Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ecology Report
57 Poynings Road, crawley RH11 0TL
BREEAM Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH)
Duncan Ferns
May 2014
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Code for Sustainable Homes ................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Scope of the Assessment ........................................................................................................ 1
2. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Site Survey ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Surveyor Experience ............................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Limitations............................................................................................................................... 3
3. BREEAM ECOLOGY REPORT TEMPLATE .......................................................................................... 4
3.1. Section A1: Contact Details ..................................................................................................... 5
3.2. Section A2: Development Details ........................................................................................... 5
3.3. Section B1: Suitably Qualified Ecologist’s Questions .............................................................. 6
3.4. Section B2: Report Verification ............................................................................................... 7
3.5. Section C: Site Survey .............................................................................................................. 8
4. Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 19
5. PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................................................. 20
Duncan Ferns is the founder of Best Habitats – the ‘suit in boots’. The suit refers to his experience as a Director
of a Plc management consultancy working with public sector environment agencies.
The boots refer to his practical habitat management experience– complete with chainsaw qualifications - in his
50 acre woodland and large wildlife garden. He has wide experience of business cases, contract management,
project outcomes and benefits, backed by a PhD in Plant Sciences. After focusing on what he really wants to do
- he has established Best Habitats building on his eclectic mix of experience.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background Best Habitats Ltd has been commissioned by Colin Smith (Planning Consultant), on behalf of the
freeholder, to undertake an ecological survey of a site adjacent to 57 Poynings Road, Crawley RH11
0TL. The purpose of this survey is to establish the nature conservation value of the site and set a
baseline to appraise the development’s ecological impact using the Land-use and Ecology criteria of
the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH).
The site is being assessed by the freeholder for the build of two new starter homes. This report
details a site visit prior to planning permission being submitted and prior start of any site
preparation works. It is therefore possible to fully assess the development proposals against the
CSH method, should the development proceed at a future date.
1.2. Code for Sustainable Homes The CSH scheme is designed to improve the overall sustainability of new homes by setting a single
framework within which developers can design and construct environmentally sustainable
buildings that function at standards higher than those set by the Buildings Regulations (2000). The
achievement of this is recognised and rewarded by the Building Research Establishment (BRE)
issuing of a certificate detailing the grade achieved by the development. The CSH rates properties
against a six level system, with Code Level 1 being the entry level pass (significantly above the level
of the building regulations) and Code Level 6 being the highest level, reflecting exemplar
sustainable development and representing a true carbon-neutral building.
The CSH measures the sustainability of new developments against nine categories: energy and CO2
emissions; water; materials; surface water run-off; waste; pollution; health and wellbeing;
management; and land use and ecology. Each category is allocated a total maximum score in terms
of percentage points. The total number of percentage points establishes a level and star rating for
each category by which an overall Code Level is awarded on the basis of achieving both a set of
mandatory minimum standards and a minimum overall score.
1.3. Scope of the Assessment This report is only concerned with the Land-Use and Ecology section of the Code. This section is
composed of five criteria, Eco1 to Eco5, that address topics including the minimisation of ecological
damage, the protection of existing features of ecological interest and the enhancement of the site’s
ecological and nature conservation value.
This report will consider four of these five criteria, Eco1 to Eco4 inclusive. Eco5 assesses the
efficiency of the development’s use of land and is outside the scope and brief of this report, being
most appropriately calculated by the project architect.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
Please be aware that this report does not constitute a formal CSH assessment. Whilst all due care
has been taken during the preparation of this report, formal assessment by the appointed assessor
and BRE’s Quality Assurance process will determine the total number of credits achieved within the
CSH scheme.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
2. METHOD
2.1. Site Survey The site was visited on 14 May 2014 by Dr Duncan Ferns, prior to the commencement of site
preparation works. The site survey method broadly followed the guidelines for Phase 1 Habitat
assessment as detailed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee1. However, these guidelines
were modified to account for the small scale and urbanised nature of the site, and to incorporate
an examination of the site’s potential to support fauna (particularly those species that are afforded
legal protection). In accordance with guidelines set by BRE, a 3m buffer zone around the site
boundary was also inspected.
