Thanet Ground Water Quality | home
Return to post and other links | Thanet Ground Water Quality | Thanet Ground Water Quality table | Manston map | Benzine | From the China Gateway environmental report | Xblocks | Phases | Source Protection Zones | EA | Environment Agency's Response | My response to the Environment Agency | My initial objection to the development | Executive Director of East Kent Opportunities LLP | Title 15 | Title 16 | CPRE Kent | CPREKent2 | Title 19 | Title 20 | Title 21 | Environment Agency being difficult | Information Request | Letter to Doug 5.7.8 | Natural England's comments | complaint ref 1342 | Title 33 | power of the sea | BRIEFING DOCUMENT FOR THANET DISTRICT COUNCILLORS | More from the EA | Southern Water discharge consent letter. | INFRATIL LETTER | Recommendation to the planning committee to approve | Explosive | Developers clarification of points raised at the planning meeting | Doug Emails | CUMMINS POWER GENERATION LTD. | Title 47 | voting | Sericol Investigations | Title 50 | the history at Thor | EA letter to KIA 19.12.08 | EA letter to KIA 18.12.08
Title 47
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Environmental Statement - Addendum
Chapter 7 – Ecology
FINAL
June 2008
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Scott Wilson
Scott House
Alen?on Link
Basingstoke
Hampshire
RG21 7PP
Tel 01256 310200
Fax 01256 310201
www.scottwilson.com
This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's
appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed
to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson
accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the
purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may
copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior
written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions,
or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the
context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal
or tax advice or opinion.
? Scott Wilson Ltd 2008
Revision Schedule
China Gateway, Manston – Ecology
June 2008
Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
4 28/03/08 INTERIM John Simmons
Ecologist
Jo Hughes
Technical Director
Jo Hughes
Technical Director
5 11/06/08 DRAFT John Simmons
Ecologist
Jo Hughes
Technical Director
Jo Hughes
Technical Director
6 18/06/08 FINAL John Simmons
Ecologist
Jo Hughes
Technical Director
Jo Hughes
Technical Director
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Table of Contents
1 Executive summary........................................................................... 1
2 Introduction....................................................................................... 2
2.1 Assessment context........................................................................................................2
2.2 Spatial scope ..................................................................................................................2
2.3 Temporal scope ..............................................................................................................3
2.4 Technical scope..............................................................................................................3
2.5 Legislative context ..........................................................................................................4
2.6 Policy Context .................................................................................................................4
3 Methodology ..................................................................................... 7
3.1 Assessment methodology ...............................................................................................7
3.2 Desk study....................................................................................................................11
3.3 Field surveys.................................................................................................................12
4 Defining the baseline .......................................................................18
4.1 Designated sites ...........................................................................................................18
4.2 Habitats ........................................................................................................................19
4.3 Species........................................................................................................................23
4.4 Summary of Ecological Resources ...............................................................................38
5 Assessing effects and their significance...........................................39
5.1 Effects during demolition and construction....................................................................39
5.2 Effects during operation ................................................................................................44
5.3 Cumulative effects ........................................................................................................47
6 Mitigation, compensation and enhancement ....................................49
6.1 Designated Sites...........................................................................................................49
6.2 Habitats ........................................................................................................................50
6.3 Species........................................................................................................................51
7 Residual Effects...............................................................................53
7.1 Designated sites ...........................................................................................................53
7.2 Habitats ........................................................................................................................53
7.3 Species........................................................................................................................53
8 Conclusions .....................................................................................55
9 References ......................................................................................60
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Appendix 7.1 Target notes for Extended Phase 1 habitat survey .............62
Appendix 7.2 Amphibian and reptile report ..............................................66
Appendix 7.3 Bat activity surveys report ..................................................67
Appendix 7.4 Bird survey results..............................................................68
Appendix 7.5 Preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest .................72
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
1
1 Executive summary
The ecology chapter of this Environmental Statement considers effects on fauna and flora, in
particular on sites designated for their nature conservation value and on protected or notable
species and habitats. The assessment considers impacts during both the
demolition/construction and operational stages of the project.
