baselineecologicalsit eauditernehalejuniors chool , arnold , nottingha

93 Pages·2015·6.39 MB·English

by  Christopher Betts

B A S E L I N E E C O L O G I C A L S I T E A U D I T 1

E R N E H A L E J U N I O R S C H O O L , A R N O L D , N O T T I N G H A M
f o r
E R N E H A L E J U N I O R S C H O O L

RESULT INDICATOR OF THIS SURVEY
RED. Do not proceed. Without major modification this project will have
significant adverse ecological & biodiversity impacts. It will not be sustainable or
compliant with current legislation and approved planning policy.
AMBER. Caution. The proposals as conceived would have substantial negative
impacts and cannot achieve a “No Net Loss” outcome unless changes are made to
avoid, mitigate/restore or, as a last resort, compensate the ecological impacts.
With such changes, the project is considered feasible, however.
GREEN. The proposals have no or only minor adverse impacts on ecology &
biodiversity, and some gains. The project can proceed providing all the
recommendations are met, enforced and monitored.

AUGUST 2015 S:6470/J000464/HAUD

Betts Ecology
Bank House Martley Worcester WR6 6PB United Kingdom
T [phone] E [email protected] www.bettsecology.com

N.B. Information on legally protected, rare or vulnerable species may appear in ecological reports. In such cases it is
recommended that appropriate caution be used when circulating copies.
©Betts/Ernehale Junior School

1 Incorporates “Phase 1” habitat plan, walkover survey for protected and notable species and
habitats, and appraisal in context of biodiversity and planning policies.
NB. THIS REPORT FORMAT IS DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY AUTHORITY (e.g. Natural
England) RELEVANT STANDING ADVICE. FURTHER STUDIES MAY BE REQUIRED WHERE THERE IS
EVIDENCE OF PROTECTED SPECIES OR IF OTHER NOTABLE ECOLOGICAL FACTORS ARE FOUND.

V160914
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

CONTENTS

PROJECT DATA — BASELINE ECOLOGICAL SITE AUDIT ............................... 1
REPORT CONTROL ........................................................................ 1
GENERAL REPORT INFORMATION ....................................................... 1
WORK NEEDED FOR COMPLIANCE AS REVEALED BY THE SURVEY .................. 2
REQUIRED FURTHER WORK (PROTECTED SPECIES & HABITATS).................... 2
REQUIRED FURTHER WORK FOR REGULATORY & GOOD PRACTICE COMPLIANCE 3
OBJECTIVES ............................................................................... 4
METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................. 5
GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 6
RESULTS TABLE ........................................................................... 7
MAMMALS .................................................................................. 8
BIRDS ..................................................................................... 10
HERPETOFAUNA.......................................................................... 10
FISH ....................................................................................... 11
MACRO-INVERTEBRATES ................................................................ 11
INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES (IAS) AND PATHOGENS ..................................... 12
POLICY .................................................................................... 13
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ................................................................... 13
GEOLOGICAL CONSERVATION .......................................................... 13
PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ................................................... 14
PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCH (SUMMARY) ................................................ 14
PHOTOGRAPHS .......................................................................... 19
PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ................................................... 23
CAPABILITY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ............................................... 24

0
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

PROJECT DATA — BASELINE ECOLOGICAL SITE AUDIT
Surveyor Kevin McGee
Date of site risk assessment 28 July 2015
Site address Ernehale Junior School, Derwent Crescent, Arnold,
Nottingham NG5 6TA
Project proposed Classroom extensions
Boundary as specified by client YES
Site area (ha) & central OS Grid Ref. 0.4 ha. Ordnance Survey Grid Reference: SK 59272 44657
Survey date 28 July 2015

REPORT CONTROL
General Report Information
Ecologist
Data Protection

Kevin McGee
Date report issued 04 August 2015
Contract manager Data Protection
Natalie Loben
Report Version Control
Version Date Author Description
1.0 03 August 2015 Kevin McGee Document created
2.0 04 August 2015 Kevin McGee Document completed

Whilst all due and reasonable care is taken in the preparation of reports, Betts accept no responsibility whatsoever for any
consequences of the release of this report to third parties. Clients are reminded that all work carried out by Betts is
subject to our Terms of Trading which may be viewed at any time on our web site at www.bettsecology.com or can be
provided on request.

1
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

WORK NEEDED FOR COMPLIANCE AS REVEALED BY THE SURVEY

RESULT INDICATOR OF THIS SURVEY
GREEN. The proposals have no or only minor adverse impacts on ecology &
biodiversity, and some gains. The project can proceed providing all the
recommendations are met, enforced and monitored.