2.2. Surveyor Experience Dr Duncan Ferns is a Senior Environmental Manager and Ecologist and full member of the
Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (MCIEEM) who meets the
requirements of a ‘suitably qualified ecologist’ as determined by the CSH guidelines. Following a
PhD, he has over 25 years professional experience in management consultancy for environmental
clients, the last decade with Defra, Natural England, Rural Payments Agency and The Highways
Agency. Previous employers include Logica plc, Hedra plc, PA Consulting Group and Mouchel plc
where he held the post of Director, Environmental Business Consulting. He established Best
Habitats Ltd as Director in 2011 and has successfully delivered environmental projects and grant &
planning applications for Estates, farmers and property developers.
2.3. Limitations The survey was undertaken in May which is within the optimum survey period for habitats (March
– September). Whilst it is felt unlikely that significant factors have been overlooked, due to the
nature of the subjects of ecological surveys it is feasible that some species on-site may not have
been recorded by virtue of their seasonality, or being not visible under the dominant vegetative
cover. It is considered that sufficient data was gathered to enable an appropriate level of
assessment to be conducted.
Please note that where guidance is provided regarding legislation, it is given in good faith. Best
Habitats is not a specialised legal practice and in cases of any doubt, the reader should approach a
legal practice specialising in environmental law for advice.
1 Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (2003 revision). JNCC,
Peterborough, UK.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
3. BREEAM ECOLOGY REPORT TEMPLATE
This report template is to be used by Suitably Qualified Ecologists providing reports which address
Ecology 1, 2, 3 and 4 issues. It is a mandatory requirement that this document is completed in a
Code for Sustainable Homes submission of evidence (CSH 2007 p 187).
The appointed, licensed Code assessor is to pass this document to the appointed ecologist who
conducted/ will conduct the ecology work.
The appointed ecologist is to complete all sections of this report and return it completed with all
relevant documentation in the Appendix to the assessor.
An ecologist may have been appointed to carry out ecological site surveys and to produce an
ecology report without being aware that a Code assessment has been, or is to be conducted. In this
instance, the ecologist should fill in the relevant details required for the Code in this report
template.
The assessor is to use this report in conjunction with the latest version of the relevant Code
Guidance and information provided by the developer / client, to carry out the assessment for the
Ecology Category issues stated above.
There are 6 sections (sections A - F) in this document.
Section A1 requires contact details for the ecologist and developer / client; section A2 requires the
development details.
Section B1 determines whether the appointed ecologist is ‘suitably qualified’ (under the Code); and
if not, section B2 determines whether the report has been verified by an ecologist who is ‘suitably
qualified’.
Section C determines whether the findings of the report have been based on data collected from site
surveys conducted at appropriate times of the year to determine whether different species are
evident.
(Note: If ‘No’ is recorded for either Section B or C then the contents of the ecology report cannot be
used to determine compliance with the Code requirements).
NOTE:
Text in grey represents the standard questions of the BREAM CSH Questionnaire.
Text in Black is the response.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
Section D provides the assessor with the necessary information to base the assessment on for the
various Ecology credits.
Section E provides details of the documentation / information to be included within the appendix of
this guidance.
Section F requires the signature of the appointed ecologist who has completed this document.
3.1. Section A1: Contact Details
3.1.1 Ecologist’s Details
Company name: Best Habitats Limited
Website: www.besthabitats.com
Company address: Yewdells, Dungates Lane, Buckland, Surrey RH3 7BD
Contact name: Duncan Ferns (BSc, PhD, MIEEM, FIBC)
Contact telephone number: 07786 966841
Ecology Report Reference:
3.1.2 Developer / Client Details
Contact name: Mr Colin Smith (Planning Consultant)
Company address: The Logans, 146 Brambletye Park Road, Redhill, Surrey RH1 6ED
Contact telephone number: 07879 472627
3.2. Section A2: Development Details
BRE Reference Number:
Client Reference Number:
Development Name:
Development Address: 57 Poynings Road, Crawley, West Sussex RH11 0TL
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
3.3. Section B1: Suitably Qualified Ecologist’s Questions
1. Do you hold a degree (or equivalent qualification, e.g. N/SVQ level 5) in ecology or related
subject?
Yes
If Yes, please provide details:
BSc Hons Physical Geography & Geology (incl. biogeography & soil science), University of Reading
1980.
PhD – Mapping Mineral & Air Pollution stress in Vegetation. Dept of Pure & Applied Biology,
Imperial College, University of London, 1983
2. Are you a practising ecologist with a minimum of 3 years relevant experience within the last 5
years?
