake and Sand Lizard are European Protected Species 5 The four other native reptile species (common lizard, slow worm, grass snake and adder) are protected against intentional killing,

injuring and trade under this act.

Appendix 2

Assessment Methodology: Valuing Ecological Features and Impact Assessment The three stage assessment method for determining ecological value is based upon assessment matrices

published in the Handbook of Biodiversity Methods (CUP, 2005), and as used in major scheme assessments (TAG, GOMMMS, DMRB etc)6. It has been updated to comply with recent changes to planning policy and

legislation. The three-stage process allows the value of the ecological receptor and the magnitude of the

impact to be cross-tabulated to identify impact significance.

Valuing Ecological Receptors: scale and level of value

Scale

Level of value Receptor

European Very High

Statutory sites designated under international conventions or related national legislation, for example

• Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites)

• Special Areas of Conservation

• Special Protection Areas

National High

Statutory sites designated under national legislation, for example

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England, Wales, Scotland)

• National Nature Reserves (UK)

Significant viable areas of habitats, or populations or assemblages of species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity: England and Wales (Section 41 species and habitats)7 of such size and quality as might qualify for SSSI designation

Populations or assemblage of Red Listed, Rare or Legally Protected Species, as might qualify for SSSI designation, for example

• Species of conservation concern,

• Red Data Book (RDB) species

• Birds of Conservation Concern (Red List species)

• Nationally rare and nationally scarce species

• Legally protected species

County Medium

Statutory sites of lower conservation value designated under national legislation, for example

• Local Nature Reserves (UK)

Non-statutory sites designated under local legislation, for example

• County Wildlife Sites

• Local Wildlife Sites

• Roadside Nature Reserves/protected roadside verges

Viable areas of habitat or populations of species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity: England and Wales (Section 41 species and

habitats)8 of such size and quality as might qualify for designation at the county

level

Other non-designated sites which meet the criteria for designation at this level.

6 Hill, D, Fasham M, Tucker G, Shewry M, Shaw P (eds) 2005 Handbook of Biodiversity Methods: Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring. Cambridge University Press 7 Listed under S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx 8 Listed under S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx

District/ Borough9

Lower

Sites meeting criteria for metropolitan designations Undesignated sites or features not meeting criteria for County designation, but that are considered to appreciably enrich the habitat resource within the context of the local District or Borough, for example

• Ancient woodland

• Diverse/ecological valuable and cohesive hedgerow network

• Significant cluster or group of ponds

• Veteran/Ancient trees

Viable areas of habitat or populations of species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity: England and Wales (Section 41 species and

habitats)10 but not qualifying for designation at the county level

Parish Lower

Areas of habitat considered to appreciably enrich the ecological resource within the context of the local parish Small areas of habitat or populations of species of principal importance for the

conservation of biodiversity: England and Wales (Section 41 species and

habitats)11

Site only Negligible Ecological feature or resource not meeting any of the above criteria

Note: there is much overlap in designations and lists of important species, and many sites, habitats and species

appear on several. Where a site, habitat or species has multiple designations or levels of protection, normally

the highest level would be the level at which impacts are assessed.

9 Including Metropolitan Boroughs 10 Listed under S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/

ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx 11 Listed under S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/

ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx

Definitions of impact magnitude

Magnitude (Negative or Positive)

Definition/trigger

Severe

Loss or severe degradation affecting above 75% of a site feature, habitat or population

Adverse change to, or reduced condition of over 90% of a site feature, habitat or population, for example through disturbance or trampling

Major


Adverse change to, or reduced condition of over 50% of a site feature, habitat or population, for example through disturbance or trampling

For benefits, an impact equivalent in nature conservation terms to a gain of over 50% of a site feature, habitat or population

Moderate


Adverse change to, or reduced condition of, over 10% of a site feature, habitat or population, for example through disturbance or trampling

For benefits, an impact equivalent in nature conservation terms to a gain of 10-50% of a site feature, habitat or population

Minor

Loss or severe degradation affecting up to 5% of a site feature, habitat or population

Adverse change to, or reduced condition of, 1-10% of a site feature, habitat or population, for example through disturbance or trampling

For benefits, an impact equivalent in nature conservation terms to a gain of up to 10% of a site feature, habitat or population

Insignificant

No loss of, or severe degradation to, site feature, habitat or population

Adverse change to, or reduced condition of, less than 1% of a site feature, habitat or population

No benefit to site feature, habitat or population

Impact significance

Magnitude of Impact

Value of Receptor Severe Negative

Major Negative

Moderate Negative

Minor Negative

Insignificant Minor Positive

Medium Positive

Major Positive

European (Very High)

Severe Adverse

Severe Adverse

Major Adverse

Major Adverse

Neutral* Major Beneficial

Major Beneficial

Major Beneficial

National (High)

Severe Adverse

Major Adverse

Major Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Neutral* Moderate Beneficial

Major Beneficial

Major Beneficial

County/Metropolitan (Medium)

Major Adverse

Major Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Neutral Minor Beneficial

Moderate Beneficial

Major Beneficial

District/Borough (Lower)

Major Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Minor Adverse


Moderate Beneficial

Moderate Beneficial

Parish (Lower)

Moderate Adverse

Moderate Adverse

Minor Adverse

Minor Adverse


Minor Beneficial

Moderate Beneficial

Minimal/negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Minor Beneficial

Minor Beneficial

Moderate Beneficial

Where the impact significance falls below Minor Adverse, the term ‘Neutral’ is used.

*In some circumstances, some ‘’insignificant’ impacts might fail legislative or policy tests and the impact would be greater than Neutral.