Please note that, in determining the requirements listed below, Betts adopt an
objective and independent view, taking account of current legislation and the
official guidance published by, or used by, Local Planning Authorities and the
Statutory Agencies whom they consult2. The objective is always to inform the
project’s proponents within a framework of the published policies of European,
national and local governments on ecology and biodiversity, as may be relevant to
the circumstances of the case, but always proportionately and based in science.

REQUIRED FURTHER WORK (PROTECTED SPECIES & HABITATS)
Is further work needed to eliminate doubt regarding presence of notable species or Some, yes
habitats, or for any regulatory compliance?
Work required if “yes”: Reason
To avoid the risk of infringement of regulations,
conduct a pre-clearance search of all areas of the site
to be developed using suitably qualified ecological
scientists under a Betts Method Statement or one To comply with legislation and good
formally pre-agreed by us immediately prior to site practice.
stripping to move any vulnerable taxa to safety or
allow other necessary precautions to be taken prior
to the commencement of development activity.
Undertake site clearance outside the bird nesting
season (usually taken as March to mid-August
inclusive in this part of Britain). If this is unavoidable
pre-clearance inspection by a suitably experienced To comply with wild birds’ legislation.
ornithologist will be required to identify whether any
nests are present, and ensure appropriate action is
taken.
Please be aware that any demolition, refurbishment For reasons of legal, planning and
or other works that have potential to harm or disturb environmental policy compliance and
bats (e.g. tree works) must not take place until current best practice for European

2 The regulatory context includes the Wildlife & Countryside Act, Habitats & Species Regulations,
Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Berne Convention, Bonn Convention, Countryside & Rights of
Way Act, Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio
de Janeiro, Nagoya/Aichi — UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework), British Standard 42020: 2013,
Chartered Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management ecological impact assessment
guidance, etc.
2
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

REQUIRED FURTHER WORK (PROTECTED SPECIES & HABITATS)
further surveys are undertaken and appropriate Protected Species.
mitigation measures developed. (Please see main text
below.)
If possible, use native planting (preferably of local
For reasons of NPPF and environmental
origin) in all landscaping. Where exotic species are
policy compliance and current best
planted, always avoid invasive species and choose
practice. To help assure No Net Loss of
those with wildlife value such as for nectar or shelter.
Biodiversity policy is upheld.
(A selection of species is available from us).

REQUIRED FURTHER WORK FOR REGULATORY & GOOD PRACTICE COMPLIANCE
Is further work recommended to observe ecological best practice and/or planning Yes
policy as recognised by the various statutory authorities at local, regional, national or
European levels as may be applicable (enter the specific policies’ references if
required here)?
Work required if “yes”: Reason
Embody Green Infrastructure protocols in landscaping
and ensure ecological linkage out from and into the
site. To follow government policy, ensure that the
"carbon footprint" of all aspects of the project and its
future operation is compliant with current best For reasons of planning and
practice. This may include taking appropriate steps to environmental policy compliance and
avoid or reduce the use of fossil fuels, employing current best practice.
scientifically sound carbon offset/CO sequestration
2
and instating renewable energy technologies. Ensure
the measures agreed are quantified, independently
verified and monitored.
Retain mature trees and established native hedgerows
on site and at the periphery by designing around them.
There is a particularly fine mature hawthorn within the
hedgerow to the north that has been allowed to grow
on as a ‘standard’ and should be retained. There are
also two saplings of holly and pedunculate oak that
may be affected by the new extensions, these should
be re-positioned nearby in a suitable location (please
see the Target Notes.) Protect trees in line with BS
5837 and do not remove ivy, mistletoe, standing dead
Compliance with British Standards,
wood, snags or rot unless there is a clear and material
biodiversity No Net Loss, preservation
safety risk or presence of a serious pathogen. (Ask for
of Ecosystem Services and reasons of
advice from a qualified silvicultural ecologist if in
planning and environmental policy
doubt.)
compliance and current best practice.
In line with best practice and compliance with
government policy on biodiversity protection and
enhancement, generally retain habitats and features
of manifest ecological interest and wildlife value
(seeking further advice from us if uncertain) within the
development proposals. Create new wildlife habitats
appropriate to the site's context, e.g. through the use
of log piles, "wild" corners and native planting; install
four bird, two bat and two invertebrate boxes
3
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

REQUIRED FURTHER WORK FOR REGULATORY & GOOD PRACTICE COMPLIANCE
including “bee bricks”, of mixed designs and
incorporate these into the project's landscape scheme.
(We can provide specific recommendations for models
and siting on request but they must be of good quality
and durable.) In light of the fact that house sparrows
were observed, at least one of the bird boxes should
be of a specially adapted design just for house
sparrows. Bat and bird boxes must be inspected
annually and replaced when needed (usually after ten
years).
Design and incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SuDS) in agreement with any requirement from the To uphold sustainable drainage policy.
Environment Agency or other relevant authority.