Relevant experience must clearly demonstrate a practical understanding of factors affecting ecology in relation to
construction and the built environment and will include acting in an advisory capacity to provide recommendations for
ecological protection, enhancement and mitigation measures, e.g. ecological impact assessments.
Yes
If Yes, please provide details:
Duncan Ferns has spent 8 years from 2000-2010 in consulting for positions in government
environmental bodies, including Defra, Natural England, the Rural Payments Agency and the
Highways Agency. In 2011 he established Best Habitats Ltd to work for Estates, landowners, and
planning consultants, particularly helping them to submit grants and establish new projects to
optimise revenue. He has undertaken training in BREEAM assessments and the Conservation
Management System (CMS) methodologies. His experience includes wildlife garden design,
woodland management, successful applications for Natural England’s Environmental Stewardship
Grants (ELS & HLS), and the Forestry Commission’s England Woodland Grant Scheme (e.WGS). He
is specifically interested in garden/woodland schemes and their valuable contribution to
conservation.
3. Are you bound by a professional code of conduct and subject to peer review*?
A full member of one of the following organisations will be deemed suitable: Chartered Institution of Water and
Environmental Management (CIWEM); Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM); Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA); Landscape Institute (LI).
Yes
Full Member CIEEM
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
If Yes, please provide details:
Duncan Ferns is a full Member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management (MCIEEM), and Fellow of the Institute of Business Consulting (FIBC) - and abides by
the professional standards of both these bodies. Certificates are available on request.
*Peer review is defined as the process employed by a professional body to demonstrate that potential or current full
members maintain a standard of knowledge and experience required to ensure compliance with a code of conduct and
professional ethics.
Note: If the answer to any question in Section B1 is ‘No’ then the ecologist writing the report does not meet the
requirements of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist under the Code. The ecology report therefore cannot be used in the Code
assessment unless it is verified by a ‘Suitably Qualified Ecologist’. If this is the case, proceed to Section B2.
If the ecologist does meet the requirements of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist, proceed to Section C.
3.4. Section B2: Report Verification
If the appointed ecologist does not meet the requirements of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist, the report must be verified by
an individual who does meet these requirements. Otherwise the ecology report cannot be used in the Code assessment.
The person who verifies the report must provide written confirmation that they meet the requirements of a Suitably
Qualified Ecologist in accordance with Section B1 above.
Details on verifying an ecology report for a Code assessment:
The individual verifying the report must provide written confirmation that they comply with the definition of a Suitably
Qualified Ecologist (as detailed above in Section B1).
The individual verifying the report must confirm in writing they have read and reviewed the report and found it to:
represent sound industry practice
report and recommend correctly, truthfully, and objectively
be appropriate given the local site conditions and scope of works proposed
avoid invalid, biased, and exaggerated statements.
Written confirmation from the third party verifier on all the points detailed under 1 and 2 above (for Section B2) must be
included in the Appendix to this report (see Section E).
Duncan Ferns meets the criteria of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist and requires no further
verification.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
3.5. Section C: Site Survey
1. Have the findings of the ecology report been based on data collected from a site survey(s)?
Yes
If yes, please provide details to confirm this (e.g. date(s) and scope of site survey(s))
The site, centred on Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TQ 24010 36317, was surveyed on 14 May
2014. 57 Poynings Road is an end-of terrace home, estimated to be 15-20 years old. Sited at the
end of the cul-de-sac, the freeholder also owns adjoining land around the end of the cul-de-sac
which is the subject of a planning application. This adjoining land is outlined in red on the site
block plan. The land to the north of the cul-de-sac outlined in blue is also owned by the same
owner.
Both the development plot (in red) – Area A - and land to the north of the cul-de-sac outlined in
blue – Area B - have been subject to the ecological survey.
Figure 1. Block Plan: Ecological Survey Area: (A) proposed development site in red & (B) the
adjacent site to the north also in the applicants ownership, and from which 4 car parking spaces are
proposed
B
A
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
The site survey method broadly followed the guidelines for Phase 1 Habitat assessment as detailed
by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee2. However, these guidelines were modified to account
for the small scale and urbanised nature of the site, and inaccessibility afforded by dense bramble
thicket on part of the site. An assessment was made of the site’s potential to support fauna
(particularly those species that are afforded legal protection). In accordance with guidelines set by
BRE, a 3m buffer zone around the site boundary was also inspected.