Appendix 3

De

Thr SxB Prep

16th

esktop

ree Bridg

BRC/16/1

pared for B

h May 2016

p Biodiv

ges Road

120

en Jervis (T

6

versity

, Crawley

he Landsca

y Repo

y + 2km

pe Partners

ort

radius

ship)

Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre

desktop report regarding

Three Bridges Road, Crawley + 2km radius

16th May 2016

Prepared for Ben Jervis

The Landscape Partnership

SxBRC/16/120

The following information was requested:

Information Available Requested Format

Designated Sites, Habitats & Ownership Maps Yes PDF

Sussex Protected Species Register Yes Excel

Sussex Bat Inventory Yes Excel

Sussex Notable Bird Report Yes Excel

UK BAP Species Inventory Yes Excel

Sussex Rare Species Inventory Yes Excel

Sussex Invasive Alien Species Yes Excel

Full Species List No

Environmental Survey Directory No

The following designations are within the search area:

Local Wildlife Sites

Cr01 ‐ The Hawth

Cr04 ‐ Worth Way

Cr08 ‐ Ewhurst Wood

Cr10 ‐ Tilgate Park

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

None

Other Designations/Ownership

Country Park

Local Nature Reserve

Important information regarding this report It must not be assumed that this report contains the definitive species information for the site concerned. The species data held by the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre (SxBRC) is collated from the biological recording community in Sussex. However, there are many areas of Sussex where the records held are limited, either spatially or taxonomically. A desktop biodiversity report from SxBRC will give the user a clear indication of what biological recording has taken place within the area of their enquiry. The information provided is a useful tool for making an assessment of the site, but should be used in conjunction with site visits and appropriate surveys before further judgements on the presence or absence of key species or habitats can be made. It may be that the content of this report guides the reader as to which surveys should be carried out on the site. This report was compiled using data held at SxBRC at the time of production. SxBRC takes data validation very seriously, but cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of data included in this report.

Copyright

The Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre must be acknowledged in all documents containing any part of the information contained in this report. You can also use the whole of a SxBRC report (unedited) as an appendix in your own report. The SxBRC operates as agent to the individuals and groups who provide their records free of charge. The data suppliers retain copyright on their data, while SxBRC retains copyright on its desktop biodiversity reports.

Data usage

The data contained within this report is for use in the project for which the data was requested. It is not to be shared with third parties for use in other projects, unless permission is granted from SxBRC. The data may be used for 12 months, after which a replacement SxBRC report must be requested. This ensures the most up‐to‐date information is being used.

Ordnance Survey maps

Members of the public wishing to reproduce maps made by SxBRC under East and West Sussex County Council or Brighton and Hove City Council licences must use copying facilities that have been authorised by Ordnance Survey (OS). Further information can be found on the OS website.

Impartiality

SxBRC functions as custodian of biological data. Our role is to collect, manage and disseminate wildlife and habitat data. As such, we have to remain impartial and cannot offer opinions on the biodiversity value of a given site. Similarly, we cannot put forward objections to planning applications or be involved in campaigns.

Supplying records

Our desktop biodiversity reports are only as good as the data we hold. We rely on the continuous submission of records to keep our database up‐to‐date. We are always grateful to receive records from ecological consultants and members of the public alike. We accept records in many different formats – please see our website for more details.

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/index.html

http://sxbrc.org.uk/biodiversity/recording/#sending-records

MAPS There are three maps included in a standard desktop biodiversity report which show designated sites (statutory and non‐statutory); habitats and natural features; and ownership and management.

The key on a map only shows those layers which are located within the enquiry area or immediate area. Below is a list of all layers which we currently show on our maps, with details of the data source. Citation sheets and further information on each layer can be found towards the back of the pdf report.

Designated sites

Statutory

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Downloaded from NE website.

Country Park Downloaded from NE website.

Local Nature Reserve (LNR) Downloaded from NE website.

Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) Downloaded from NE website.

Marine Site of Nature Conservation Importance (MSNCI)

Supplied by ESCC in 2005.

National Nature Reserve (NNR) Downloaded from NE website.

National Park Downloaded from NE website.

Ramsar Downloaded from NE website.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Downloaded from NE website.

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Downloaded from NE website.

Special Protection Area (SPA) Downloaded from NE website.

Non‐Statutory

Local Geological Site (LGS) Originally supplied as hand drawn maps by the Booth Museum (Brighton) in 2009, LGS boundaries were digitised by SxBRC. Site boundaries are now administered by SxBRC and the Sussex Geodiversity Partnership and have been further improved as a result of ground surveys between 2010 to 2012.

Local Wildlife Site (LWS), formerly SNCI Supplied by WSCC, ESCC & BHCC.

Notable Road Verge Owned and provided by ESCC and WSCC.

Habitats and natural features

Ancient/veteran tree Merged dataset created in July 2009. Data from Ancient Tree Hunt (national survey carried out in 2007/2008) and Tree Register of the British Isles (a charity which collates and updates data on notable trees).

Ancient woodland Downloaded from NE website.

Black poplar Created by SxBRC based upon species records arising from Sussex Wetland Landscapes Project.

Chalk stream Created and owned by SWLP and SxBRC.

Coastal & floodplain grazing marsh Downloaded from NE website.

Coastal saltmarsh Supplied by EA, based on data from the SRCMP Habitat Mapping Project.

Coastal sand dune Supplied by EA, based on data from the SRCMP Habitat Mapping Project.

Coastal vegetated shingle Downloaded from NE website.

Ghyll woodland Boundaries drawn on paper maps by Dr Francis Rose which were then digitised by SxBRC. Not ground‐truthed.

Intertidal chalk Supplied by EA, based on data from the SRCMP Habitat Mapping Project.

Intertidal mudflat Supplied by EA, based on data from the SRCMP Habitat Mapping Project.

Lowland calcareous grassland Merged dataset from NE and SDJC sources, created in 2005. Administered by SxBRC.

