Ecology Report - Amazon Web Services

e c o l o g y s o l u t i o n s f o r 

p l a n n e r s a n d d e v e l o p e r s 

BELLWAY HOMES LIMITED 

LAND AT HALL ROAD, 

ROCHFORD, ESSEX 

Ecological Assessment 

April 2010 

4804.EcoAs.vf1

COPYRIGHT 

The copyright of this document 

remains with Ecology Solutions 

The contents of this document 

therefore must not be copied or 

reproduced in whole or in part 

for any purpose without the 

written consent of Ecology Solutions. 

PROTECTED SPECIES 

This report contains sensitive 

Information relating to protected 

species. The information 

contained herein should not be 

disseminated without the prior consent 

of Ecology Solutions

CONTENTS 

1 INTRODUCTION 1 

2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 2 

3 ECOLOGICAL FEATURES 5 

4 WILDLIFE USE OF THE APPLICATION SITE 9 

5 ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION 12 

6 POLICY BACKGROUND 26 

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 29 

PLANS 

PLAN ECO1 Application Site Location and Ecological Designations 

PLAN ECO2 Ecological Features 

PLAN ECO3 Protected Species Plan 

PHOTOGRAPH 1 View of Field F1 

PHOTOGRAPHS 

PHOTOGRAPH 2 View of Hedgerow H5 

PHOTOGRAPH 3 View of Pond P1 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX 1 Barton Willmore’s Draft for Parameters Plan Drawing 

Number 18293_sk100408-i 

APPENDIX 2 Information Received from the Essex Ecology Service Ltd 

(EECOS) 

APPENDIX 3 Information Downloaded from MAGIC and Nature on the Map

Land at Hall Road, Rochford, Essex Ecology Solutions 

Ecological Assessment 4804.EcoAs.vf1 

April 2010 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. Background and Proposals 

1.1.1. Ecology Solutions was commissioned by Bellway Homes Limited in 

September 2009 to undertake an ecological assessment of Land at Hall 

Road, Rochford, Essex, hereafter referred to as the Application Site. 

1.1.2. The Application Site boundary is shown on Plan ECO1. 

1.1.3. The proposals for the Application Site include the establishment of 

approximately 600 residential units together with associated areas of 

amenity and landscape planting, areas of hardstanding and a significant 

area of public open space. A development framework plan is reproduce in 

Appendix 1. 

1.2. Application Site Characteristics 

1.2.1. The Application Site is situated to the east of Rochford, to the north of 

Southend-on-Sea, in the county of Essex (see Plan ECO1). 

1.2.2. The Application Site itself comprises principally large arable fields bound 

by hedgerows. Additional habitats present within the Application Site 

include a single pond, amenity planting and small areas of scrub. 

1.3. Ecological Assessment 

1.3.1. This document assesses the ecological interest of the Application Site as 

a whole. The importance of the habitats present is evaluated with due 

regard had to the guidelines published by the Institute of Ecology and 

Environmental Management (IEEM) 1 . 

1.3.2. Where necessary mitigation measures are proposed to safeguard any 

significant existing ecological interest within the Application Site. Where 

deemed appropriate, further surveys are recommended and potential 

ecological enhancement measures are put forward. Reference is made to 

both National and Essex Biodiversity Action Plans. 

1 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the 

United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html 

1



April 2010 

2. SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

2.1. The methodology utilised for the survey work can be split into three areas, 

namely desk study, habitat survey and faunal survey. These are discussed in 

more detail below. 

2.2. Desk Study 

2.2.1. In order to compile background information on the Application Site and its 

immediate surroundings the following organisation / recorders were 

contacted: 

• Essex Ecology Service Ltd (EECOS) 

• Essex Badger Group 

• Essex Bat Recorder Group 

2.2.2. To date only information has been returned by the Essex Ecology Service 

Ltd (EECOS), which is reproduced at Appendix 1, and where appropriate 

on Plan ECO1. 

2.2.3. Further information on designated sites from a wider search area was 

obtained from the online Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the 

Countryside (MAGIC) 2 database and Natural England’s Nature on the Map 

website 3 . This information is reproduced at Appendix 2, and illustrated on 

Plan ECO1. 

2.3. Habitat Survey Methodology 

2.3.1. Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey The Application Site was surveyed 

based around an extended Phase 1 survey methodology 4 , as 

recommended by Natural England, whereby the habitat types present are 

identified and mapped (see Plan ECO2). This technique provides an 

inventory of the basic habitat types present and allows identification of 

areas of greater potential, which require further survey. Any such areas 

identified can then be examined in more detail. 

2.3.2. Using the above method, the Application Site was classified into areas of 

similar botanical community types, with a representative species list 

compiled for those habitats present. 

2.3.3. All of the species that occur in each habitat would not necessarily be 

detectable during survey work carried out at any given time of the year, 

since different species are apparent at different seasons. The survey work 

was undertaken during the optimum period for botanics and as such it is 

considered that an accurate and robust assessment could be made. 

2 http://www.magic.gov.uk 

3 http://www.natureonthemap.gov.uk 

4 Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for 

Environmental Audit. England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council, reprinted JNCC, Peterborough. 

2



April 2010 

2.4. Faunal Survey 

2.4.1. General faunal activity observed during the course of the survey was 

recorded, whether visually or by call. Specific attention was paid to the 

potential presence of any protected, rare, notable or Biodiversity Action 

Plan species. 

Bats 

2.4.2. All of the trees within the Application Site were assessed for their potential 

to support roosting bats. 

2.4.3. For a tree to be classed as having potential for roosting bats, it must 

usually have one or more of the following characteristics: 

• obvious holes, e.g. rot holes and old woodpecker holes; 

• dark staining on the tree below a hole; 

• tiny scratch marks around a hole from bats’ claws; 

• cavities, splits and/or loose bark from broken or fallen 

branches, lightning strikes etc; 

• very dense covering of mature ivy over trunk. 

Badgers 

2.4.4. Particular attention was paid during the survey to evidence of use of the 

Application Site by Badgers Meles meles. This comprised two main 

elements. Firstly, searching for Badger setts. For any sett encountered, 

the following information was recorded: 

i) The number and location of well used or very active entrances; these 

are clear from any debris or vegetation and are obviously in regular 

use and may, or may not, have been excavated recently. 

ii) The number and location of inactive entrances; these are not in 

regular use and have debris such as leaves and twigs in the entrance 

or have plants growing in or around the edge of the entrance. 

iii) The number of disused entrances; these have not been in use for 

some time, are partly or completely blocked and cannot be used 

without considerable clearance. If the entrance has been disused for 

some time all that may be visible is a depression in the ground where 

the hole used to be and the remains of the spoil heap. 

2.4.5. Secondly, any Badger activity was noted, such as well-worn paths and 

runs, snagged hair, footprints, latrines and foraging signs. 

Dormice 

2.4.6. Surveys of the hedgerows present within the Application Site were 

undertaken in order to establish their potential to support Hazel Dormice 

Muscardinus avellanarius, given that they are known to be present within 

the local area. 

3



April 2010 

2.4.7. Features of importance to Dormice include diverse well structured 

hedgerows offering a range of food sources throughout the year. Good 

arboreal links through the canopy layer of hedgerows / woodlands are 

required along with suitably dense cover for nest sites and good 

hibernation sites. Typical indicator tree / plant species include, Hazel 

Corylus avellana, Honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum and Bramble 

Rubus fruticosus, however a mix of other species (such as Oak Quercus 

sp., Ash Fraxinus excelsior, Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, Blackthorn 

Prunus spinosa, Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna) can prove equally 

important and it is the presence of food sources throughout the active 

period for Dormice, coupled with the presence of suitable hibernation sites 

that is of more importance than the presence / absence of any one key 

indicator species. 

Other Species 

2.4.8. General faunal activity, such as birds or other mammals observed visually 

or by call during the course of the survey was recorded. Specific attention 

was paid to the potential presence of any protected, rare, notable or 

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species. 

4



April 2010 

3. ECOLOGICAL FEATURES 

3.1. The Application Site was subject to a habitat survey in September 2009. The 

vegetation present enabled the habitat types to be satisfactorily identified and 

an accurate assessment of the ecological interest of the habitats to be 

undertaken. 

3.2. The following main habitat / vegetation types were identified within the 

Application Site: 

• Arable; 

• Hedgerows; 

• Trees; 

• Scrub; 

• Ponds; 

• Ditches; 

• Tall Ruderal Vegetation; and 

• Amenity Planting. 

3.3. The location of these habitats is shown on Plan ECO2. 

3.4. Each habitat is described below. 

3.5. Arable 

3.5.1. The Application Site is dominated by large arable fields (see Plan ECO2). 

The fields were seen to have been recently ploughed and sown at the time 

of survey, with limited vegetation or crops present (see Photographs 1 & 

2). 