Note: If ‘No’ has been answered to Question 1 of Section C the ecology report cannot be used to determine compliance
with the requirements of the relevant Code credits.
2. On what date did/ will initial site preparation works commence?
Note: If the site survey was carried out after initial site preparation works commenced, the ecology report cannot be used
to determine compliance with the requirements of the relevant Code credits.
The start date for site preparation is not known and entirely dependent on the success of a future
planning application. This report has been prepared in the format of the BREEAM Ecology Report
Template for the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), in order that it might contribute to the
baseline documentation for relevant Code credits for any future development.
2 Joint Nature Conservancy Council (2003) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey (2003 revision). JNCC, Peterborough, UK.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
3.6 Section D: Details from the Site Survey
3.6.1 Eco 1: Ecological Value of Site
1. Is the construction zone of low or insignificant ecological value?
The construction zone includes any land used for buildings, hard standing, landscaping, site access and any other land
where construction work is carried out (or land being disturbed in any way), plus a 3 metre boundary in either direction
around these areas. It also includes any areas used for temporary site storage and buildings.
Yes /No
Answer: Yes
The site, identified by the yellow pin, is on the urban fringe of Crawley, separated from a golf
course by a strip of natural woodland and a stream.
The survey site does not support any statutory wildlife site designation or non-statutory wildlife
site designation.
AREA ‘A’ – the Development Plot
Area A, the development plot, is on the East side of the cul-de-sac. It can be described either as
‘disturbed wasteland’ or an ‘encroaching woodland edge’ habitat, depending on your point of view
- but both are correct. It is certainly not managed at present, and has been unmanaged for 15 or
20 years, and hence the species present have largely self-seeded, many from the adjacent mature
woodland to the north. If this area were left untouched, it would likely revert to mixed deciduous
woodland, expanding the woodland boundary to the north. However the spacing of trees would
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
have to be managed at some future point as the oaks could not be left to mature in the positions
they are in without being a nuisance to adjacent existing properties.
The species cover on area A is dominated by Bramble (Rubus futicosus), in thickets 1.5 to 2.5m
high, with a smaller area of mixed long grasses. There is very poor species diversity within this,
excepting self-seeded tree saplings of Oak (Quercus Robur), ash (Fraxina excelsior), hawthorn
(Crataegus monogyna) and blackthorn (Prunus spinosa). The bramble cover has practically no
under-storey due to its denseness, and it makes much of the development site inaccessible,
excepting a few narrow breaks in the brambles.
Area A would be the development site for the build of two starter-homes, each with a small garden
to the rear.
AREA B – Adjacent to the cul-de-sac and site of car parking spaces
This area is part of a belt of mixed deciduous woodland, at this point being approximately 15m in
width (N-S), with the site of the proposed car parking on the south side, and a golf course on the
north side.
This are supports a number of mature oak (Quercus Robur), hawthorn (Crataegus monognya), holly
(Ilex aquifolium) & ash (Fraxina excelsior). Although the width of the woodland is limited at this
point it forms part of the east-west corridor of woodland which joins the larger block of XXXX
Wood about 500m to the west. Two factors suggest that Area B has been woodland for some time
(e.g.50-100 years):
The mature oaks which have reached a mature height of 15-25m
The ground flora which includes Wild Garlic (Allium triquetrum), Herb Robert (Geranium
robertianum), Sulphur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta), mature Ivy (Hereda helix) & birthwort
(Aristolochia clematis).
There are NO indicator species for Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ASNW).
At the ‘head’ of the cul-de-sac where the woodland edge literally adjoins the tarmac, there is
considerable evidence of dumping – hedge cuttings, dumped topsoil, grass cuttings, and
domestic/garden dumped rubbish. This rubbish dumping even encroaches into the stream (Hyde
Hill Brook). The ground flora, including Cleavers (Galium aparine) and a species of garden bulb
(Allium neapolitanum – or similar sub-species) planted on the kerb-edge are also typical of
disturbed land.