Lowland fen Created by SxBRC in June 2011. Layer is an amalgamation of all the fen data currently available to SxBRC.

Lowland heathland High Weald Heathland data created by the High Weald Unit in 2006. The rest of Sussex Heathland data was created by SxBRC, with funding from WSCC and RSPB in 2007.

Lowland meadow Downloaded from NE website.

Maritime cliff and slope Supplied by EA, based on data from the SRCMP Habitat Mapping Project.

Open water Derived from OS mapping. This includes inland and tidal, running and standing water.

Reedbed Created by SxBRC in June 2011. Layer is an amalgamation of all the reedbed data currently available to SxBRC.

Saline lagoon Created by SxBRC.

Traditional orchard Downloaded from NE website.

Wood‐pasture & parkland Downloaded from NE website.

Ownership and management

Environmental Stewardship Agreement Downloaded from NE website.

National Trust property Owned and provided by National Trust.

RSPB reserve Owned and provided by RSPB. Downloadable from their website.

Sussex Wildlife Trust reserve Created and maintained by SxBRC on behalf of SWT.

Woodland Trust site Owned and provided by the Woodland Trust.

Abbreviations

BHCC Brighton and Hove City Council

EA Environment Agency

ESCC East Sussex County Council

NE Natural England

PTES People’s Trust for Endangered Species

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

SDJC South Downs Joint Committee

SRCMP Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme

SxBRC Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre

SWLP Sussex Wetland Landscapes Project

SWT Sussex Wildlife Trust

WSCC West Sussex County Council

Natural England datasets

These are available for anyone to download and use in their own Geographical Information System (GIS). Visit www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk for more information and register as a user.

Cr01

Cr08

Cr04

Cr10

GrattonsPark

TilgateForest

525000

525000

526000

526000

527000

527000

528000

528000

529000

529000

530000

530000

134000

135000

135000

136000

136000

137000

137000

138000

138000

139000

139000

Woods Mill, Henfield,West Sussex BN5 9SD

[email protected]

01273 497521Prepared for Ben Jervis (The Landscape Partnership) - 16/05/2016

Key to Map:Enquiry areaSpecies search areaLocal Wildlife SiteLocal Nature ReserveArea of Outstanding Natural BeautyCountry Park

© Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey. West Sussex County Council

100023447. East Sussex County Council 100019601. Natural England 100046223. Sussex Wildlife

Trust 100025883.

0 21Km

Designated Site Map (SxBRC/16/120)Land at Three Bridges Road, Crawley + 2km radius

±

RAMSAR, Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), NationalNature Reserve (NNR), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Country Park data reproduced with permission ofNatural England. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) data provided by East and West Sussex County Councils, and Brighton & Hove CityCouncil. Notable Road Verge data supplied by East and West Sussex County Councils. Local Geological Site (LGS) data created by SxBRC inpartnership with Sussex Geodiversity Group. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 2016.

525000

525000

526000

526000

527000

527000

528000

528000

529000

529000

530000

530000

134000

135000

135000

136000

136000

137000

137000

138000

138000

139000

139000


[email protected]

01273 497521Prepared for Ben Jervis (The Landscape Partnership) - 16/05/2016

Key to Map:Enquiry areaSpecies search area

I Ancient/veteran treeOpen WaterGhyll woodlandTraditional orchardWood-pasture & parklandLowland heathlandAncient woodland



Trust 100025883.

0 21Km

Land at Three Bridges Road, Crawley + 2km radiusHabitat & Natural Features Map (SxBRC/16/120)

±

Ancient woodland, traditional orchards, woodpasture and parkland, vegetated shingle and saline lagoon data reproduced with permission of NaturalEngland. Revised coastal and floodplain grazing marsh data remains provisional and is also reproduced with permission of Natural England. Chalkgrassland data supplied by Natural England and South Downs Conservation Board. Black Poplar data supplied by Sussex Wetland Landscapes Project.Ghyll woodland data supplied by Dr Francis Rose. Reedbed data funded by Environment Agency and West Sussex County Council is provided bySussex Biodiversity Record Centre and maintained by RSPB. Heathland data funded by West Sussex County Council, RSPB and High Weald AONB Unit.Ancient/veteran tree data derived from results of the Ancient Tree Hunt Project and the Tree Register of the British Isles (TROBI). South East CoastalHabitat Mapping data reproduced with permission of Environment Agency. © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved 2016.Habitat data held by Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre (SxBRC) are created in-house or obtained from a variety of dataset providers. SxBRCcontinually strive to further improve and update these data wherever possible. However, this map should be treated as indicative rather thandefinitive: data may be generated from a range of field survey and/or predictive methods, each of which may have its own inherent limitations. Insome situations a recent ground survey may be required to establish definitively the current status of a particular habitat at a specific location.

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

# # # # # # # # # # # # #

525000

525000

526000

526000

527000

527000

528000

528000

529000

529000

530000

530000

134000

135000

135000

136000

136000

137000

137000

138000

138000

139000

139000


[email protected]

01273 497521

Ownership & Management Map (SxBRC/16/120)Prepared for Ben Jervis (The Landscape Partnership) - 16/05/2016

Key to Map:Enquiry areaSpecies search area

# # # #

# # # #

# # # # Forestry Commission



Trust 100025883.

0 21Km

Land at Three Bridges Road, Crawley + 2km radius

±

Environmental Stewardship Agreement data reproduced with permission of Natural England. Other datasets reproduced respectively withpermission of the Woodland Trust, Forestry Commission, National Trust, Sussex Wildlife Trust and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. © CrownCopyright. All rights reserved 2016.

LOCAL WILDLIFE SITE (LWS)

Formally known as Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) A Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is a non‐statutory designation which is identified at a county level. They typically form a network of sites that are recognised to be of local conservation importance and are often included in Local Authority development plans.

