WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND RECENT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENTS

11 WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND RECENT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENTS IN EAST SUFFOLK 2007–2010.

T. LANGTON Background In recent years there has been increased awareness of ‘Biodiversity’ protection, together with new UK laws that help to implement the European Habitats Directive. These have resulted in County and District Council planning authorities (LPAs) more frequently, in fact routinely, requiring appraisal of protected species and habitat interests, even for relatively smallscale building work.

This change has come about as the result of more comprehensive advisory documents on nature conservation issued by government. There have also been test cases around Britain where insufficient protected species survey work has lead to challenges and where LPAs have potentially become liable for costs. The government circulars OPDM 06/2005 and Defra 01/2005 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation were strong steers to LPAs to give nature conservation more priority.

Such increased vigilance complements the protection afforded by previous legislation. In Suffolk, the District Councils now place routine requests for development submissions to be accompanied by a biodiversity appraisal.

These tend to fall into two categories. For work to buildings, typically parts of old farmsteads including rural houses, barns and stables, bat (Chiroptera) and nesting bird surveys are most often sought. Where a development area includes a pond or ponds within it or within 100 metres or so, the ponds and surrounding habitats may require assessment for use by semi-aquatic species such as great crested newt Triturus cristatus, water vole Arvicola terrestris and otter Lutra lutra. Impacts on such species must be considered.

This brief summary is based on 43 such appraisals over a period of approximately three years from late 2007. It provides a small snapshot of the proportion of applications that reveal nature conservation interests. The projects were largely within the ‘ancient countryside’ (Rackham 1986) of East Suffolk and all but a couple were not positioned on or immediately next to designated sites, but in what might be described as wider countryside.

The appraisals undertaken were small in scale but otherwise similar to the procedures for larger developments such as housing estate or road building.

Findings result in proposed measures to avoid damage that are then sometimes ‘Conditioned’ within a planning permission. Actions needed include Statutory Agency licensed mitigation where proposed work might otherwise threaten to significantly reduce the ‘favourable conservation status’ of a ‘European Protected Species’. Nature conservation now requires the particular understanding of such phrases that form a technical and administrative language.

This short review is a reference point for relative abundance of species.

Monitoring of such appraisals could prove a cost-effective way for LPAs and others to record species distribution information and to monitor outcomes.

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 46 (2010)

12

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 46

Methods Habitats and species for Clayland and Sandlings habitats were considered during each appraisal. Often the basic location and geology of an application site mean that most types of habitats can be ruled out. While keeping an open mind, a process of elimination shortlists the range of species to be searched for. Use of Google maps aerial images indicates the nature and quality of habitat and a search at the Suffolk Biological Records Centre also gives prompt information on the available past records for any area. The species most frequently occurring are the widespread declining species for which legislation and listings have been made in order to attempt to halt continued decline, although rarities also crop up. The widespread animals are normally fairly robust species whose decline indicates the loss of general quality of the countryside and widespread countryside features such as ponds and wet ditches, old barns, large, mature or veteran trees and unimproved grassland.

Surveys are often extended after the first site visit when other interests are identified. Normally, the scoping of all biodiversity interest is advisable, particularly at building sites when land around a building to some distance can be disturbed for a period of up to a year or so, including sheltering and nesting places or dispersal routes.

Bats The approach taken followed Bat Conservation Trust guidelines (2007) and began with a thorough internal and external inspection of buildings with ladders and torches, looking for bat droppings and other signs, sometimes followed by emergence and return to roost surveys. More recently, Anabat bat recorders with computer software analysis have been used in addition to heterodyne bat detectors. These have showed how the evening emergence work using hand-held detectors could sometimes miss locating small numbers of bats and the less apparent species. It points to the need for dawn emergence surveys and it is good to see less expensive automated detectors coming onto the market.

Owls/birds There are still very many old barns and outbuildings in East Suffolk and some are unused and at a point of collapse. Barn owls are easy to locate due to their copious white and black liquid droppings and rounded pellets that can be distinguished from other species. Occasionally, dead owls are found on the ground but too old to establish cause of death. Owners who have barn owl project inspections sometimes report nesting in boxes at or near to survey sites. Observations of birds, outside buildings are usually confined to casual observations. For specific project types, such as small wind turbine projects, information from local bird watchers is often useful.

Newts All but five of the 43 survey sites were located within the pond-rich parts of Suffolk where pond density is at some of the highest levels in the UK. (Langton et al. 2007). Newts were surveyed using the normally promoted methods of egg searching, dip netting, torch-light surveys or overnight bottle

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 46 (2010)

13 trapping methods in ponds (Langton et al. 2000). Outside the main breeding season, between June and September, tadpoles and larvae can be found using a searching technique (see Langton T.E.S. - p. 17), developed to locate signs of great crested newt (GCN) in the middle and end of its active season.

Using this method, GCN tadpoles/larvae, (plus the larvae of other amphibians and fish) were detected by sweeping a large net under and into favoured aquatic plant microhabitats. On several occasions, larvae were detected from just a few individuals caught and sometimes in only one (often sunniest/warmest) part of a pond, indicating that the technique is likely to be picking up ponds where recruitment of GCN young is at a very low level and populations are small.