The proposed development would entail a minor encroachment of Area B with the creation of four
adjacent car parking spaces. It would seem that the development of four car park spaces would
require the removal of 4 trees: a field maple, crack willow (already ‘felled’ and re-growing from the
stump), and a wing-nut tree. All the mature Oaks that give area B its distinctive character would
not require any felling for the proposed development.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
TREES – planted garden species
No. Latin Name Common Name Approx height (m)
Number of trees (approx.) in Areas A+B
1 Acer campestre Field maple 3 1
2 Quercus robur Oak 1-20 20+
3 Crataegus monognya Hawthorn 2-6 5
4 Fraxina excelsior Ash 3 5
5 Pterocarya fraxinifolia Caucasian Wingnut 3 1
4 Salix fragilis Crack Willow 4 1
6 Sambusus nigra Elder (x 2) 4 2
7 Sorbus aucuparia Mountain Ash 4 1
8 Ilex aquifolium Holly 3-5 3
9 Prunus spinosa Blackthorn 1-3 2
Ground flora Species Description/Common name
Allium neapolitanum (or similar sub-species) White flowering garden bulb (planted by kerb-edge)
Allium triquetrum Three cornered garlic
Aristolochia clematis Birthwort
Chaerophyllum temulum Rough Chervil
Daphne laureola Spurge Laurel
Elytrigia repens Common Couch (grass)
Festuca rubra Red fescue (grass)
Fumaria muralis Common ramping fumitory
Galium aparine Cleaver
Geranium robertianum Herb Robert
Glechoma hederacea Ground Ivy
Hedera helix Common ivy
Indian Balsam Impatiens glandulifera
Phleum pratense Timothy (grass)
Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil
Rubus fruticosus Bramble
Urtica Dioica Nettle
Wildlife
The current environment is species-poor, and lack of flora biodiversity does not encourage
biodiversity of insect, butterfly, bird and mammal diversity. The oaks and brambles are both good
species for insect life and bird habitat.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
The panel fencing to the south of area A is well maintained. No evidence was found of under-
fence animal tracks or burrows as would be left by foxes, rabbits or badgers.
There is a strong likelihood of urban foxes in this urban fringe location, and a likelihood of grey
squirrels in the mature oak trees in area B. None were seen during the survey period.
It is highly likely that bats may use the woodland corridor in area B, and they are a protected
species. However, as the planning proposal does not infringe on these trees, no concern need be
raised. There is no evidence to suggest that any protected species would utilise the development
site.
Due to the high density housing, domestic cats are abundant (four were seen on the survey visit).
In summary, we can conclude that the construction zone has insignificant ecological value.
2. If yes, is there any land outside the construction zone but inside the development site of
ecological value?
Yes /No
Answer YES
Please give details:
As referred to above, the east-west woodland strip containing mature oaks and the ‘Hyde Hill
Brook’ stream has ecological value as a mixed woodland corridor habitat. This contributes to
woodland habitat at a landscape scale, being the eastern extension of a woodland corridor that is
approximately 2 Km long. Corridor habitats provide an ecological network enabling species to
move through the landscape and increase their foraging range, hence maintaining adequate food
sources, and enabling increasing populations of wildlife.
The principle of maintaining and expanding ecological corridor networks for habitat was strongly
promoted by the Lawton Review – ‘Making Space for Nature’ (September 2010) in his
government advisory report; in subsequent Living Landscapes programme managed by the Wildlife
Trusts; and in PPS12 Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) implemented by Local Authorities.
It is noted that there are specific areas designated within the LDF to the south and west of Crawley
(Area SX08) that are designated in the South-East Ecological network, but this site does NOT fall in
this designated are, nor it is directly linked to it.
3. If yes, is it possible for all areas / features of ecological value to remain undisturbed by the
construction works?
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
Yes. The species removed for the car parking spaces are of little ecological value. We would hope
that the impact of the development and car parking spaces may have a positive effect on the site,
namely to reduce fly-tipping of the garden waste and household rubbish on the woodland margins.
3.6.2 Eco 2: Ecological Enhancement
1. Has the developer / client required you to provide advice and recommendations for enhancing
site ecology?
Answer: YES
2. If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining all of your KEY recommendations*:
Legal Considerations:
The bramble species covering c.60% of Area A, the development site, provide excellent
habitat for nesting birds (e.g. blue tits, great tits, wrens, sparrows, blackbirds, robins, etc).