There are many sites within East and West Sussex and Brighton and Hove that are not recognised under the national designation of SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) but are of considerable wildlife value due to the special interest of their flora or fauna. In May 1990 a Sussex‐wide project was instigated to identify which non‐designated sites were important for wildlife. The selected sites are now known as Local Wildlife Sites. The aim of this identification was to protect such sites from land management changes, which may lessen their nature conservation interest, and to encourage sensitive management to maintain and enhance their importance. Sites within both rural and urban areas were considered but the evaluation process considers two types of site under slightly different criteria:

Rural sites, that may contain habitats such as heathland or ancient woodland, must be of county‐wide importance.

Urban sites must recognise the importance to safeguard important urban wildlife sites, to link all significant greenspaces and to ensure that people in towns have easy access to wildlife areas.

After extensive survey work, the selection of LWS was made by a panel of expert ecologists. This panel included representatives from the relevant County Council, English Nature (now Natural England) and the Sussex Wildlife Trust. A range of specialists with either specific species knowledge or a sound knowledge of the county’s ecology were also involved with the selection process. Assessment and identification of LWS is a continuing process with new sites being identified and others deleted as ecological knowledge of the total resource and specific sites increase. In West Sussex LWS selection is steered by the County Council, whereas in East Sussex it is steered by the District/Borough Councils. Currently there are over 600 LWS in Sussex. Although LWS have no statutory protection they need to be considered in the planning process through Planning Policy Guidance such as PPG9 which refers to the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 Section 30. This states that nature conservation issues should be included in the surveys of local authority areas to ensure that the plans are based on fully adequate information about local species, habitats, geology and landform. Plans should be concerned not only with designated areas but also with other land of conservation value and the possible provision of new habitats. LWS citations outline the characteristics of the area based on its semi‐natural vegetation and the underlying geology and are in three main sections :‐

Summary which highlights the nature conservation importance of the site

Site description or site notes which gives further descriptive details about the site and its associated species

Management recommendations which give a brief indication of the type of management that would best maintain the nature conservation interest of the site.

It is important to realise that classification as a LWS in no way reduces the value of other wildlife sites. Sites of LWS quality may not have been surveyed for various reasons. All areas of semi‐natural vegetation are important to wildlife. Many rare plants and animals occur in seemingly otherwise uninteresting sites and may be overlooked by the survey.

SITE OF NATURE CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE (SNCI)

West Sussex

Site Name: The Hawth

Site Ref: Cr01 Owner: Crawley Borough Council

District: Crawley Size (ha): 10.1

Parish: N/A Date: Identified May 1992

National Grid Ref: TQ278361 Author: Marion Finch

Habitat: Semi-natural woodland

Summary

An area of predominantly Birch woodland with a dense shrub layer and rich ground flora.

The site is of outstanding importance for nature conservation as the only large woodland within the town of Crawley. It is surrounded by buildings and a school playing field.

It is well-used for information recreation.

Site description

The Hawth is dominated by Birch, both as standard trees and trees grown from coppice. Ash Standards are frequent, and both Oak and Cherry are occasional. Sycamores occur along the boundary with the playing field. The shrub layer is a dense mixture of Hazel, Hawthorn Aspen, Holly, Bramble Rubus fruticosus and Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum. The ground is very uneven, with many hollows and mounds, but has a rich flora, including species indicative of ancient woodland such as Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta, Pignut Conopodium majus, Tutsan Hypericum androsaemum, Primrose Primula vulgaris, Wood Melick Melica uniflora and Pendulous Sedge Carex pendula.

A narrow wood strip to the west includes Mature Oak, Field Maple, Cherry and Ash over Hazel and Hawthorn.

There is abundant dead wood and good natural regeneration of trees and shrubs.

The structure of the woodland, impenetrability of storm-damaged areas and presence of dead wood makes it of importance for a variety of birds.

Several pairs of Blackcap and Chiffchaff breed, as well as Long-tailed Tit, Chaffinch and Mistle Thrush.

Butterflies recorded include Holly Blue and Speckled Wood.

Management recommendations

The woodland does not appear to need active management, although removal of invasive species such as Sycamore is advisable. Encroachment of the woodland boundary has occurred in the past; further reduction of the wooded area should be avoided.


West Sussex

Site Name: Worth Way

Site Ref: Cr04 Owner: Private




Habitat: Semi-natural woodland, neutral grassland and scrub

Summary

A disused railway running between the Pound Hill district of Crawley and the new development at Maidenbower. It is of importance as it encompasses a range of habitats, including woodland, grassland, scrub and marshy areas, which form a wildlife ‘corridor’ through a heavily built-up area. The Worth Way footpath runs along it.

Site description

At its western end the raised trackbed is dominated by secondary Birch and Sycamore woodland with some Oak, Willow, Hazel, Hawthorn and young Sycamore are abundant below. Along the path and in glades, Bramble Rubus fruticosus and Field Rose Rosa arvensis are abundant with typical woodland species, such as Common Dog Violet Viola riviniana, Strawberry Fragaria vesca, Wood Avens Geum urbanum and Bugle Ajuga reptans under. Some areas have better structure and ground flora and appear to be remnants of older woodland.

The dry open sides and floor of the cutting support grassland with Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus, Sweet Vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, Cock's-foot Dactylis glomerata and Tufted Hair-grass Deschampsia caespitosa. Herbs include Bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus, Black Knapweed Centaurea nigra, Black Medic Medicago lupulina, Lesser Trefoil Trifolium dubium and Bush Vetch Vicia sepium. These areas, being sunny, warm and relatively herb-rich, attract Butterflies and other invertebrates.