3.5.2. Occasional arable weeds and grassland species are present along the 

field boundaries of the fields and associated with the hedgerows. Species 

present included Perennial Rye Grass Lolium perenne, False Oat Grass 

Arrhenatherum elatius, Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata, Yorkshire Fog 

Holcus lanatus, Annual Meadow Grass Poa annual, Bristly Ox-tongue 

Picris echioides, Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius, White Clover 

Trifolium repens, Common Nettle Urtica dioica, Creeping Thistle Cirsium 

arvense, Common Fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica, Redleg Persicara 

maculosa, Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens, Ribwort Plantain 

Plantago lanceolata and Greater Plantain Plantago major. 

3.6. Hedgerows 

3.6.1. Hedgerows are present throughout the Application Site at the field 

boundaries (see Plan ECO2). The majority are fairly species poor, 

containing a limited assemblage of native woody species throughout their 

length. It is also noted that the structure of the majority of the hedgerows is 

also unfavourable, with many becoming leggy and gappy in nature. 

3.6.2. The hedgerows are labelled H1 to H6 on Plan ECO2 an d described 

individually below: 

3.6.3. Hedgerow H1 is fairly short in nature, probably on 20-25 meters in length 

5



April 2010 

and not well managed. It is associated with a ditch that was dry at the 

time of survey. Species present within the hedgerow include Hawthorn 

Crataegus monogyna, Field Maple Acer campestre, occasional Dogwood 

Cornus sanguinea, Dog-rose Rosa canina, Blackthorn Prunus spinosa, 

Bramble Rubus fruticosus and Cleavers Galium aparine. 

3.6.4. Hedgerow H2 is present to the south of field F2. The hedgerow is about 

four meters in height and probably about five meters in width. Species 

present in the hedgerow include Hawthorn, Elder Sambucus nigra and 

Elm Ulmus minor some of which has died but remains standing. 

3.6.5. Hedgerow H3 is located along the western boundary of field F2. The 

hedgerow is associated with a number of standards along its length, 

predominantly Pedunculate Oak Quercus robur. Species present include 

Hawthorn, Dog-rose, Blackthorn, Ash Fraxinus excelsior and Elder. 

3.6.6. Some management of the Oak trees has been undertaken, the resulting 

timber has been felled and chopped up, and left in woodpiles creating a 

resource for invertebrates at the base of the hedgerow. 

3.6.7. Hedgerow H4 is located along the north of field F2 the hedgerow is 

associated with a dry ditch and again associated with a number of 

Pedunculate Oak standards. Species present within this gappy hedgerow 

are limited to Hawthorn. 

3.6.8. Hedgerow H5 is a large and well-established hedgerows present along the 

north of fields F3 and F1 and associated with a bridleway (see Photograph 

2). There are a number of mature standards within this hedgerow and a 

dry ditch is also associated with hedgerow H5. 

3.6.9. Species present in hedgerow H5 include Hawthorn, Blackthorn, 

Pedunculate Oak, Spindle Euonymus europaeus, Field-rose Rosa 

arvensis, Elder, Elm, Hornbeam Carpinus betulus, Dogwood, Hazel 

Corylus avellana, Holly Ilex aquifolium, Field Maple Acer campestre and 

Crab Apple Malus sylvestris. Additional species associated with the 

hedgerow include Ivy Hedera helix, Bramble, Hop Humulus lupulus, 

Cleavers and Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium. 

3.6.10. Hedgerow H6 is a gappy hedgerow along the south of field F1 and 

associated with Hall Road. The hedgerow is associated with a number of 

mature standards and is not continuous in its length. Species present 

include Hawthorn, Field Maple, Blackthorn, Elder, occasional Spindle, Elm 

and Dogwood. Lords and Ladies were recorded within the ground flora 

associated with hedgerow H6. 

3.6.11. It is considered that some hedgerows / sections of hedgerows would be 

likely to meet the criteria for classification as important under the 

Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (hereafter referred to as the Hedgerow 

Regulations) in relation to ‘Wildlife and Landscape’ criteria. 

3.6.12. The only hedgerow that could potentially meet the classification of 

important under the Regulations is hedgerow H5 (see Plan ECO2). 

6



April 2010 

3.7. Trees 

3.7.1. Trees within the Application Site are largely semi-mature to mature in 

nature and largely limited to the hedgerows (see Plan ECO2). 

3.7.2. Tree species present within the Application Site include Pedunculate Oak, 

Beech, Ash, Hornbeam Carpinus betulus, Horse Chestnut Aesculus 

hippocastanum, Sweet Chestnut, Holly and Sycamore. 

3.8. Scrub 

3.8.1. Scrub is present throughout the Application Site, mainly in the form of 

scattered scrub encroaching into field margins or forming remnants of 

hedgerows where the remainder of the hedgerow has been lost / failed 

(see Plan ECO2). Species present in these areas are typically hedgerow 

species, predominantly in the form of Hawthorn, Blackthorn and Elder 

together with Bramble. 

3.9. Ponds 

3.9.1. There is a single within the Application Site boundaries, this pond is 

labelled P1 on Plan ECO2 and is associated with both hedgerows H1 and 

H2. 

3.9.2. P1 was dry at the time of survey. It appears that it would probably hold 

water at certain times of the year, perhaps only at times of prolonged and 

heavy precipitation. Although despite the wet summer of 2009 no water 

was standing within the pond in September 2009 (see Photograph 3). 

3.9.3. Species associated with the pond area include Amphibious Bistort 

Persicaria amphibia, Common Nettle, Bittersweet Solanum dulcamara, 

Cleavers Galium aparine, Broad-leaved Dock and Sweet Floating Grass 

Glyceria fluitans. The pond P1 is fringed by a number trees and areas of 

hedgerows. Woody species present adjacent to the pond, and largely 

shading the pond, include Goat Willow Salix caprea, Hawthorn, Dog Rose 

Rosa canina, Blackthorn and Ash. 

3.9.4. Pond P1 was seen to contain discarded waste including, children’s toys, 

clothes and traffic cones. It is considered that this is attributed to the 

accessible nature of this pond, being located adjacent to an access track. 

3.10. Ditches 

3.10.1. There are a number of ditches associated with the hedgerows and 

boundaries of the Application Site. All of the ditches within the Application 

Site were dry at the time of survey and supported neither aquatic nor 

emergent flora species. 

3.11. Tall Ruderal Vegetation 

3.11.1. There is a small area of tall ruderal vegetation in the south-east corner of 

field F2 (see Plan ECO2). This area is diagnostically associated with an 

area of disturbed ground. The area is dominated by Common Nettle 

7



April 2010 

together with Cow Parsley, Bramble, Common Mugwort, Smooth Sow 

Thistle Sonchus oleraceus, Red Dead Nettle and Creeping Thistle. 

3.12. Amenity Planting 

3.12.1. A small area of amenity planting is present in the south-east of the 

Application Site ands associated with the boundary of a residential garden. 

The amenity planting comprises principally non-native species such as 

Garden Privet Ligustrum ovalifolium and Cherry Laurel Prunus 

laurocerasus. 

3.13. Background Records 

3.13.1. Records returned from the EECOS show no records for any rare / notable 

or specially protected plant species occurring within the Application Site 

(see Appendix 1). 

8



April 2010 

4. WILDLIFE USE OF THE APPLICATION SITE 

4.1. General observations were made during the surveys of any faunal use of the 

Application Site with specific attention paid to the potential presence of 

protected species. 

4.2. Bats 

4.2.1. Trees within the Application Site were assessed for their likely potential to 

support roosting bats. Several trees along the field boundaries are 

considered to offer features capable as offering potential roosting sites for 

bats (see Plan ECO3). These trees were not considered as having high 

potential to support roosting bats, but were more at the low to medium 

scale in terms of the opportunities they support. 

4.2.2. The hedgerows, trees and to a lesser extent areas of scrub within the 

Application Site offer potential foraging and navigational opportunities for 

any local bat populations. 

4.2.3. To date no information has been received from the Essex Bat Group, 

whilst no records of bats were returned as part of the EECOS data (see 

Appendix 2). 

4.3. Badgers 

4.3.1. There is a single Badger sett (S1) within the Application Site, whilst an 

additional sett (S2), latrines and several mammal push-throughs were also 

recorded across the Application Site (see Plan ECO3) and wider study 

area. 