RESULTS — WHAT WE FOUND
Objectives

The objectives of this commission were to:

 conduct a baseline "extended" ecological survey and appraisal of the site
and identify notable factors/features (including signs of/potential for bats
and great crested newts);
 prepare a Phase 1 Habitat Map with Target Notes to recognised standards;
 produce a summary of results;
 provide appropriate recommendations for protected species, biodiversity
protection/ enhancement, etc.

4
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

Methods and Limitations

The site was surveyed using appropriate methods generally following NCC (1990)3
for Phase 1 habitat survey, with procedures appropriately selected from Institute of
Environmental Assessment (1995)4 and Jermy et al. (1995)5 for species and any
specialist habitat appraisal as required, and/or the current guidance on survey
methods and Ecological Impact Assessment from the Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management (e.g. IEEM 2012, IEEM 2007 and updates6) with further
reference to British Standard 420207 as appropriate.
It should be noted that, whilst the investigation of the site was appropriately
intensive within the intended framework of the commission, and we feel it is unlikely
that significant matters have been overlooked, a single visit will inevitably miss
species not apparent on the date of survey by reason of seasonality, mobility, habits
or chance. The month of July is within the optimal survey period for many taxa of
nature conservation interest in this part of the United Kingdom, and within the
period acceptable for Phase 1 habitat mapping and baseline surveys of the kind
commissioned provided the limitations are noted.

It should always be recalled that wildlife surveys of the kind required for planning
and development or similar project purposes are seldom granted sufficient time or
resources to examine plants, invertebrates or fungi in great detail, yet these are the
fundamental elements of ecosystems that provide the niches and habitats for larger
fauna to exploit. In an ideal world, all surveys would include results of full sampling
of vascular and non-vascular plants, micro- and macro-invertebrates and
mycological status at individual, population and community levels. As that involves
skills, time and expense well beyond what is available, we ask readers of our general
survey reports to understand that we do consider the larger species we record in
their wider ecosystem context and take into account the impacts of proposals at an
ecosystem level when prescribing avoidance, mitigation, enhancement and/or
compensation.

3
Nature Conservancy Council (1990). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey — a technique for environmental audit.

Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, UK.
4
Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. E & FN Spon, London, UK.
5
Jermy, A.C., Long, D., Sands, M.J.S., Stork, N.E. and Winser, S. (Eds) (1995). Biodiversity assessment: a guide to good

practice. Department of the Environment/HMSO, London, UK.
6
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2007). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United
Kingdom. IEEM, Winchester, UK. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2012 Revised 2nd Edition).

Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. IEEM, Winchester, UK.
7
British Standards Institute (2013). British Standard 42020: 2013 Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and
development. British Standards Institute, London, UK.

5
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

General site description

The proposed development site occupies a plot of land 0.4 ha in size within the
grounds of Ernehale Junior School. The total area of the school grounds is 2.5 ha.
Ernehale Junior School is in the suburb of Arnold in the city of Nottingham. The
school grounds are in an urban setting surrounded by residential housing estates and
gardens, and a larger school with playing fields nearby. The site to be developed
comprises single storey classrooms built in the 1960s/70s of simple construction with
flat roofs. Buildings of this nature are considered unsuitable for bats. They are
surrounded by neatly maintained lawns with planted trees and shrubs, and areas of
hard standing. There is also a residential bungalow within the development boundary
but it is understood that this bungalow will not be affected. This bungalow is also
set within neatly maintained lawns, hedgerows, and areas of hard standing. The
bungalow has a clay-tiled roof containing gaps suitable for entry into the roof-space
by bat species, if the bungalow is to be affected by this development, or by any
future developments, a minimum of one dawn or dusk bat survey will be required.
Further bat surveys may subsequently be required based on initial findings.

The land around the bungalow, and the classrooms and school grounds, is a
combination of lawns, hard standing and neatly maintained zones of planted trees
and shrubs including various ornamental garden varieties. There are also a variety
of ornamental garden plant species, and some areas are colonised by native
ephemeral ruderal plant species. Native and non-native trees and woody shrubs
recorded were hawthorn, bramble, ash, elder, ivy, privet, sallow, snowberry, maple
spp., birch, hazel, cherry spp., rowan, sycamore, eucalyptus, holly, pedunculate
oak, wayfaring tree, rose spp., Swedish whitebeam, buddleja and bird cherry. Along
with a number of ornamental garden species the vascular plants recorded were
common nettle, white clover, wood avens, dandelion, broad-leaved dock, creeping
buttercup, self-heal, broad-leaved willowherb, herb-Robert, autumn hawkbit, petty
spurge, shepherd’s-purse, common ragwort, knotweed, groundsel, smooth hawk’s-
beard, hedge garlic, cleavers, black medick, fat hen, large bindweed, ribwort
plantain, greater plantain, daisy, common bird’s-foot-trefoil, yarrow, creeping-
6
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

Jenny and redshank. The dominant grass species were red fescue, common bent,
creeping bent, annual meadow-grass and Yorkshire-fog.