Where the ground is flooded, Brooklime Veronica beccabunga, Watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquatica, Creeping Buttercups Ranunculus repens, Celery-leaved Buttercups R. sceleratus and Soft Rush Juncus effusus occur. The eastern end is flooded and dense scrub make it impenetrable.


Management should be planned to retain the mosaic of habitats, especially the areas of sunny grassland. This will involve control of scrub to prevent encroachment onto the grassland and creation of glades by scrub and Bramble clearance. The footpath may need periodic clearing. Tipping should be prevented.


West Sussex

Site Name: Ewhurst Wood

Site Ref: Cr08 Owner: Private




Habitat: Semi-natural woodland

Summary

Ewhurst Wood is an urban woodland which has been divided into three by road-building – it is crossed by the A23. The wood is mostly Oak, Ash and Birch and has good structure and a diverse ground flora. It is of great importance as an area of semi-natural habitat in a heavily built-up area.

Site description

The woodland is mostly Oak, Birch and Ash with some Wild Cherry. There are few mature trees but the woodland structure is good, with some well-developed shrub layer of Hazel, Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Holly and Elder, and some Field Maple and Aspen. The ground flora is a rich mixture of Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta, Bramble Rubus fruticosus, Anemone Anemone nemorosa, grasses and Bracken Pteridium aquilinum. Other typical species include Wood Avens Geum urbanum, Ground Ivy Glechoma hederacea, Lords-and-Ladies Arum maculatum, Greater Stitchwort Stellaria holostea and Lesser Stitchwort Stellaria graminea. Species generally associated with ancient woodland occur, such as Remote Sedge Carex remota, Wood Sedge Carex sylvatica, Field Rose Rosa arvensis and Guelder-rose Viburnum opulus.

The wood has good populations of small birds and, although crossed by a series of well-used paths, has impenetrable areas which are undisturbed by people.


Tipping of household rubbish occurs. This material should be removed and further tipping prevented. No other management is needed at present, although the paths should be kept open.


West Sussex

Site Name: Tilgate Park

Site Ref: Cr10 Owner: Crawley Borough Council


Parish: N/A Date: Identified May 1992. Revised Dec 2003.

National Grid Ref: TQ275343 Author: Louise Clark

Habitat: Semi-natural woodland, conifer plantation, mixed plantation, scrub, lake, pond, stream, heathland, grassland and amenity grassland

Summary

This is a most important wildlife site, by virtue of its size, the diversity of its habitats and the high degree of public usage it receives. It is managed as a County Park by Crawley Borough Council. Much of the area is replanted ancient woodland and there are also large areas of parkland, grassland and several lakes. In 2003 the golf course on the eastern side was added to the SNCI due to its areas of heath within the roughs.

Site description

The site as a whole includes many areas of woodland of variable character. These include old Sweet Chestnut coppice, a thinned Pine plantation, an area of dense young Spruce, mature Beech stands, mixed woodland and Alder carrs. Additionally, there is an area of woodland dominated by Birch and very open in places. Rhododendron has invaded forming a single species understorey in many areas. There are also areas of Sweet Chestnut and Hazel coppice with Silver Birch, Holly and Scots Pine. Dormice have been recorded from the woodlands and from Birch and Gorse Ulex europaeus scrub along the southern boundary with the motorway.

There is a strip of parkland which receives heavy public usage. There are widely-spaced mature Beech, Oak and Sweet Chestnut, merging into open woodland in places. Much of the areas of mown grassland are species-poor, but there are some areas, which support quite a variety of herbs. The part of the site includes formal lawns and gardens.

The site also includes several lakes. Titmus Lake has good marginal vegetation and supports a range of amphibians and reptiles. The lake is fed by a small stream which flows through woodland, creating areas of boggy ground which have interesting flora. Tilgate and Silt Lake are shallow man-made lakes. They are linked by a stream and bog garden. Their chief wildlife interest lies in their associated bird life. Several other ponds are good for invertebrates.

Cleared areas below the electricity lines on the Golf Course support a mixture of bracken and regenerating damp heathland with stands of Purple Moor-grass Molinia caerulea and Birch. The best area of damp heathland vegetation has sunny, shrubby margins and heathland plants present include Ling Calluna vulgaris, Cross-leaved Heath Erica tetralix, Wavy Hair-grass Deschampsia flexuosa, Purple Moor-grass, Tormentil Potentilla erecta, Lesser Skullcap Scutellaria minor, Heath Bedstraw Galium saxatile and Ivy-leaved Bellflower Wahlenbergia hederacea. Areas of short “rough” in the golf course support Ling dominated heathland vegetation and acid grassland. Many of the fairways are separated by strips of heathy woodland.


The areas of semi-natural vegetation should be managed for nature conservation whilst traditional park management would seem more appropriate for the more formal areas. The neutral grassland should be cut annually leaving tall herb/scrub margins. Further heathland restoration should be considered in the golf course roughs. Maintain a network of woodland paths, rides and glades. Remove the invasive Parrot’s-feather from the pond.

KEY NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SITE DESIGNATIONS

National Nature Reserve (NNR)

National Nature Reserves are statutory reserves established under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. NNRs may be owned by the relevant national body (e.g. Natural England in England) or established by agreement. A few are owned and managed by non‐statutory bodies, for example the Sussex Wildlife Trust. NNRs cover a selection of the most important sites for nature conservation in the UK. There are six NNRs in Sussex.

Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Special Areas of Conservation are sites designated by Member States under the EC Habitats Directive. The aim is to establish a European network of important high quality conservation sites that will make a significant contribution to conserving habitats and species considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level. There are 12 SAC sites in Sussex.