The proposed development site consists predominantly of arable farmland, improved
grassland, bare ground and species poor semi-improved habitats considered to be of only
Local (Low) or negligible ecological value. Hedgerows and standard trees at the site are
considered to be of District (Low-Medium) value.
With the exception of boundary trees and hedges, all habitats within the development boundary
will be lost as a result of the development. However, the proposed landscape masterplan will
result in a net gain of 15ha of dry semi-improved grassland and 1.6ha of damp grassland. In
addition it will include significant planting of native trees, diversifying the age structure present
at the site. As such in the long term the development is considered likely to result in a minor
beneficial effect, with respect to habitats.
The proposed China Gateway site lies around 3km from a network of designated sites on the
Thanet Coast which are considered to be of International (Very High) ecological value. The
exact nature of end-user businesses is currently unknown. As a result it is not possible to
accurately predict the impact of potential increases in freight movements through Kent
International Airport (KIA) and local ports on these sites. Determining the significance of these
effects will require consideration of changes on a regional scale. Potential impacts will be best
addressed through consideration of these issues as part of the regulation of existing
operational limits at both KIA and local ports.
Prior to mitigation a Roadside Nature Reserve (RNR) located on the A299 (approximately 1km
from the site) is considered potentially subject to a moderate adverse effect as a result of
increased deposition of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from road traffic. As little is know of the current
status of habitats at the site a botanical survey will be conducted prior to construction.
Subsequently a mitigation/compensation strategy will be agreed with Kent Wildlife Trust.
A number of nationally rare or scarce invertebrate species were recorded at the site,
principally associated with field margins and road verges. These species are considered
likely to be widespread in the local area. As such it is considered probable that
mitigation habitat provided will be recolonised by these species.
It is not possible mitigate for habitat losses associated with some of the notable bird
species which currently utilise the site (e.g. corn bunting, grey partridge and skylark)
within the development boundary. Mitigation for these species should therefore be
provided off-site, through providing funds to improve the carrying capacity of existing
habitat in the wider local area.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
2
2 Introduction
2.1 Assessment context
The Environmental Statement (ES) deals with the entire site area of 71.57 hectares (ha), and
will eventually comprise three separate planning application areas for a total development of up
to 325,158 sq metres (3.5 million sq ft) of predominantly mixed B1(c), B2 or B8 uses.
The Phase 1 application covers an area of 31.687 ha accommodating 137,664 sq metres of
floorspace. In addition to the industrial units, the Phase 1 development includes a prominent
Gateway building, a restaurant and amenity blocks.
The detailed planning application (Phase 1) submitted with this ES is wholly within the
designated employment land and covers a large portion of the Manston Business Park, as it is
currently known. This will make use of the existing brownfield land and undeveloped
employment land. The remainder of the China Gateway Manston site (i.e. that which lies
outside of the designated employment area) will be subject to a later detailed planning
application(s) (Phase 2 and Phase 3) covering the remainder of the 71.57 ha area covered by
this ES.
The proposed development site supports a range of habitats including arable fields, species
poor semi-improved grassland, ruderal plant communities and hedgerows. This chapter
considers the ecological impacts that may result as a consequence of the proposed
development.
Issues considered under this topic comprise effects on fauna and flora, and in particular on
sites designated for their nature conservation value and on protected or notable species and
habitats. The chapter considers impacts during both the construction and operational stages of
the project.
Due to seasonal constraints a number of protected species surveys were not complete
at the point that the Environmental Statement and accompanying planning applications
were registered in March 2008. Following consultation with Natural England and Thanet
District Council it was agreed that an updated ecology chapter would be submitted as an
addendum to the Environmental Statement (ES) in June 2008, prior to determination.
The following ecology chapter updates the interim ecology submission provided in
March 2008 to include the results of all further protected species surveys. The updated
chapter considers any changes in impacts and in mitigation required in light of the
updated baseline data. For ease of review amended text is shown in bold type.