Whilst no specifically legally protected or notable bird species were recorded during the
survey, the nests of all British birds (except for eleven derogated pest species) are afforded
legal protection. The site should therefore be cleared outside the bird nesting season (the
nesting season is generally accepted as being March to August inclusive) or a thorough
check should be undertaken by an appropriately qualified person immediately prior to site
clearance, and appropriate mitigation employed should bird nests be found.
3. If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining all of your ADDITIONAL recommendations*.
A positive action would be to remove any dumped materials (garden waste, household
rubbish) from the woodland margin and stream-side.
The two properties will each have a small garden. Features to consider wildlife can be
incorporated into the garden landscape, for example:
Installation of a water feature of a design suitable to provide a drinking place for birds, or
alternatively a bird bath, should be incorporated within the landscaping. Access to
freshwater for birds is often severely limited within the urban environment. In order to
drink and bathe, birds need to be able to stand in or adjacent to shallow water. This
feature should be sited in an open area, not under a tree canopy.
Nesting boxes can be attached to trees or panel fences
All landscaping planting should be conducted using peat-free composts.
No selective herbicides should be used during the establishment of any grassed areas.
(Whilst establishing amenity grassland areas, one method frequently used is to spray the
lawn with a selective weed-killer following the first cut. This kills the broad-leaved plant
species and produces a finer sward, but reduces the biodiversity).
Whilst it is accepted that lawns are of intrinsically low nature conservation value, they are
still considered an improvement on hard-standing or decking, and lawns with a diverse
assemblage of broad-leaf plants can support a range of common invertebrates.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
Ornamental flower beds should be planted with native species and/or ornamental species
of known benefit to wildlife. Ornamental species with no proven benefit for British wildlife
may still be planted provided that they do not account for more than 20% of the planting
mix. Species selection should be guided by the English Nature publication ‘Plants for
Wildlife-Friendly gardens’ (ISBN 1 85716) catalogue code IN18.7 available from
www.naturalengland.org.uk.
Flower beds planted in this way may be used to contribute to the credits gained under
Section Eco4 – Change in Ecological Value. In order to consider this recommendation
achieved, at least 80% of the proposed scrub/flower bed planting proposed must be of
“wildlife friendly” species, with at least 10 different species present.
Water butts to collect rainwater could be installed, to collect water for use in the garden of
both the existing and new property.
Compost bins could be provided so as to provide suitable fertiliser for use in the gardens of
the existing and new property. The residents should also be provided with a leaflet on
suitable items to place in the compost. Grass clippings from the communal garden should
also be placed in the compost.
Rubble or log piles should be placed in sheltered areas within the shrub and flower beds, so
as to provide shelter for invertebrates.
Bumble-bee nesting box and multi-tube hibernation boxes could be located in sunny,
relatively un-disturbed areas of the landscaping.
The owner/tenant of the both the existing and new development should be provided with
a leaflet on attracting wildlife to urban areas, including information on wildlife gardening,
bird tables and feeders etc.
* The client / developer will be required to adopt / implement all KEY recommendations and 30% of ADDITIONAL
recommendations.
3.6.3 Eco 3: Protection of Ecological Features
Note: Eco 3 looks at protecting all existing features / areas of ecological value on the site and boundary area. If a feature
of ecological value is to be removed as part of the development works, e.g. site clearance, then this credit cannot be
achieved. If you have deemed the whole development site to be of poor ecological value then there will be no features of
ecological value to protect. If the construction zone is of low ecological value but the wider site is not, give protection
measures here. If there is an area(s) or feature(s) of low or insignificant ecological value you wish to advise be retained
and enhanced / improved, e.g. a species-poor hedgerow to a species-rich hedgerow, then full details of this advice should
be entered as a recommendation under Eco 2 Ecological Enhancement.
1. Are there any existing features/ areas of ecological value on the site or at the boundary of the
site?
Yes /No
Answer: YES
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
In Area A – the development site, there are NO ecological features to protect. In Area B, there are
NO ecological features to protect in the areas where the car parking provision is indicated.
2. If yes, please provide a brief statement outlining the advice/ recommendations given for
protecting all existing features and areas of ecological value:
The remaining portion of Area B should be protected by minimal intervention and should have no
further disturbance. There should be no disturbance of the stream-side ground flora (including
wild garlic patches) or the mature oaks. No pollutants must enter the stream watercourse.