Special Protection Area (SPA)

Special Protection Areas are designated under the EC Birds Directive, to conserve the habitat of certain rare or vulnerable birds and regularly occurring migratory birds. Any significant pollution or disturbance to or deterioration of these sites has to be avoided. All SPAs are also designated as SSSIs. There are six SPA sites in Sussex.

Ramsar

Ramsar sites are designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. Under the Convention, each government must select its best wetlands according to very clear criteria, which include: a wetland that regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds; a wetland that regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird. Wetlands are broadly defined to include marsh, fen, peatland and water. All designated Ramsar sites are also designated as SSSIs.There are four Ramsar sites in Sussex.

National Park

National Parks are beautiful, spectacular and often dramatic expanses of countryside. In the UK people live and work in the National Parks and the farms, villages and towns are protected along with the landscape and wildlife. They differ from Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) in that each National Park has its own authority for planning control and other services.

The creation of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) was confirmed on 12th November 2009 and came into being on 1st April 2010.

Further information can be found on the SDNP Authority website.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are areas of high scenic quality that have statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of their landscapes. They differ from National Parks in their more limited opportunities for extensive outdoor recreation and by the way they are managed. AONBs are designated by Natural England under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

There are two AONBs in Sussex covering approx. 114,000 hectares; Chichester Harbour and High Weald. Each has an associated body concerned with the area’s conservation:

Chichester Harbour Conservancy www.conservancy.co.uk

High Weald AONB Unit www.highweald.org

Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ)

MCZs protect a range of nationally important marine wildlife, habitats, geology and geomorphology. In November 2013 27 MCZs were designated in English inshore and English and Welsh offshore waters in the first tranche of sites. Three of these sites were designated off Sussex; Kingmere, Beachy Head West and Pagham Harbour. More MCZs will be designated in future rounds or ‘tranches’, although it is uncertain how many.

Further information can be found on the JNCC website.

Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

Local Nature Reserves are for both people and wildlife. All district and county councils have powers to acquire, declare and manage LNRs. To qualify for LNR status, a site must be of importance for wildlife, geology, education or public enjoyment. Some are also SSSIs. There are 36 LNRs in Sussex.

Country Park

Country Parks were established as a result of the 1968 Countryside Act to provide a wide range of opportunities for recreation, health, education and improve the quality of life for local communities. Natural England recognises Country Parks as significant places that contribute to England's accessible natural green space. There are 11 Country Parks in Sussex, the details of which can be obtained from the local authorities.

Local Geological Site (LGS)

Previously known as Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites (RIGGS), LGS are non‐statutory designations that have been identified by local geodiversity groups as being of importance. There are over 120 LGS in Sussex which have been assessed by the Sussex Geodiversity Partnership. The features identified as being important become a material consideration in any future development, and should be taken into account by the relevant local authority.

A selection of LGS with public access in Sussex can be viewed on the Sussex Geodiversity Partnership’s website.

Marine Site of Nature Conservation Importance (MSNCI)

Marine Sites of Nature Conservation Importance are non‐statutory sites identified on account of the special interest of their marine habitats, the fauna and flora, or for unusual geological and geomorphological features. They are an extension of the series of terrestrial SNCIs. The identification of these sites is to highlight their importance for marine wildlife and to emphasise the risks of certain operations damaging their interest. There are 23 MSNCIs off the Sussex coast.

Environmental Stewardship

Environmental Stewardship is an agri‐environment scheme managed by Natural England that provides funding to farmers and other land managers to deliver effective environmental management.

There are four elements to Environmental Stewardship, three of which are relevant in Sussex:

Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) goes beyond the Single Payment Scheme requirement to maintain land in good agricultural and environmental condition.

Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) is the organic strand of ELS. It is geared to organic and organic/conventional mixed farming systems and is open to all farmers not receiving Organic Farming Scheme aid.

Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) involves more complex types of management where agreements are tailored to local circumstances.

Further information can be found on the Natural England website. Further information on many of the designations listed above can be found on the Natural England website.

ANCIENT & VETERAN TREES Ancient trees form a vital part of our landscape, heritage and biodiversity. They are scattered through most parts of the UK landscape where they are found in exceptionally large numbers compared with north east Europe. Ancient trees can be most easily found in the vestiges of the once extensive Royal Hunting Forests, such as Ashdown Forest, and medieval parks. Others occur in historic parkland, landscaped gardens, woodland, wood pasture and ancient wooded commons. There are also small groups and individual trees scattered around housing estates, urban parks, village greens and churchyards. Some ancient trees are found on farmland, usually in hedgerows or old boundary features. In Sussex, some of the largest recorded girths belong to: the Queen Elizabeth oak of 12.67m at Cowdray Park, a yew of 8.5m in Wilmington churchyard; a beech of 8.4m on Ashdown Forest; and a sweet chestnut of 7.2m at Herstmonceux Castle. There are different definitions for mature trees, depending mainly on their stage of life:

Ancient trees. Biologically, aesthetically or culturally interesting because of their great age; In ancient or post‐mature stage of life; Have a large girth relative to others of the same species.

Veteran trees. Usually in the second or mature stage of life; Have important wildlife and habitat features including hollowing or associated decay fungi, holes, wounds and large dead branches.

Notable trees. Locally important or of significance to the community; Specimen trees or considered to be the potential next generation of veteran trees. Ancient tree ecology Ancient trees are unique as a wildlife habitat because of the exceptionally species‐rich communities associated with wood decay and the bare surfaces of trunks, bough and roots. Clusters of ancient trees are even more important because together they offer a wide range of niche homes for many specialist species in one small area. Approximately 1,700 (6%) invertebrate species in the British Isles are dependent on decaying wood to complete their life cycles. Species associated with decaying wood include: rare click beetles such as the violet click beetle Limoniscus violaceus, the wasp mimic cranefly Ctenophora flaveolata and the oak longhorn beetle Rhagium mordax. The black‐headed cardinal beetle Pyrochroa coccinea is an insect associated with veteran trees and old growth woodland. Old trees with splits, cracks, loose bark, holes and crevices are especially attractive to bats and in particular to woodland specialists such as the rare Barbastelle and Bechstein’s bat.