4.3.2. Sett S1 is a single entrance outlier Badger sett associated with the base of 

a mature Pedunculate Oak within hedgerows H3, on the western boundary 

of the Application Site. The sett was seen to be dis-used at the time of 

survey with an accumulation of leaf litter and woody debris within the 

entrance and no evidence of fresh digging. It is considered that this sett 

has not been used within the last 12 months. 

4.3.3. Sett S2 is a three entrance active sett located approximately 0.2km to the 

south of the Application Site, and is associated with a large spoil mound 

now dominated by tall ruderal vegetation. The sett was seen to be active 

at the time of survey with evidence of fresh digging, with Badger footprints 

and hair retrieved within the entrances. In addition a number of mammal 

pathways were recorded in the vicinity of the sett together with a well-used 

latrine. 

4.3.4. No information has been returned by the Essex Badger Group. The 

information received by EECOS shows a number of records of Badger 

from within the search area. The nearest record to the Application Site is 

located approximately 1km to the south-west (see Appendix 2). 

4.4. Dormouse 

4.4.1. Whilst no specific evidence for the presence of Dormouse was noted 

during the initial surveys, it is considered that hedgerow H5 within the 

9



April 2010 

Application Site is at least superficially suitable for Dormouse, with a good 

mix of tree / shrub and other plant species present providing a food source 

throughout the active season for Dormice (see Plan ECO3). 

4.4.2. No records of Dormouse were received from the EECOS from within the 

search area (se Appendix 2) 

4.5. Other Mammals 

4.5.1. It is considered that a number of common mammals would utilise the 

Application Site. Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus activity was recorded 

throughout the Application Site with a number of animals seen. 

4.5.2. Information received from the EECOS shows records of Water Vole from 

within the search area (see Appendix 1). The nearest record is located 

approximately 0.35km to the north of the Application Site (see Appendix 

1). 

4.6. Birds 

4.6.1. The Application Site offers opportunities for nesting and foraging birds 

within the hedgerows and standard trees / scrub. 

4.6.2. Bird species noted at the time of survey include Wren Troglodytes 

troglodytes, Blackbird Turdus merula, Carrion Crow Corvus corone, 

Jackdaw Corvus monedula, Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus and Blue 

Tit Cyanistes caeruleus. These birds were observed within the boundary 

hedgerows and trees. 

4.6.3. The Application Site does not support any of habitat for the bird species 

cited as the reason for the designation of the international designated sites 

located to the east of the site. 

4.6.4. No Schedule 1 or Red List species were returned as part of the desk study 

from within the search area (see Appendix 1). 

4.7. Reptiles 

4.7.1. The Application Site offers extremely few opportunities for common 

reptiles, lacking habitats to provide sufficient shelter, cover and foraging 

opportunities. 

4.7.2. Information received from the EECOS shows several records for Slowworm 

Anguis fragilis and Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara from within the 

search area (see Appendix 1). The nearest record to the Application Site 

is that of the Slow-worm located approximately 0.4km to the south-east. 

4.8. Amphibians 

4.8.1. There is a single waterbody within and immediately adjacent to the 

Application Site, although this pond is not considered to offer optimum 

breeding opportunities for amphibians on account of the pond seen to be 

dry at the time of survey. Nonetheless pond P1 had signs that it becomes 

10



April 2010 

seasonally inundated and as such specific surveys at the breeding time for 

amphibians should be undertaken to establish any activity. 

4.8.2. The majority of the Application Site is considered to offer limited 

opportunities for amphibians during their terrestrial phase on account of its 

management regimes. Although limited opportunities are present at field 

margins, particularly where ditches and hedgerows are present. 

4.8.3. Information received from the EECOS shows several records for Great 

Crested Newt within the search area but outside the Application Site. The 

closest record is from within the grid square to the north of the Application 

Site (see Appendix 1). A further more detailed record (six grid reference) 

is located approximately 1.2km to the north-east of the Application Site 

(see Appendix 1). 

4.9. Invertebrates 

4.9.1. The habitats within the Application Site are expected to support a range of 

common invertebrate species. However, there is no evidence to suggest 

that any more notable species are likely to be present. 

4.9.2. Information received from EECOS shows no records of rare of notable 

invertebrate species occurring within the Application Site itself. Nor were 

any returned from the wider search area (see Appendix 1). 

11



April 2010 

5. ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

5.1. The Principles of Site Evaluation 

5.1.1. The latest guidelines for ecological evaluation produced by IEEM 5 propose 

an approach that involves professional judgement, but makes use of 

available guidance and information, such as the distribution and status of 

the species or features within the locality of the project. 

5.1.2. The methods and standards for site evaluation within the British Isles have 

remained those defined by Ratcliffe (1977 6 ). These are broadly used 

across the United Kingdom to rank sites, so priorities for Nature 

Conservation can be attained. For example, current SSSI designation 

maintains a system of data analysis that is roughly tested against 

Ratcliffe’s criteria. 

5.1.3. In general terms, these criteria are size, diversity, naturalness, rarity and 

fragility, while additional secondary criteria of typicalness, potential value, 

intrinsic appeal, recorded history and the position within ecological and 

geographical units are also incorporated into the ranking procedure. 

5.1.4. In addition, any assessment should not judge sites in isolation from others, 

since several habitats may combine to make it worthy of importance to 

nature conservation. 

5.1.5. Further, relying on the national criteria would undoubtedly distort the local 

variation in assessment and therefore additional factors need to be taken 

into account, e.g. a woodland type with a comparatively poor species 

diversity, common in the south of England may be of importance at its 

northern limits, say in the border country. 

5.1.6. Habitats of local importance are often highlighted within a local 

Biodiversity Action Plan 7 (BAP). The Essex BAP highlights a number of 

habitats and species within the local area that have a Biodiversity Action 

Plan. Where these occur within the Application Site they are highlighted 

below. 

5.1.7. Levels of importance can be determined within a defined geographical 

context from the immediate site or locality through to the International 

level. 

5.1.8. The legislative and planning policy context are also important 

considerations and have been given due regard throughout this 

assessment. 

5 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in 

the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html. 

6 Ratcliffe, D A (1977). A Nature Conservation Review: the Selection of Sites of Biological National Importance to 

Nature Conservation in Britain. Two Volumes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

7 http://www.ukbap.org.uk/lbap.aspx?id=484 

12



April 2010 

5.2. Habitat Evaluation 

Designated sites 

Statutory sites 

5.2.1. There are no statutorily designated sites off nature conservation within or 

immediately adjacent to the Application Site. 

5.2.2. The nearest statutory site is Magnolia Field Local Nature Reserve (LNR) 

located approximately 1.1km to the north of the Application Site. This LNR 

is separated from the Application Site by existing development and 

agricultural land (see Plan ECO1). 

5.2.3. The Crouch and Roach Estuaries Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 

is approximately 2.2km to the east of the Application Site (see Plan 

ECO1). The SSSI is also part of the Crouch and Roach Estuaries Special 

Protection Area (SPA) / Ramsar site and the Essex Estuaries Special 

Areas of Conservation (SAC). This area is also part of the Mid-Essex 

Coast Important Bird Area (IBA). 

5.2.4. The Crouch and Roach Estuaries SSSI was notified in 1984 and 1990, 

with two areas being combined in 1996. The site was designated for 

regularly supporting an internationally important number of one species; 

Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicula bernicula and nationally 

important numbers of three species of waders and wildfowl; Black-tailed 

Godwit Limosa limosa, Shelduck Tadorna tadorna and Shoveler Anas 

clypeata. 

5.2.5. The Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA was classified on the 29th June, 

1998. The site qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by 

supporting populations of European importance of Dark-bellied Brent 

Goose. 

5.2.6. The Crouch and Roach Estuaries Ramsar site was designated on 29th 

June 1998. It met three criteria for designation as a Ramsar site; criteria 2, 

5 and 6. Criterion 2 concerns sites which support an appreciable 

assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of 

plant and animal. Criterion 5 concerns sites which support an assemblage 

of internationally important waterfowl. Criterion 6 concerns sites which 

supports a species of internationally important levels. 

5.2.7. The Essex Estuaries SAC is designated for its Annex I habitats, which 

include Estuaries, Mudflats and sandflats not covered by water at low tide, 

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand, Spartina swards, 

Atlantic salt meadows and Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous 

scrubs. 

5.2.8. The Mid-Essex IBA was designated in 1989 and incorporated other areas 

in 1992 to form its current extent. It is designated for its importance for 

breeding Terns Sternidea and wintering waders and wildfowl. 

5.2.9. The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994 (as amended), 

referred to as the “Habitats Regulations” implement in Great Britain the 

13



April 2010 

requirements of the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats 

and of Wild Flora and Fauna, referred to as the “Habitats Directive” 

(Council Directive 92/43/EEC). The Regulations aim to protect a network 

of sites in the UK that have rare or important habitats and species in order 

to safeguard biodiversity. 