The woodland edge at the north side of the cul-de-sac must not be used for building plant,
temporary sheds or machinery, or the depositing of any waste materials. [These should be kept on
the tarmac surface only or within the development plot of Area A].
3.6.4 Eco 4: Change of Ecological Value of Site
1. Are you able to provide the following information for before and after construction: habitat
types and an estimate of the number of floral species present per habitat type (based on
appropriate censusing techniques and confirmed planting regimes)?
Yes/ No
Answer: Yes
2. If yes, please provide the following information:
a. A brief description of the landscape and habitats surrounding the development site
The survey site is a species-poor mix of grass, brambles and tree seedlings, probably self-seeded
from adjacent natural deciduous woodland.
b. The total site area (this will be the same both before and after development):
Houses and gardens plot: approx 190 m2
Parking spaces plot: approx 40 m2
Total : 230 m2
3. Has your client / developer requested you to carry out the calculation for Eco 4 Change in
Ecological Value of Site? The calculation must be carried out in line with the methodology provided in the most
current version of the Code Guidance.
Yes /No
If yes, please complete the table below:
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
Average number of species before development
Habitat Type Area of Habitat Plot
(m2)
No of Species No of Species x Area
of Plot
Waste land/Emergent
woodland
230 28 6440
* identified species, excluding small weed species
Average Number of Species after development (to be completed following detailed development
plans)
Habitat Type Area of Habitat Plot No of Species No of Species x Area
of Plot
It should be noted that it is possible to achieve an extra credit under ECO4, through the
incorporation of wildlife planting into the development scheme.
As noted in the requirement for ECO2, the use of at least 10 species of native or wildlife attracting
plants in the scrub/flowers beds within the development is recommended. This development
could increase the number of garden species significantly beyond this by diverse planting.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
4. Summary
The proposed development site is on the urban fringe, and adjoining an ecologically
valuable woodland corridor populated by mature oak trees.
The development site itself is previously wasteland, which has developed self-seeded tree
saplings from the neighboring woodland; a number of invasive weed species (bramble,
nettle, mixed grasses), and species that favour wasteland (nettles, brambles, cleavers).
The site is ecologically poor and has a limited number of species. If left alone for many
more years, it would naturally become an extension of the natural adjoining woodland (As
the trees develop a higher closed canopy, the bramble will die back due to lack of light). It
would require some future long-term management to thin the self-seeded oaks, which are
likely to become a nuisance by their proximity to the existing neighboring properties and
gardens. This nuisance would be caused by root damage (to paving, drains and property)
and shading, blocking light from properties. It is borderline whether the woodland edge
can be extended in this way without causing such difficulties with existing properties.
There is no principled objection to the application from an ecological perspective, as long
as certain features of the adjacent woodland to the north (Area B) are protected, notably
the mature canopy of oak trees and the ground flora by the stream (e.g. wild garlic). The
removal of a few woodland edge trees for the car parking in Area B will not affect the key
elements of Area B that afford protection.
I confirm that the information provided in this document is truthful and accurate at the time of
completion.
Name of ecologist: Duncan Ferns (BSc, PhD, MCIEEM, FIBC)
Signature of ecologist:
Date: 18 May 2014
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
5. Conditions
This report has been prepared by Best Habitats Limited with all reasonable skill, care and diligence,
and taking account of the manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.
Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected and has been accepted
in good faith as being accurate and valid.
This report is for the exclusive use of the client; no warranties or guarantees are expressed or
should be inferred by any third parties.
Best Habitats disclaims any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside
the agreed scope of the work.
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
6. PHOTOGRAPHS
1. The development site to the east of the turning circle. [The Mountain Ash on the right is
outside the development site and not in the ownership of the applicant]
2. Close up of bramble thicket which is typically 1.5-2.5m in height, and largely impenetrable
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
3. The plot from the back (SE) corner, looking west, showing neighbouring panel fence and
access path (which will be retained)
4. The plot from the back (SE) corner, looking North
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
5. Stream in Area B (left, looking West, right, looking East)
6. Dumping of garden objects, waste and topsoil on woodland edge (Area B)
BREEM Ecology Report for CSH
7. Mature oak canopy – looking up into area B. These oaks with climbing ivy are a great
habitat for insects and birds and must not be disturbed. Their importance is heightened by
being part of a 2 Km woodland corridor. However, they are outside the development area,
and it would not be difficult to provide them protection if the development were to be
approved.