The Ancient Tree Hunt The Ancient Tree Hunt is a nationwide search to map all of the old trees in the UK in order to plan for their active conservation. This project, led by the Woodland Trust in partnership with the Ancient Tree Forum and Tree Register of the British Isles, was launched in 2007. Most of the trees recorded can be viewed on their website: www.ancient‐tree‐hunt.org.uk

Characteristic features of a veteran tree Source: Veteren Trees: A guide to good management. Natural England, 2000.

http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/

ANCIENT WOODLAND

Ancient woodland is defined by Natural England as an area that has had a continuous woodland cover since at least 1600 AD. Sussex is one of the most wooded parts of lowland Britain with ancient woodland covering approximately 39,000ha (10%) of the county. Bluebell woods associated with coppicing, open wood pasture associated with deer parks and the small Wealden woods in ghyll valleys are a key part of Sussex’s distinctive and varied landscape. The habitat can be split into two broad categories:‐

Ancient semi‐natural woodland ‐ is composed predominantly of trees and shrubs native to the site that do not obviously originate from planting. However, woodlands with small planting of trees native to the site would still be included in this category. The stands may have been managed by coppicing or pollarding in the past or the tree and shrub layer may have grown up by natural regeneration.

Plantations on ancient woodland sites ‐ are areas of ancient woodland where the former native tree cover has been felled and replaced by planted trees, predominantly of species not native to the site. These will include conifers such as Norway spruce or Corsican pine, and also non‐native broadleaves such as sweet chestnut. These sites often retain some ancient woodland features such as soils, ground flora, fungi, and woodland archaeology and as such they can respond well to restoration management. The importance of ancient woodland

Ancient woodland is of prime ecological and landscape importance, providing a vital part of a rich and diverse countryside. In particular, ancient woodland:

is exceptionally rich in wildlife, and supports many rare and threatened species

may contain surviving descendants and features from the original natural forests

acts as reservoirs from which wildlife can spread into new woodlands

has valuable soils due to their undisturbed nature

is an integral part of England’s historic landscapes and the biological and visual functioning of a landscape

contains a wealth of features of historical and archaeological importance little altered by modern cultivation or disturbance

Ancient Woodland Inventory

The Ancient Woodland Inventory was set up in 1981 by the Nature Conservancy Council (now Natural England). It originally only included sites over two hectares in size. Advances in digital mapping techniques mean it is now possible to map woodlands under two hectares with greater accuracy. This has led to a revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory within the South East. The surveys for the revision of the inventory for Sussex were completed in 2010 and have been adopted by Natural England. However, the inventory will always be classed as "provisional" because it is reviewed and updated as new information comes to light.

Further information about the Ancient Woodland Inventory can be found on the Natural England website.

(Illustration courtesy of Natural England.)

Bluebell

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/whatwedo/partnership/casestudies/ancientwoodland.aspx

WOOD‐PASTURE & PARKLAND

Many parks were established in medieval times for aesthetic reasons, to provide grazing for farm animals or deer and to provide wood from pollarded trees. In later centuries, new landscaped parks were created from these medieval parks or by enclosing ordinary farmland. Wood‐pasture and parkland is therefore the result of a distinctive, historic land‐use system, and represents a vegetation structure rather than being a particular plant community.

Typically this structure consists of veteran trees with wide, spreading crowns growing in a matrix of grazed grassland or heathland. It is a habitat of cultural and historical significance and can also be of great ecological importance due to the wide range of species it supports. For these reasons, and due the threats facing the habitat, it is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitat.

Current status and distribution

There are no reliable statistics on the extent of this habitat in the UK, but it is most common in southern Britain. Sussex is particularly rich in wood‐pasture and parkland with several large old deer parks, such as Petworth Park and Parham Park. Ecological significance

Wood‐pasture and parkland is important for wildlife for a number of reasons:

The mosaic of habitats together with the presence of veteran trees provides the conditions needed by certain species for every stage of their life cycle.

There is often a continuity of old trees over hundreds of years, or even in some cases back to the post ice‐age ‘wildwood’. The trees have often been pollarded; this management technique extends their life and creates rot holes and crevices which are used by bats, hole‐nesting birds and invertebrates.

Sussex has the majority of the UK’s mature English Elms following the loss of millions to Dutch Elm Disease.

Rotten wood within ancient tree trunks supports saproxylic invertebrates (those that rely on dead wood for all or part of their life cycle) and are amongst the most threatened group of species in Europe. One such species is the click beetle Lacon querceus, which develops in dry red‐rotten oak wood in veteran trunks and fallen boughs. The Stag Beetle is another saproxylic beetle often associated with pasture parkland.

The old tree trunks also support unique communities of lichens, mosses and liverworts which depend on the stability of the surface provided by veteran trees. Two BAP Priority Species of lichen found on old trees include Bacidia incompata and Enterographa sorediata.

Threats facing the habitat include:

Isolation and fragmentation of the remaining parklands.

Inappropriate grazing resulting in the loss of plant diversity and habitat structure.

Agricultural intensification including reseeding, ploughing and use of fertilisers.

Neglect and loss of veteran trees, and over‐tidying of deadwood. (Illustrations courtesy of Natural England.)

Stag Beetle

Pedunculate Oak

Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre Woods Mill Henfield

West Sussex BN5 9SD

Tel: 01273 497521

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.sxbrc.org.uk

The Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre is managed by the Sussex Wildlife Trust as a partnership project. A list of our current funding partners can be found on our website: www.sxbrc.org.uk/about/partners

Sussex Wildlife Trust is a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act. Registered in England. Company No. 698851. Registered Charity No. 207005.