5.2.10. Under the EC Habitats Directive, Member States are required to take 

special measures to maintain the distribution and abundance of certain 

priority habitats and species (listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive). In 

particular each Member State is required to designate the most suitable 

sites as SACs or SPAs. All such SACs and SPAs will form part of the 

Natura 2000 network under article 3(1) of the Habitats Directive. 

5.2.11. Under the Habitats Regulations, competent authorities have a duty to 

ensure that all the activities they regulate have no adverse effect on the 

integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites. Regulation 48 of the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) 

requires that: 

“48(1) A competent authority before deciding to undertake, or give any 

consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project, which: - 

• is likely to have a significant effect on a European site in 

Great Britain (either alone or in combination with other plans 

or projects); and 

• is not directly connected with or necessary for the 

management of the site 

shall make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in 

view of that site’s conservation objectives. 

48(5) In light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to 

regulation 49, the authority shall agree to a plan or project only after 

having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity (Ref 8.7) of 

the European site. 

48(6) In considering whether a plan or project will adversely affect the 

integrity . of the site, the authority shall 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.” 

5.2.12. The question of ascertaining whether a significant effect is likely at the 

screening stage, and in particular the issue of whether or not it is 

appropriate to consider avoidance and mitigation measures during the 

screening process (i.e. at Regulation 48(1) of the Habitats Regulations), 

has received considerable attention and been the subject of extensive 

debate, not least through a number of legal opinions offered by leading 

barristers. 

5.2.13. In the High Court judgement passed in respect of Dilly Lane, Hartley 

Wintney, the judge, Mr Justice Sullivan, ruled that measures designed to 

avoid or mitigate adverse effects on the European site should be taken 

into account; if they are part of the plan or project they should be 

14



April 2010 

considered at the screening stage since avoiding adverse effects on the 

European site is precisely what they are designed to do. 

5.2.14. By supporting the principle that avoidance and mitigation measures should 

be considered at the screening stage, the judgement avoids the need for 

an appropriate assessment of each and every planning application. 

5.2.15. In this case, the proximity of the Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA / 

Ramsar site and the Essex Estuaries SAC will prompt consideration to be 

given to potential impacts on this Natura 2000 site in line with the above 

legislative context. This is not the nearest statutory designated site to the 

site, although it is acknowledged that it is within the zone of influence and 

should be addressed in terms of potential indirect impacts. 

5.2.16. Any potential impact to the SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites are of value at the 

international level. 

5.2.17. Natural England’s position on development within proximity of SPA / SAC / 

Ramsar sites has yet to solidify and appears to vary between development 

locations and the internal designated sites integrity / location. At the 

moment it seems that Natural England considered all developments within 

15km to have a potential recreational impact on interest features / 

conservation objectives of these sites. These impacts are largely 

attributed to disturbance from walkers / dogs on bird populations. 

5.2.18. Although it would not be possible to forecast the position Natural England 

would take on the development of the site from other schemes within close 

proximity to SPA / SAC / Ramsar, Natural England have requested 8ha of 

open space per 1000 population and / or contributions made to the 

management of the SPA / SAC / Ramsar such as wardening. 

5.2.19. It is recommended that the position of Natural England regarding the 

potential development of the Application Site is addressed during any 

scoping prior to any application. 

Non-Statutory 

5.2.20. Information returned from the EECOS shows that there are no nonstatutory 

designated sites within or immediately adjacent to the Application 

Site (see Plan ECO1). The nearest non-statutory site is listed as Potash 

Wood Local Wildlife Site (LoWS), which is located approximately 1km to 

the west of the Application Site. It is considered that this Local Wildlife 

Site is sufficiently removed as to be unaffected by any direct impacts form 

potential development within the site. 

5.2.21. A number of additional non-statutory designated sites are present within 

the local area of the Application Site. It is considered that through the 

careful design of any Development Proposals within the Application Site 

any potential adverse impacts on non-statutory designated sites can be 

fully negated. 

15



April 2010 

Habitats 

5.2.22. The hedgerows, semi-mature trees and pond are considered to be of 

greater ecological value within the context of the Application Site as a 

whole. The remaining habitats are considered to be of extremely low 

intrinsic value and support negligible value from an ecological perspective. 

It is considered that through the sensitive design of any Development 

Proposal the ecological value of the Application Site would not only be 

retained but greatly increased. The habitats present are discussed below, 

with mitigation and enhancements measures set out as necessary. 

Arable 

5.2.23. The arable land within the Application Site is considered to be of negligible 

ecological value, receiving regular management and agrochemical input. 

5.2.24. Some limited value is considered to be present with the field boundaries 

and associated hedgerows adjacent to the arable fields. 

5.2.25. Mitigation and Enhancements. None required. Ecological gains to the 

Application Site will occurred under the current Development Proposals. 

New habitat creation will significantly increase the floristic richness of the 

Application Site over its current situation. It is recommended that an 

ecological sensitive management regime be adopted such that the value 

of the newly created habitats can be maximized. 

5.2.26. Any grassland to be secured as public / open-space areas, and those 

associated with roadside verges could be seeded with an appropriate and 

diverse seed mix (e.g. that is tolerant of regular mowing). 

5.2.27. In addition those areas of informal public open space and sinuous margins 

of formal areas could be sown with a species-rich wildflower grassland 

mix. These areas could be subject to a management regime, which would 

aim to increase their value to wildlife in the long term, such as through the 

adoption of a sympathetic mowing regime. 

5.2.28. It is recommended that any grassland seeding is undertaken using a 

diverse mixture of native species and sourced from suppliers adhering to 

Flora Locale’s code of practice. 

Trees 

5.2.29. The more mature trees (e.g. standards within hedgerows and individual 

stand alone trees) are of some ecological value as foraging and nesting 

resources for birds and may offer foraging and shelter opportunities to 

Dormice. They may also be of some value to bats as a foraging resource, 

whilst being of ecological value in their own right. 

5.2.30. In addition to being of general ecological value several trees in the 

Application Site (see Plan ECO3) are considered to offer suitable features 

to offer potential roost sites for bats. 

5.2.31. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that all mature trees 

be retained and incorporated into any Development Proposals where 

16



April 2010 

possible. Should any of the trees with potential to support roosting bats be 

scheduled for removal additional surveys will be required at the detailed 

stage to establish the presence of any roost, and depending on the results 

of those surveys, devise a suitable mitigation plan accordingly. 

5.2.32. Where semi-mature / mature trees are to be lost to any proposals, 

compensatory tree planting should be undertaken using native tree 

species of local provenance and / or known value to wildlife, to 

compensate for any losses. 

Hedgerows 

5.2.33. Species rich and ancient hedgerows are a UK and Essex Local BAP 

habitat. 

5.2.34. It is considered that only a single hedgerow (H5) may be classed as 

important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. 

5.2.35. The remainder of the hedgerows are considered to be relatively species 

poor, with the majority of poor structure being leggy and gappy in nature. 

5.2.36. Mitigation and Enhancements. The proposals will likely include the 

removal of small sections of hedgerows in some places to facilitate access 

provision (road layout) within the Application Site. Such works would not 

be applicable to all hedgerows. It would be pertinent to undertake a 

specific Hedgerow Assessment of hedgerow H5 should it be affected by 

the Development Proposals, in order to ascertain whether this hedgerow 

would indeed be classed as important under the regulations from an 

ecological perspective. In any event given the location of the hedgerow 

H5, being located along the northern Application Site boundary, it is 

considered unlikely that any Development Proposals would affect this 

hedgerow. 

5.2.37. The remainder of the hedgerows are of limited intrinsic value from an 

ecological perspective, although several hedgerows are acknowledged as 

having suitability in their diversity and structure to support Dormice, whilst 

all hedgerow have the potential to support nesting birds and provide 

foraging and navigational features for local bat populations. 

5.2.38. It is recommended that where possible hedgerows be retained and 

enhanced (if appropriate) within any emerging Development Proposals 

and the emerging masterplan should be designed with this in mind. 

Where losses to hedgerows are required as part of any Development 

Proposals, compensatory planting should be undertaken where 

appropriate within the landscape scheme. The retention and 

enhancement of hedgerows within the Application Site would likely benefit 

a range of faunal species (see below). 

Amenity Planting 

5.2.39. The amenity planting within the Application Site is of limited ecological 

value. 

17



April 2010 

5.2.40. Mitigation and Enhancements. Although no mitigation for the loss of 

amenity planting would be necessary it is recommended that where new 

landscape planting is undertaken this comprise native species or species 

of known ecological value. 