A measure of pond and surrounding land habitat quality was made; the Habitat Suitability Indices (Oldham et al. 2000) were normally also estimated and these give a general indication of the probability of GCN occupation.

These almost always fitted with the survey results, i.e. GCN tended to be found in ponds with suitable scores and not where a low score was determined. In general, ponds free from the majority of the types of fish species that will eradicate newts;(particularly Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus and Three spined Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus) through larval predation were considered likely to have GCN present. This ‘rule’ appears very reliable – GCN are usually present in fish-free ponds in East Suffolk unless they are derelict (normally shallow/silted up and shaded and with little or no aquatic plant life) or isolated with no or few other fishfree ponds for some distance. It is never possible to be 100% sure about absence of species, but habitat availability and quality are good guides to potential carrying capacity. There is rarely a mismatch between survey results and survey findings. In other words, after several years experience, looking at habitat quality together with the pond’s history, type, vegetation and level of use in an area, normally gives the surveyor a good idea of the species that may potentially be located or whose absence is potentially explained.

Results Of the 43 biodiversity appraisals carried out 2007–2010, 32 (74% ) included building searches for bat/bird interest and five surveys were bat surveys for small or medium sized on-shore Wind turbine related studies. Of the appraisals, 29 (67%) included one or more pond and had great crested newt/ aquatic wildlife surveys and checks. Of the 77 ponds surveyed, 31 (40%) were occupied by one or more fish species and, in all but two cases, this was considered a significant factor in the lack of GCN. Bats Of the 32 single or multiple building groups searched, 21 (66%) had bats present. They were using the buildings to some degree as over-wintering, maternity or mating roosts or for feeding, with usually one or two, but on two occasions up to seven species recorded. The species located most frequently were brown long-eared Plecotus auritus, soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus and common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Natterer’s Myotis nattereri, barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus, serotine Eptesicus serotinus

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 46 (2010)

14

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 46

and Noctule Nytalus noctula were found less frequently.In some cases bats were entering gardens from outside to feed near buildings, leaving droppings stuck to windows and walls, but only using the building as a temporary feeding perch to consume prey items such as moths. Where bat roost disturbance was going to occur on the external features of a building or inside, report findings were accompanied by recommendations for mitigation including roof space modification to allow continued bat use and/or placement of bat boxes on buildings and trees. Watching briefs during roof removal are also sometimes advised.

Owls/Birds At 14 sites (43%), buildings/building groups had barn owl roosting in the buildings or nearby trees and a similar proportion had one or more swallow nest. Otter spraint or otter fish kills and a badger sett were located at one site each. Up to three species of reptiles were present at four of the seven sites surveyed where this was thought possible. Marsh Harrier, Buzzard, Red Kite and Goshawk were also recorded at one site each. Nests of common birds resulted in recommendations for nest boxes in renovated buildings.

Newts Fish ponds are cloudy from fish activity stirring up water and influencing plant, phytoplankton and zooplankton balances. Fish-free ponds tend to have predominantly clear water conditions. GCN were located in 18 (23%) of the ponds, this being the normal occupancy rate for the pond-rich location of most of the surveys. Such high levels in this part of the county balance areas in Suffolk with lower pond density and few GCN. It is important not to confuse the GCN ‘hotspot’ areas with county occupation average pond occupation as this can confuse conservation effort (Langton 2009). From previous extensive surveys, the general Suffolk occupancy rate of ponds by GCN is around 10% (Langton et al. 2007).

GCN were found in ponds with fish in two instances, the fish present were goldfish in both cases and had dense vegetation. Five ponds were large ornamental garden ponds and one of these was a GCN breeding pond. 14 of the 77 ponds (18%) showed signs of recent de-silting and other management actions to maintain them. This is higher than the level detected across the County by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust surveys, but may reflect the bias of this sample of ponds, that is generally close to buildings and for which access for machinery is easier and upkeep more likely as garden features or for water supply.

Other species Water vole were recorded at five (6%) of the ponds visited showing this to be a significant habitat for the species in Suffolk. Water Voles can be surveyed at the pond edge much as elsewhere. With care, feeding stations, latrines and burrows can be easily found. In two cases, water voles were seen swimming in the pond as well as the bank-side signs being obvious. In one case, bank vole had been previously confused, the signs overlapping with those of water vole (see Ryland & Kemp 2009).

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 46 (2010)

15 Water vole occupancy in ponds was consistent with observation of the species at Dews Ponds SSSI/SAC over 18 years, where small numbers of water voles have bred and moved between three ponds. Habitat includes short burrows in the clay pond bank or under pond-side tree stumps and available food includes crab apple – there is evidence that fruit trees used to be deliberately planted next to ponds near dwellings. Use of pond habitat is not widely reported (Bullion 2009) despite being quite common and may reflect a habitat used by voles exploring the edges of their suitable habitat range. It may be that ponds have been overlooked as a habitat type although they are occupied by water vole elsewhere in mainland Europe. The ponds used tend to have a well-developed emergent plant component offering food and cover.