VAT Registration No. 191 3059 69. Registered Office: Woods Mill, Henfield, West Sussex BN5 9SD.

Appendix 4

3 No. 1100 litre

euro-bins within PBM

wasteSTOR enclosure

Line of extent of

turning area

required for

refuse lorry

Gas meter enclosures

18 no. space cycle shelter

- Sheldon SCS309

Extent of highway

boundary

brown dotted line denotes

outline of existing buildings

to be demolished

new vehicular access

crossover

1 no. space mobility scooter/electric PSL

scooterSTOR wheelchair store/charging station

dashed line

denotes 450mm

high timber knee

rail to rear of

parking spaces

red dashed line denotes

outline of building position

in planning application ref.

CR/2016/0857/FUL

T

H

R

E

E

B

R

I D

G

E

S

R

O

A

D

4

6

1

3

2

5

7

14

13

12

910

11

WBWB

WB

WB

WB

WB

WB

No. 89a

No. 81

Communal

Entrance

1B2P Flat 1B2P Flat

2B4P Flat

1B2P Flat

1B2P Wheelchair Flat

Communal

Garden

Communal Garden

Private

Patio

Private

Patio

Private

Patio

Parking Court

+ FFL: 78.650

+ 78.650

+ FFL: 78.650

+ FFL: 78.650

+ 78.635

FFL: 78.650 +

+ 78.030

+ 78.635

+ 78.120

+ FFL: 78.65078.635 +

+ 78.635

+ 78.635

+ 78.635

+ 78.635

FFL: 78.650 +

FFL: 78.650 +

FFL: 78.650 +

2B4P Flat

+ 78.026

78.000 +

+ 78.360

+ 78.500

+ 78.635FFL: 78.650 +

+ 78.635

FFL: 78.650 +

+ 79.420

+ 79.500

78.695 +

+ 78.230

+ 77.780

79.050 +

+ 79.200

79.530 +

+ 79.680

+ 78.340

+ 78.420

+ 78.190

+ 77.980

+ 77.820

+ 77.680

77.830 +

+ 78.390

+ 78.150

+ 78.410

+ 77.860

+ 78.140

+ 78.550

79.100 +

78.710 +

+ 78.760

+ 79.550

+ 79.420

+ 79.470

+ 79.330

8

No. 83-85

No. 87

78.570 +

+ 78.390

78.560 +

+ 78.300

+ 78.290

78.560 +

+ 78.400

+ 78.480

78.420 +

+ 77.650

+ 78.170

78.390 +

+ 79.100

+ FFL: 78.65078.635 +

+ FFL: 78.65078.635 +

+ FFL: 78.65078.635 +

+ FFL: 78.65078.635 +

79.580 +

79.510 +

78.665 +

+ 78.680

+ 78.680

+ FFL: 78.65078.635 +

+ 78.680

+ FFL: 78.65078.635 +

78.695 +

+ 78.680

+ 79.450

+ 78.700

+ FFL: 78.65078.650 +

+78.730

78.770 +

+ 79.075 + 78.930

fall fall

fall

fall

approximate

window

positions to

flank wall to

No. 89a

fall

0 20m4m 8m 12m 16m

Existing tree to be retained

- refer to tree survey & landscaping layout

Existing tree/shrub to be removed - refer

to tree survey & landscaping layout

Concrete block paving to paths

- refer to landscaping layout

Concrete block paving roadway and

parking bays - refer to landscaping layout

Concrete slab paving to patio areas - refer

to landscaping layout

Grassed area - refer to landscaping layout

WB

Water butt

Key

New tree - refer to landscaping layout

Note: Refer to landscaping layout for details of boundary treatments

New planting - refer to landscaping

layout

Gravel

Existing level retained

New level

+ 78.635

+ 78.400

North

CLIENT PROJECT

TITLE DATE

DRAWING No

SCALE DRAWN CHK

NOTES:

Report all discrepancies, errors and omissions

Do not scale from this drawing.

Verify all dimensions on site before commencing any work or

preparing shop drawings.

All materials, components and workmanship are to comply

with all the relevant British Standards, Codes of Practice, and

appropriate manufacturers recommendations that from time to

time shall apply.

For all specialist work, see relevant drawings.

This drawing and design are copyright of PELLINGS LLP

May 2017 1:200 AF

786 001 P03 A

Crawley Borough Council 83-87 Three Bridges Road, Crawley

Site Plan

As Proposed

Site Plan

As Proposed

1:200@A3

PLANNING

Rev A 26-06-17 Highway boundary line adjusted

0 20m4m 8m 12m 16m

CLIENT PROJECT

TITLE DATE

DRAWING No

SCALE DRAWN CHK

NOTES:

Report all discrepancies, errors and omissions

Do not scale from this drawing.

Verify all dimensions on site before commencing any work or

preparing shop drawings.

All materials, components and workmanship are to comply

with all the relevant British Standards, Codes of Practice, and

appropriate manufacturers recommendations that from time to

time shall apply.

For all specialist work, see relevant drawings.

This drawing and design are copyright of PELLINGS LLP

May 2017 1:200 KO

786 001 P10 A

Crawley Borough Council 83-87 Three Bridges Road, Crawley

Street Scene Elevations

As Proposed

Sheet 1 of 2

ELEVATIONS - As Proposed

1:200@A3

PLANNING

Elevation to Three Bridges Road

Elevation to Communal Garden

Rev Date Discription Name

A 26/06/17 Minor revisions KO

preliminary ecological appraisal - crawley · 6.4 enhancement options 23 6.5 species licensing 24...

Documents