Tall Ruderal Vegetation 

5.2.41. The tall ruderal vegetation within the Application Site is of negligible 

ecological value. 

5.2.42. Mitigation and Enhancements. No mitigation is necessary and it is 

expected that through the landscape design net ecological benefits will 

arise with a net increase in floristic diversity across the Application Site. 

Ditches 

5.2.43. All of the ditches within the Application Site are of low intrinsic value. The 

ditches support limited vegetation and appear only to become inundated 

during period of high and prolonged precipitation. 

5.2.44. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that where possible 

the hedgerows with associated ditches are retained and that efforts are 

made to increase their biodiversity. It is possible the ditches could assist 

in the attenuation of the Application Site forming an integral attenuation 

system with ponds and swales. It is recommended that where feasible 

buffer margins are provided adjacent to the hedgerows and associated 

ditches to provide biodiversity gains and allow for fauna dispersal corridors 

through the Application Site on completion of any Development Proposals. 

5.3. Faunal Evaluation 

Bats 

5.3.1. All bats are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside 

Act 1981 (as amended) and included on Schedule 2 of the Conservation 

(Natural Habitats & Species) Regulations 2010 (“the Habitats 

Regulations”). These include provisions making it an offence to: 

• Deliberately kill, injure or take (capture) bats; 

• Deliberately disturb bats in such a way as to be likely – 

(a) to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or 

nurture their young, or to hibernate; or; 

(b) to affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the 

species concerned; 

• Damage or destroy any breeding or resting place used by bats; 

• Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place used by bats 

for shelter or protection (even if bats are not in residence). 

5.3.2. The words deliberately and intentionally include actions where a court can 

infer that the defendant knew that the action taken would almost inevitably 

result in an offence, even if that were not the primary purpose of the act. 

5.3.3. The offence of damaging or destroying a breeding site or resting place 

(which can be interpreted as making it worse for the bat) is an absolute 

18



April 2010 

offence. Such actions do not have to be deliberate for an offence to be 

committed. 

5.3.4. Licences can be granted for development purposes by an ‘appropriate 

authority’ under Regulation 53(e) of the Habitats Regulations. In England, 

the ‘appropriate authority’ is Natural England (the government’s statutory 

advisors on nature conservation). European Protected Species licences 

permit activities that would otherwise be considered an offence. 

5.3.5. In accordance with the Habitats Regulations the licensing authority must 

apply the three derogation tests as part of the process of considering a 

licence application. 

5.3.6. These tests are that: 

• The activity to be licensed must be for imperative reasons of overriding 

public interest or for public health and safety; 

• There must be no satisfactory alternative; and 

• The favourable conservation status of the species concerned must be 

maintained. 

5.3.7. Licences can usually only be granted if the development is in receipt of full 

planning permission. 

5.3.8. A judgement in the High Court in the case of R (on the application of 

Simon Woolley) v Cheshire Borough Council (June 2009) has clarified the 

responsibility of Local Planning Authorities with respect to the derogation 

tests. 

5.3.9. The court found that, notwithstanding the licensing process and the 

licensing authority’s need to consider the tests, the Local Planning 

Authority must also consider whether the proposal meets with the 

requirements of the tests at determination of applications. Where a Local 

Planning Authority fails to do so it is in breach of regulation 9(1) of the 

Habitats Regulations, which requires all public bodies to have regard to 

the requirements of the Habitats Directive in the exercise of their functions. 

Application Site Usage 

5.3.10. Trees within the Application Site were assessed for their likely potential to 

support roosting bats. Several trees, associated with hedgerows H4 and 

H6 are considered to offer suitable features to support roosting bats, albeit 

at the lower end of suitability in terms of roosting potential. 

5.3.11. The hedgerows within the Application Site offer potential foraging and 

navigational opportunities for bats. In particular the hedgerow H5 

associated with the northern boundary is likely to be of greater value to 

bats. 

5.3.12. Mitigation and Enhancements. Further specific surveys would be 

required ahead of a detailed planning application, in order to assess the 

site’s importance to bats. Bat activity surveys should be undertaken 

across the Application Site in order to build up an accurate picture of use 

of the site by foraging and / or commuting bats. It is considered that any 

19



April 2010 

potential effects could easily be mitigated for, with works subject to Natural 

England licence(s) if necessary, as all likely navigation al features within 

the Application Site are to be retained as part of the Development 

Proposals. 

5.3.13. It will be necessary to ascertain the presence / absence of any roost within 

the trees exhibiting suitable features to support roosting bats at the detail 

stage, should these trees be earmarked for removal. Appropriate 

mitigation and licensing may be required should a roost be identified. Any 

mitigation will be centred around timing constraints and provision of 

alternative roost sites. 

5.3.14. Broadly speaking the hedgerow will be fully retained and enhanced within 

the Development Proposals, albeit some severance is likely to occur to 

facilitate access. New / bolster planting of hedgerows / woodland, 

retained / enhanced and new habitats, such as attenuation ponds and 

ditches within the Application Site and appropriately designed landscape 

planting will provide improved navigational and foraging opportunities for 

bats. 

5.3.15. Bat boxes could be sited on new buildings and the more mature trees 

retained to provide additional roosting sites for bats. Additionally, access 

provision through the use of bat tiles and bat bricks could be incorporated 

into the design of a number of new builds. It is likely that this will provide a 

net gain in the roosting opportunities across the Application Site. 

Badgers 

5.3.16. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 consolidates the previous Badgers 

Acts of 1973 and 1991. The legislation aims to protect the species from 

persecution, rather than being a response to an unfavourable conservation 

status. As well as protecting the animal itself, the 1992 Act also makes the 

intentional or reckless destruction, damage or obstruction of a Badger sett 

an offence. 

5.3.17. A sett is defined as “any structure or place which displays signs indicating 

current use by a Badger”. ‘Current use’ is defined by Natural England as 

any use within the preceding twelve months. In addition, the intentional 

elimination of sufficient foraging area to support a known social group of 

Badgers may, in certain circumstances, be construed as an offence by 

constituting ‘cruel ill treatment’ of a Badger. 

Application Site Usage 

5.3.18. A single Badger sett, which was dis-used at the time of survey at the time 

of survey, was recorded along the western Application Site boundary. In 

addition evidence was recorded of activity such as latrines, push-throughs 

and mammal paths within the Application Site. Further evidence of 

Badger was recorded in the wider study area with a single active outlier 

recorded to the south of Hal Road. 

5.3.19. As such it is clear although the local Badger social group may not currently 

use the Application Site for shelter they do reply on the Application Site for 

20



April 2010 

dispersal and probably foraging (although no evidence of foraging was 

recorded during the course of the surveys undertaken thus far). 

5.3.20. Mitigation and Enhancements. It is recommended that a further specific 

survey for Badger activity be undertaken ahead of any detailed planning 

application in order to ensure the mitigation / licensing requirements is 

based on the current activity. 

5.3.21. The Development Proposals retain existing habitats of value for the local 

Badger social group whilst providing new habitats, which will significantly 

increase foraging opportunities over the existing situation. It is 

recommended that a variety of native fruit bearing species be incorporated 

into the landscape planting to offer a further foraging resource for the local 

Badger social group. 

Common Dormouse 

5.3.22. The Common Dormouse is a scarce UK species that is protected under 

European and UK law by virtue of its inclusion on: 

· Appendix 3 of the Bonn Convention; 

· Annex IVa of the EC Habitats Directive; 

· Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & Species) 

Regulations 2010 (“the Habitats Regulations”); and 

· Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 

5.3.23. The legislation prohibits the intentional killing, injuring, taking, the 

possession of, and the trade in Dormice. In addition, places used for 

shelter and protection are safeguarded against intentional damage, 

destruction and obstruction and must not be intentionally disturbed whilst 

dormice are in occupation, unless by a Natural England Licence holder for 

the species. 

5.3.24. One of the key requirements for Common Dormice is a good range of 

different trees and shrubs within a small area to provide a readily available 

source of food throughout the seasons. Hazel, Oak, Honeysuckle and 

Bramble are key food sources for Common Dormouse 8 . 

Application Site usage 

5.3.25. Hedgerow H5 within the Application Site is considered to offer potential to 

support Dormice (see Plan ECO3). 

5.3.26. Mitigation and Enhancements. Specific surveys for the presence / 

absence of Dormouse should be undertaken across suitable habitat within 

the Application Site at the detail stage. A series of nest tubes / boxes 

should be erected within all suitable Dormouse habitat (e.g. hedgerow H5, 

see Plan ECO3) within the Application Site, in accordance with current 

survey guidelines. These surveys should be undertaken to ensure that the 

final masterplan reflects the requirements of protected species which may 

be present within the Application Site. 