Burrow entrances are towards the top of the annual draw-down zone.

In the case of the Common toad Bufo bufo, listing as a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species in 2007 came too late to be applied at one site where building work is likely to have killed a proportion of adults and toadlets in the following year. The location of semi-natural habitat, including old tree stumps and dead wood, were occasionally noted for the specific protection of plants and invertebrates.

Overall, it was noticeable that only twelve (28 %) of the 43 locations, produced no protected species. These were sometimes cleared parcels of land, or relatively modern buildings, with neat or cleared gardens being converted or rebuilt. In most cases, damage or disturbance to wildlife was judged to be insignificant, but on most occasions specific recommendations were made in order to prevent potential breach of wildlife law and licences were recommended in some cases. Measures included the placement of bat and bird boxes, the provision or retention of bat features in buildings, and the retention of ponds. Use of temporary fence to prevent small animals such as hedgehogs and toads from entering building sites and careful observation of timings to prevent newts from being significantly impacted can reduce risks to them significantly.

Conclusions Although time consuming, approaches are sometimes needed to detect and measure animal populations. Except in some circumstances where conditions are difficult or unusual, detecting presence of most species can be very quick and relatively inexpensive. Adequate training and experience to survey for all of the species to a good standard with the right equipment is also vital.

Often, checking for the presence/likely absence of species and the need for further survey of species is advised. Depending on the time of year, it is often (but not always) possible to complete comprehensive surveys promptly. Once ecological sensitivity has been appraised, efforts to determine the potential impact of small scale developments can then, if needed take investigations to the next stage; fine-tuning the questions that need answering to address any specific proposed development activity. Identifying and explaining constraints may result in building design modifications and attention to the timing of building to reduce impacts to acceptable levels. Small-scale developments often involve temporary and minor disturbance to an area rather than the larger

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 46 (2010)

16

Suffolk Natural History, Vol. 46

disruption and impact of medium or large development projects that can involve substantial and expensive mitigation measures.

A significant amount of data is now being recorded to advise local authorities and use of the reports is a potential goldmine of information for local recording centres and distribution atlases.

It is not all good news though. Many ponds were of little value to wildlife and would require substantial management work to de-shade or to de-silt them. Two were being in-filled and, although three newly built ponds had GCN, this was in an exceptional arable-to-grassland reversion project. Overall, the sample reflected both the continued declining status of farm ponds and how a previous lack of appraisal of small-scale developments has contributed to the decline of GCN and other pond species since protection was first required by the Berne Convention and Wildlife and Countryside Act over 25 years ago.

With bats, it is easy to see how previously many roosts were destroyed during building conversions without mitigation, particularly in old barns.

Conversation with local Suffolk builders confirms that coming across bats and newts in unforeseen and unlicensed circumstances is far from a rare occurrence. However, in many cases although a population may be damaged and a proportion of populations killed, within a few years of disturbance numbers build back again once the roof is replaced or disturbed land around a pond left to recover.

In a few cases, applicants were seen to try to avoid taking on responsibilities and in others measures were not carried out despite being included in permissions. Post-development checks that applicant’s Report recommendations and Planning Conditions have been followed would be useful, e.g. checking written reports on the carrying out of ecological measures and the correct placement of compensatory features such as bat and bird boxes. This might require an expert inspectorate to achieve but would enable a clearer impression of how well the system work to achieve its aims.

Acknowledgements Thanks are due to a wide range of land and property owners, architects, agents and planning consultants and planning officers from Babergh, Mid Suffolk, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Council planning departments, Sue Hooton and Andrew Murray-Wood at Suffolk County Council and Alison Collins at Natural England. Field assistants included, Matt Hawkins, Howard Hillier, Mark Jones, Catherine Langton and Etienne Swarts.

References Bullion, S. (2009). The Mammals of Suffolk. Suffolk Wildlife Trust and Suffolk Naturalists’ Society, Ipswich.

Langton, T., Beckett, C. & Foster, J. (2001). Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife, Halesworth.

Langton, T. E. S., Millins, G. & Langton C.L. (2007). On the Status of Ponds and Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus in Suffolk. Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 43: 43

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 46 (2010)

17 Langton, T. E. S. (2009). Great crested newt Triturus cristatus: 30 years of implementation of International Wildlife Conventions, European and UK Law in the United Kingdom 1979–2009. Report to European Union.

Unpub.

Oldham, R. S., Keeble J., Swan M. J. S. & Jeffcote, M. (2000).Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus).

Herpetological Journal 10: 143–155.

Rackham, O. (1986). The history of the countryside. J. M. Dent, London.

Ryland, K. & Kemp, B. (2009). Identifying voles from their field signs. British Wildlife 20: 330–334.

Tom Langton Dews Farm Bramfield Suffolk IP19 9AE E-mail: t.langt@virgin.net

Trans. Suffolk Nat. Soc. 46 (2010)