Results Table

ITEM OBSERVATIONS
Habitats & Vegetation
(NB. Please be aware that several designated habitat types and many plants enjoy legal protection in Britain.)

Please see general site description above.
TN 1 is a fine specimen of a mature hawthorn that has been allowed
to grow on as a standard within the hedgerow between the school
and the bungalow (see Plate 1). Mature hawthorns such as this
example have high ecological value, they provide good nesting
Target Note (TN) 1
habitat for a variety of birds, the berries provide valuable food for
(for location of TNs
over-wintering thrushes and other birds, the flowers provide a
please see plan below)
valuable nectar source for invertebrates, and the foliage provides
food for the larvae of many invertebrate species. Any attached dead
or diseased wood is a resource for many saproxylic invertebrates and
fungi.
TN 2 comprises of two saplings that may be affected by the proposed
development. They are a holly and a pedunculate oak that will
TN 2
eventually attain high ecological value (see Plate 2). These should be
re-planted in a suitable location nearby if they are affected.
TN 3 is the residential bungalow to the north of the proposed
development (see Plate 3). It has limited potential to support bat
species. The clay-tiled roof has gaps and crevices where bats may
gain entry into the roof-space. It is understood that this bungalow
TN 3
will not be affected, but if it is to be affected by this development,
or by any future developments, a minimum of one dawn or dusk bat
survey will be required. Further bat surveys may subsequently be
required based on initial findings.
TN 4 is all of the classrooms to be affected by the proposed
development (see Plates 4 & 5). They were built during the
1960’s/70’s and are all of a simple construction utilising
TN 4
prefabricated steel and sheet materials. The roofs are flat and
there is minimal roof-space. These buildings are considered to be
unsuitable to support bat species.
A public records search was commissioned as part of this project.
Statutory designations The search did not reveal any statutory designated sites within a 2
(on/near) km radius of the site. In addition, a search using magic.gov.uk
revealed no sites with statutory designation nearby.
7
Baseline Site Ecological Audit

ITEM OBSERVATIONS
A public records search was commissioned as part of this project.
The search revealed five Local Wildlife Sites within or close to the
search area. They are; Mapperley Plains Paddocks, marshy
Non-statutory
grasslands at Lambley, Mapperley Hospital Bank, Gedling Colliery
designations (on/near)
site and Dismantled Railway, and hedges/grassland at Lambley.
Each site has high botanical interest.
The proposed development of this site will not affect these sites.
A section of the hedgerow with trees along the western site
boundary has an interesting variety of planted species including
Notable hedgerows,
Swedish whitebeam, bird cherry and other cherry species, along
woodland or scrub
with native species such as ash and elder. However, although
ecologically interesting, it cannot be described as notable.
There is a fine example of a mature hawthorn that has been
Ecologically notable
allowed to grow on as a standard within the hedgerow between the
trees (e.g. veteran,
school grounds and the bungalow (see Plate 1). Please refer to the
wildlife significant)8
earlier notes for TN 1.
Ponds/water courses None observed on site.
Notable communities None observed on site.
Notable vascular plants None observed on site.
Notable
None observed on site.
bryophytes/algae
Notable lichens None observed on site.
Notable fungi None observed on site.
The hedgerow separating the school grounds and the bungalow
contains a high proportion of privet. The privets were in flower
Other notable during this survey and attracting a wide variety of nectar seeking
habitats/vegetation insects including hoverflies, bumblebees, wasps and butterflies.
However, although being of beneficial value as a nectar source it
cannot be described as notable.
The mature hawthorn (see TN 1), and the pedunculate oak and
Features that should be holly saplings (see TN 2) should be retained. All other trees and
retained shrubs around the site should be retained wherever is practical
and/or possible.
Mammals
(NB. Several species and their habitats have very strict protection in British/European law.)
No field signs of badgers or setts on site, but could visit the site. A
public records search was commissioned for this project. The
Badger
search revealed six records of badger within a 2 km radius of the
site from 1991 to the present.

8
Please note that we do not check TPO status as this is a landscape/amenity planning classification.
8