8 English Nature (1996), Dormouse Conservation Handbook-Species Recovery Programme, English 

21



April 2010 

5.3.27. It is considered that appropriate mitigation can be put forward in respect of 

this species should they be found to be present on site. Where necessary 

a Natural England licence would be applied for in respect of works which 

may disturb Dormice / their habitat and detailed mitigation would be 

contained within the method statement of any such licence application. In 

broad terms the mitigation package (if required) would comprise the 

following features: 

• Retention of suitable Dormouse habitat wherever possible; 

• Retention of linkages between suitable existing Dormouse habitat 

wherever possible; 

• Enhancement of existing Dormouse habitat and creation of new 

optimal habitat; 

• Appropriate buffering from the development footprint; 

- no built form immediately adjacent to known Dormouse 

habitat (likely minimum 4m buffer); 

- possible use of ditches / hedging within a buffer to 

deter public access; 

- to be agreed with Natural England 

• Prevention of Dormice becoming trapped within fragmented / 

isolated habitat within the Application Site. Measures to encourage 

dispersal or translocation as appropriate (in agreement with Natural 

England). 

The Development Proposals (see Appendix 1) seek to safeguard all 

existing hedgerows within the Application Site together with the creation 

of new landscape and hedgerow planting. It is considered that should 

Dormouse be present the above mitigation features could be implemented 

under the current scheme. 

Birds 

5.3.28. Section 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) is 

concerned with the protection of wild birds. With certain exceptions all wild 

birds and their eggs are protected from intentional killing, injuring and 

taking; and their nests, whilst being built or in use, cannot be taken, 

damaged or destroyed. 

5.3.29. Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 is a list of the nationally 

rare and uncommon breeding birds for which all offences carry special (i.e. 

greater) penalties. These species also benefit from additional protection 

whilst breeding, as it is also an offence to disturb adults or their dependant 

young when at the nest. 


5.3.30. The Application Site offers opportunities for nesting birds within the 

hedgerow and scrub habitats, together as within individual trees. These 

habitats also offer good foraging resources for a range of common bird 

species. It is considered that given the regular management prescriptions 

within the arable field within the Application Site this habitat will not offer 

any opportunities for ground nesting birds. 

22



April 2010 

5.3.31. Mitigation and Enhancements. The hedgerows within the Application 

Site will be retained as part of any Development Proposals (see Appendix 

1). In addition areas of hedgerow retained should be subject to 

enhancement measures through bolster planting and the addition of an 

ecological management regime. The Development Proposals also include 

new area of tree planting and the establishment of new grassland habitats 

which together will offer enhanced foraging opportunities for this group. 

The attenuation ponds and ditches are also likely to give rise to increased 

opportunities for insectivores, such as bats. 

5.3.32. It is recommended that new landscape planting within the Development 

Proposals contain native species and / or those of known benefit to 

wildlife. Such measures may provide enhanced nesting and foraging 

opportunities for a range of bird species in the local area. 

5.3.33. Bird nesting boxes of various designs could be erected on retained trees 

and new buildings within the Application Site as appropriate. 

5.3.34. These recommendations will provide enhance foraging and nesting 

opportunities for a range of bird species and may benefit Schedule 1 Red 

List and BAP species. 

Amphibians (Great Crested Newts) 

5.3.35. All British amphibian species receive a degree of protection under the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The level of protection 

varies from protection from sale or trade only, as is the case with species 

such as Smooth Newt Lissotriton vulgaris and Common Toad Bufo bufo, 

to the more rigorous protection afforded to the Great Crested Newt. 

5.3.36. Although Great Crested Newts are regularly encountered locally and 

throughout much of England, the UK holds a large percentage of the world 

population of the species. The UK has an international obligation to 

conserve the species, it receives full protection under domestic and 

European legislation. 

5.3.37. Specifically, Great Crested Newts are protected under Schedule 5 of the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and included on 

Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & Species) Regulations 

2010 (“the Habitats Regulations”). These include provisions making it an 

offence to: 

• Deliberately kill, injure or take (capture) Great Crested Newts; 

• Deliberately disturb Great Crested Newts in such a way as to be likely: 

(a) to impair their ability to survive, to breed or reproduce, or to 

rear or nurture their young, or to hibernate; or; 

(b) to affect significantly their local distribution or abundance; 

• Deliberately take or destroy the eggs of Great Crested Newts; 

• Damage or destroy any breeding or resting place used by Great 

Crested Newts; 

• Intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place used by Great 

Crested Newts for shelter or protection (even if the newts are not 

present at the time). 

23



April 2010 

5.3.38. The words deliberately and intentionally include actions where a court can 

infer that the defendant knew that the action taken would almost inevitably 

result in an offence, even if that were not the primary purpose of the act. 

5.3.39. European Protected Species licences are available from Natural England 

in certain circumstances, and permit activities that would otherwise be 

considered an offence. 


5.3.40. The Application Site supports a single pond, whilst an additional pond is 

located to the west of the Application Site and connected by suitable 

terrestrial habitat. 

5.3.41. Although pond P1 within the Application Site could not be considered as 

offer optimum opportunities for breeding Great Crested Newts, being dry 

at the time of survey, it will be necessary to check the status of this pond 

during the breeding season. 

5.3.42. The Application Site is also seen to support some very limited areas of 

suitable habitat for Great Crested Newts during their terrestrial phase, 

namely the field margins with associated ditches and hedgerows. 

5.3.43. Mitigation and Enhancements. To establish presence / absence of any 

Great Crested Newts within the Application Site it will be necessary to 

undertake specific Great Crested Newts surveys on both the pond within 

and adjacent to the Application Site boundary. The surveys would need to 

be undertaken in accordance with Natural England guidelines. 

5.3.44. Should any breeding ponds be identified, a detailed mitigation strategy 

would need to be devised and implemented, potentially under licence, to 

ensure no offence occurs. 

5.3.45. The creation of an on-site attenuation system will create additional aquatic 

habitats within the Application Site post development. It is recommended 

that the newly created ponds and ditches are planting with a range of 

native aquatic and marginal species and subject to a management regime 

that maximises the ecological value of the features without compromising 

their primary hydrological function. 

5.3.46. The Development Proposals incorporate areas of public open space along 

the western Application Site boundary, together with the creation of new 

habitats including grassland and woody planting. It is recommended that 

the grassland habitats include areas that are subject to a more informal 

management regime, allowing a species-rich grassland to be developed 

and provide ideal foraging opportunities for newts, whilst providing 

additional biodiversity gains. 

5.3.47. Given the above it is envisioned that the Application Site can 

accommodate any required mitigation scenario, with it considered that net 

gains for this species will be realised through habitat enhancement, 

creation and management of the current Development Proposals. 

24



April 2010 

Reptiles 

5.3.48. All reptile species receive protection under legislation in the UK. Smooth 

Snake Coronella austriaca and Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis receive full legal 

protection in England due to their status as scarce, rather than local 

species. However, these are not likely to be present within the Site on 

account of their habitat requirements and geographical distribution. 

5.3.49. The other reptile species, Slow-Worm Anguis fragilis, Common Lizard 

Lacerta vivipara, Grass Snake Natrix natrix and Adder Vipera berus, are 

common and widespread across the country. As such these species 

receive only partial protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 

(as amended) being protected from deliberate killing or injury, their habitat 

receiving no statutory protection. 


5.3.50. Relatively few opportunities are present for common reptiles within the 

Application Site. These opportunities are restricted to the field margins 

and the areas of tall ruderal vegetation. In addition pond P1 is considered 

to offer some opportunities and could provide foraging habitat for Grass 

Snake should amphibians utilising the pond. 

5.3.51. Mitigation and Enhancements. To establish the presence / absence of 

this partially protected group it is recommended that specific reptile 

surveys are undertaken, concentrating on areas of suitable reptile habitat 

within the Application Site. Should reptiles be found to be present within 

the Application Site these animals can easily be mitigated for (for example 

through a simple translocation exercise). Given the size of the Application 

Site, the limited amount of opportunities for common reptile and proposed 

areas of habitat creation (see Appendix 1) within the masterplan it is 

expected that post development there will be net benefits for this group, 

with a significant increase in the amount of suitable habitats. 

5.3.52. Should it be necessary an appropriate management regime could be 

devised and adopted to ensure that optimum foraging, shelter and 

hibernation opportunities would be available. Artificial hibernacula could 

also be constructed within any areas which are to support reptiles in order 

to further increase their reptile carrying capacity. 

Invertebrates 

5.3.53. No evidence of rare or notable invertebrate species was noted within the 

Application Site during the course of the initial survey, though the 

Application Site is expected to support a range of common invertebrate 

species. 

5.3.54. Mitigation and Enhancements. No specific mitigation is likely to be 

required, though hedgerow habitats and provision of new areas of 

grassland, together with the creation of attenuation features and 

improvement of the existing ditches within the Application Site would likely 

benefit this group. 

25



April 2010 

6. POLICY BACKGROUND 

6.1. The planning policy framework that relates to nature conservation in West 

Sussex, is issued at four main administrative levels: nationally through 

Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9); at the regional / county level through the 

East of England Plan / Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure 

Plan; and locally through the Rochford District Local Replacement Local Plan 

(adopted 2006). Any proposed development will be judged in relation to the 

policies contained within these documents. 

6.2. National Policy 

Planning Policy Statement 9 

6.2.1. Guidance on national policy for biodiversity and geological conservation is 

provided within Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9), published in August 

2005. PPS9 confirms the Government's commitment to the protection of 

biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. 

6.2.2. PPS9 requires Local Authorities to fully consider the effect of planning 

decisions on biodiversity and geological conservation, and ensure that 

appropriate weight is attached to statutory nature conservation 

designations, protected species and biodiversity and geological interests 

within the wider environment. 

6.2.3. It also considers the potential biodiversity and geological conservation 

gains which can be secured within developments, including the use of 

planning obligations. 

6.2.4. National policy therefore implicitly recognises the importance of 

biodiversity and that with sensitive planning and design, development and 

conservation of the natural heritage can co-exist and benefits can, in 

certain circumstances, be obtained. 

6.3. Regional Policy 

East of England Plan (May 2008) 

6.3.1. Guidance on policy for nature conservation at the regional level was 

administered at the county level by the Essex & Southend-on-Sea Joint 

Structure Plan (adopted 2001). The Secretary of State issued an 

amendment to the saved policies from this plan on 12 May 2008 to reflect 

her approval of the East of England Plan. 

6.3.2. The East of England Plan has seven policies under the environment 

section of which one relates specifically to nature conservation. This 

Policy. ENV3 Biodiversity and Earth Heritage states: 

“…planning authorities or other agencies should ensure that 

internationally and nationally designated sites are given the 

strongest level of protection and that development does not have 

adverse effect on the integrity of sites of European or international 

importance for nature conservation.” 

26



April 2010 

6.3.3. Additional policies pertinent to nature conservation include policies on 

Green Infrastructure (ENV1) and woodland protection and planting 

(ENV5). 

6.4. County Policy 

Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan (Adopted April 

2001) – (saved policies) 

6.4.1. Most of the planning policies contained in the Adopted Structure Plan 

expired on the 27 September 2007 and are therefore no longer in effect. 

However, the Secretary of State has decided that a limited number of 

Adopted Structure Plan policies should be ‘saved’ and should apply after 

this date. She issued a statutory Direction to this effect, since amended to 

reflect her approval of the East of England Plan on 12 May 2008. 

6.4.2. Of the six ‘saved’ policies one has specific relevance to nature 

conservation: Policy CC1 The Undeveloped Coast – Coastal Protection 

Belt (protecting any undeveloped land within the coastal protection belt 

shall not adversely affect wildlife). 

6.5. Local Policy 

Rochford District Local Replacement Local Plan (2006) - Saved Policies 

6.5.1. Policies contained within the adopted Rochford District Local Plan (2006) 

were due to expire on 15 June 2009. The Secretary of State issued 

direction under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 8 of the Planning and 

Compulsory Purchases Act 2004, saving a number of policies in the 

Replacement Local Plan. Of those ‘saved’ policies three have specific 

reference to nature conservation. 

6.5.2. These are policies NR1 – Special Landscape Areas (which include the 

Crouch and Roach Marshes); NR7 – Local Nature Reserves and wildlife 

sites; and NR8 – Other landscape features of importance for nature 

conservation. 

6.5.3. These polices reflect those set out in county, regional and national plans, 

and are concerned with the protection of designated sites, biodiversity, 

protected species and habitats of value to nature conservation. 

6.6. Discussion 

6.6.1. It is considered that the development of the Application Site, following the 

recommendations in this report, would fully accord with national, regional / 

county and local policy. 

6.6.2. In relation to the potential presence of protected species, evidence, 

opportunities and suitability has been identified with specific surveys 

recommended to ascertain the presence / absence of certain groups / 

species. Given the existing presence and potential presence that could be 

identified it is considered reasonable that suitable mitigation strategies can 

be devise and implemented, given the scope of land and inherent limited 

27



April 2010 

opportunities available, such that any potential impacts can be negated 

with net biodiversity gains achieved through habitat enhancement, 

provision and management. Any mitigation strategy will accord to current 

legislation, policy and best practice. 

6.6.3. Development of the Application Site would not result in any significant 

impacts on any designated sites for nature conservation (statutory or nonstatutory) 

or any other notable habitats, including ancient woodlands 

subject to appropriate mitigation and safeguard measures as necessary. 

Although it is considered pertinent to enter a scoping exercise with Natural 

England due to the proximity of internationally designated site from the 

Application Site. 

6.6.4. The Development Proposals has been designed to include significant 

enhancements to green infrastructure within Rochford and the Application 

Site itself. The existing wildlife corridors through the Promotion Site, 

namely the hedgerows will be retained whilst it is recommended these are 

strengthen through the creation of associated habitats to enhance their 

ecological and landscape value. New access points and cycleways will be 

incorporated into the Promotion Site to further the green infrastructure and 

accessibility to the area of open space within the Application Site and 

surrounding countryside. 

6.6.5. With regard to the Application Site there are no issues, which have been 

identified which would provide an insurmountable constraint to 

development and as such it is considered that if the site were to come 

forward for residential development, this would not contravene the relevant 

planning policies relating to ecology and nature conservation. 

28



April 2010 

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

7.1. Ecology Solutions was commissioned by Bellway Homes Limited in September 

2009 to undertake an ecological assessment of Land at Hall Road, Rochford, 

Essex. 

7.2. The Development Proposals are for a residential development with associated 

areas of landscaping and hardstanding. The Development Proposal aims to 

safeguard the habitats of interest within the Application Site. Whilst the 

proposals also include habitat creation that will increase the floristic diversity 

within the Application Site and shall increase the Application Site’s intrinsic 

value from a nature conservation perspective. 

7.3. In order to compile background information on the Application Site and its 

immediate surroundings EECOS, Essex Badger Group and Essex Bat Group 

were contacted. 

7.4. A walkover survey was carried out in September 2009 in order to identify the 

main habitats, the broad plant species present and to determine their 

ecological significance. 

7.5. General faunal activity observed during the course of the survey was recorded, 

whether visually or by call. Specific attention was paid to the potential 

presence of any protected, rare, notable or Biodiversity Action Plan species. 

Further, surveys were carried out in respect of bats and Badgers. 

7.6. There are no statutory designated sites within or adjacent to the Application 

Site. The nearest statutory site is Magnolia Field Local Nature Reserve (LNR), 

located approximately 1.1km north of the Application Site. The Crouch and 

Roach Estuaries Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is approximately 

2.2km to the east of the Application Site. The SSSI is also part of the Crouch 

and Roach Estuaries Special Protection Area / Ramsar site and the Essex 

Estuaries Special Areas of Conservation. This area is also part of the Mid- 

Essex Coast Important Bird Area (IBA). It is considered highly unlikely that the 

Development Proposals would impact upon these statutorily designated sites, 

which are separated from the Application Site by existing built form. Although it 

will be pertinent to undertaken a scoping exercise with the statutory nature 

conservation authority, Natural England, to ensure necessary works are 

undertaken prior to any application to ensure any potential impacts are 

discussed and avoided. 

7.7. There are no non-statutory designated sites within or adjacent to the 

Application Site. The nearest non-statutory site is listed as Potash Wood Local 

Wildlife Site (LoWS), which is located approximately 1km to the west of the 

Application Site. It is considered that this Local Wildlife Site is sufficiently 

removed as to be unaffected by any direct impacts form potential development 

within the site. 

7.8. The Application Site is generally of low intrinsic value from an ecological 

perspective, although the hedgerows, individual trees and pond are considered 

to be of greater ecological value within the context of the Application Site as a 

whole. The hedgerows and trees are to be retained and incorporated into the 

Development Proposals. Whilst a host of new wildlife habitat are to be crated 

29



April 2010 

which will significantly increase the nature conservation value of the Application 

Site over its current value. 

7.9. It is excepted that significant increases in the Application Site’s floristic richness 

and diversity will be obtained through the sensitive design of the landscape 

scheme and future management prescriptions. It is recommended that a 

diverse mixture of native species be used in any new planting to provide 

biodiversity gains and increase the nature conservation value of the Application 

Site accordingly. 

7.10. With regard to protected species; further specific surveys are recommend in 

relation to Great Crested Newt, Dormouse, common reptiles and bats as 

suitable opportunities are considered to be present within the Application Site 

for these species / groups. On analysis of the development framework it is 

considered feasible that any required mitigation measure for protected species 

can be accommodated within the Application Site, whilst it is expected that net 

gains in opportunities and suitable habitats for a host of protected species will 

delivered under the current scheme. 

7.11. The presence of Badger has been identified within the Application Site and it is 

considered that given the location and extent of the activity this species can be 

safeguarded and accommodated within the Development Proposals. 

Moreover through the establishment of new habitats and strengthening of 

existing habitats it is considered benefits for the local Badger social group will 

be obtained. 

7.12. No issues have been identified which would provide an insurmountable 

constraint to development at the Application Site, and as such it is considered 

that the site could come forward for residential development in so far as 

ecological issues are concerned. 

30

PLANS

PLAN ECO1 

Application Site Location and 

Ecological Designations

PLAN ECO2 

Ecological Features

PLAN ECO3 

Protected Species Plan

PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTOGRAPH 1: View of Field F1 

PHOTOGRAPH 2: View of Hedgerow H5

PHOTOGRAPH 3: View of Pond P1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 

Barton Willmore’s Draft for Parameters Plan 

Drawing Number 18293_sk100408-i

4 

5 

11 

1 

5 

7 8 

1 Accesses from Hall Road 

2 10m landscape setback from existing planting along Hall road 

3 20m landscape setback from site boundary along Ironwell Lane 

4 Landscape buffer to Green Belt (passive use) 

5 Open space for active recreation (2x5-a-side football pitches shown indicative only) 

6 Indicative route for spine road 

7 Residential area (with informal open spaces) - perimeter condition 

8 Residential area (with play areas and SUDS) - typical condition 

9 Residential area (with play areas and SUDS) - central condition 

10 Indicative shape and location of school site 

11 Existing farm track (set within 7m landscape offset from existing hedge line) 

6 

2 

3 

10 

9 

1 

Land Budget (ha) 

Site Area 33.45 

Actively Programmed POS 

Open space for active recreation 

(to west of residential) 2.4 

Play areas within central and 

typical residential 0.88 

Subtotal (to conform to NPFA 

standards) 3.28 

Passive POS 

Informal Open Space within 

housing 0.41 

Landscape setbacks and Green 

Belt buffer 7.09 

SUDS within housing 1 

Total POS 11.78 

Primary School 

Site Area 1.1 

Spine Road 

Carriageway width only 0.57 

Net Residential 

Perimeter Condition 5.58 @ 24.7 units/ha = 138 units 

Typical condition 8.23 @ 31 units/ha = 255 units 

Central condition 6.19 @ 33.4 units/ha = 207 units 

Subtotal 20 ha Total 600 

Land West of Rochford 

Draft for Parameters Plan 

Scale approx 1:2000 @A1 

Job 18293 

sk 100408-i 

8 April 2010 

ave density 30.0 units/ha

APPENDIX 2 

Information Received from the 

Essex Ecology Service Ltd (EECOS)

LEGALLY PROTECTED and BAP SPECIES RECORDS 

The same records may occur in both lists. 

A negative record is one where a site has been surveyed and no signs were seen on that occasion 

SPECIES RECORDS EECOS 28/09/2009 

LOCATION: TQ 865 905 

GRID REF 1K SQUARES: EASTING: TQ 85 - 87 

NORTHING: TQ 89 -91 

LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES 

Ordnance Survey Grid Ref 

Species Date OSGR Easting Northing Recorder District Notes Record Type 

Sett/burrow/nest, 

Site/Location name 

Badger 27/01/1997 TQ 856 896 Hunford, Don Rochford an ancient sett 

active Cherry Orchard Lane 

Sett known since about 1955 & Sett/burrow/nest, 

Badger 10/02/1973 TQ 856 896 Cowlin, Bob Rochford active fairly constantly. active Cherry Orchard 

Badger 12/10/1988 TQ 857 897 

Drake, M F, & 

Hunford, DAJ Rochford 

Badger 16/04/1985 TQ 857 898 Willoughby, E Rochford 

Common Lizard 2001 TQ 858 890 AK, NH Southend 

Known as a well occupied sett Sett/burrow/nest, 

since 1955. 

active Cherry Orchard Lane 

Local man said sett has been Sett/burrow/nest, Rochford Cherry 

there for years. 

survey with felt mats; John 

Cranfield subsequently 

active 

Orchard Lane 

translocated, (6+) animal seen directly Comet Way 

Great Crested Newt 05/07/1987 TQ 86 91 Massey, S Rochford Animal seen directly 

NEGATIVE 

a garden, Rochford 

Water Vole 20/07/2002 TQ 867 911 Unknown Rochford 

RECORD 

NEGATIVE 

ROACH 

Water Vole 09/07/1998 TQ 867 911 Sturges, Phil Rochford 

RECORD ROACH 

Rochford, 76c 

Great Crested Newt 2000 TQ 87 89 

Sutton Ct. Rd. 

Rochford, 76c 

Great Crested Newt 2000 TQ 87 89 Roger Hill 


76c Sutton Court 

Great Crested Newt 2000 TL 87 89 Hill, Roger Rochford Animal seen directly Drive, Rochford 

EASTWOOD 

Water Vole 09/07/1998 TQ 873 902 Sturges, Phil Rochford GOOD Burrows and latrines BROOK 

Water Vole 21/07/2002 TQ 873 902 Unknown Rochford POSITIVE RECORD ROACH 

Rochford Golf 

Course, Hall Road, 

Smooth Newt 11/06/2008 TQ 874 902 Brooks, Liz Rochford In bottle trap Animal seen directly Rochford 

A negative record is one where a site has been surveyed and no signs seen on that occasion. 1/2

LEGALLY PROTECTED and BAP SPECIES RECORDS 

The same records may occur in both lists. 

A negative record is one where a site has been surveyed and no signs were seen on that occasion 

Slow-worm 11/06/2008 TQ 874 902 Brooks, Liz Rochford 

SPECIES RECORDS EECOS 28/09/2009 

LOCATION: TQ 865 905 

GRID REF 1K SQUARES: EASTING: TQ 85 - 87 

NORTHING: TQ 89 -91 

LEGALLY PROTECTED SPECIES 

Great Crested Newt 27-May-03 TQ 877 914 Jon Cranfield Field record / observation 

1x ad, 1 x juv. On railway 

embankment Animal seen directly 

Great Crested Newt 27/05/2003 TQ 877 914 Cranfield, Jon Rochford Animal seen directly 

Great Crested Newt 21/04/2001 TQ 877 914 

Knowles, 

Adrian Rochford Animal seen directly 

BAP SPECIES 

Ordnance Survey Grid Ref 

Scientific Species Name Common Name 

Warty Newt / 

Date OSGR 1 Easting Northing Recorder Notes Location 

Great Crested 

Rochford, 76c 

Triturus cristatus Newt 

Warty Newt / 

2000 TQ 87 89 


Great Crested 

Rochford, 76c 


Warty Newt / 

2000 TQ 87 89 Roger Hill 


Great Crested 21-Apr- 

Adrian 

Rochford, Doggetts 


Warty Newt / 

01 TQ 877 914 

Knowles Field record / observation Wildlife Area 

Great Crested 27-May- 



Warty Newt / 

03 TQ 877 914 Jon Cranfield 

Wildlife Area 

Great Crested 27-May- 



03 TQ 877 914 Jon Cranfield Field record / observation Wildlife Area 

Rochford Golf 

Course, Hall Road, 

Rochford 


Wildlife Area 

Doggetts Wildlife 

Area 

Doggetts Wildlife 

Area 

A negative record is one where a site has been surveyed and no signs seen on that occasion. 2/2

APPENDIX 3 

Information obtained from MAGIC and Nature on the Map

MAGIC Print Output 

http://www.magic.gov.uk/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=magoverview&Form=True&Encode=False 

Overview Map 

Page 1 of 1 

10/11/2009

Nature on the Map :: Maps :: Print 

Hall Road, Rochford 

© Crown Copyright and database right 2008. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100022021. © 

Crown copyright. Licence number 100022432. 

© Natural England 2007. This page was produced from the Nature on the Map website at 10/11/2009 12:13:51 

http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk/print.aspx?BBOX=579634.919842878%2C18438... 

Page 1 of 1 

10/11/2009

Ecology Report - Amazon Web Services

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?