2.2 Spatial scope
The study area is considered to include all ecological receptors with potential to be directly or
indirectly affected by the proposed development. This includes all habitats and species within
the development boundary and those outside the site boundary that could be affected by the
proposed development.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
3
The following resources and receptors have been considered in this assessment:
• Statutory designated sites within 5 km of the development boundary;
• Non-statutory sites located within 2 km of the development boundary;
• Legally protected or otherwise notable1 species within the development boundary (or
recorded within the development boundary in the past five years) or within 2 km of the
development boundary; and
• Habitats or features within the development boundary.
2.3 Temporal scope
This assessment considers the future baseline of the area with and without the proposed
development. The baseline for this assessment will be considered as conditions at the time of
the current surveys (i.e. winter 2007/2008 to spring 2008. Impacts will be predicted and
assessed for the demolition, construction and operational phases of the proposed
development. The development as a whole is predicted to be fully operational in 2014.
2.4 Technical scope
The assessment considers the impacts on the resources and receptors listed above, including
loss of, or damage to sites and habitats resulting from:
• Permanent landtake;
• Temporary landtake;
• Dust deposition;
• Pollution;
• Cumulative effects; and
• General disturbance.
They also cover loss of or damage to species resulting from:
• Loss/damage to habitat (see above); and
• Noise, lighting and pollution.
The interaction between these impacts, and with other natural processes, is also considered
where relevant.
1 Such as those listed within Red Data Books or Biodiversity Action Plans
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
4
2.5 Legislative context
The following national conservation legislation is relevant to species and habitats that may be
impacted.
2.5.1 Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994 as amended)
The Regulations enact both the EC Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural
Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) and EC Directive 79/409/EEC on the
Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive). Specifically, they provide for the protection of sites
(Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA)) and species
notified under the Directives.
2.5.2 Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended)
This Act lists the species, where applicable their habitats, and the level of protection attributed
to them under UK statute.
2.5.3 Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000)
The CRoW Act strengthens the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) in several
key areas:
• Strengthening of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) protection;
• The inclusion of reckless in addition to the intentional nature of offences listed within
parts of WCA 1981; and
• A further requirement on the Government to have regard for biodiversity and to take
positive steps to further the conservation of species and habitats listed in the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
2.5.4 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006)
This act places a requirement on all public bodies to have regard for biodiversity and tasks the
Government to take positive steps to further the conservation of species and habitats listed in
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
2.6 Policy Context
2.6.1 National
The following national policies are relevant to species and habitats:
• The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) – This is the UK Government's response to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). It describes the country’s important biological
resources and has resulted in the production of detailed plans for the protection of key
habitats and species; and
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
5
• Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (including the
explanatory notes provided in Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Circular
06/05) highlights that “development proposals provide many opportunities for building-in
beneficial biodiversity … as part of good design. When considering such proposals,
local planning authorities should maximise such opportunities in and around
developments”.
2.6.2 Regional
The following policies from the Kent and Medway Structure Plan (2006) are considered
relevant to the proposed development
• Policy EN1 Protecting Kent’s Countryside: “Development in the countryside should seek
to maintain or enhance it. Development which will adversely affect the countryside will
not be permitted unless there is an overriding need for it which outweighs the
requirement to protect the countryside”;
• Policy EN6: International and National Wildlife Designations: “Development will not be
permitted where it would directly, indirectly or cumulatively, materially harm the scientific
or nature conservation interests of any of the following categories of sites :
a European site;
a proposed European site;
a Ramsar site;
a Site of Special Scientific Interest;
a National Nature Reserve”.
• Policy EN8: Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Biodiversity: “Wildlife
habitats and species will be protected, conserved and enhanced, especially through
long term, management and habitat creation schemes, particularly where they have
been identified as national and county priorities in the UK and Kent Biodiversity Action
Plan(s), or where they are protected under wildlife legislation. This will be secured by:
• ensuring that site evaluation is undertaken to establish the nature conservation
value of proposed development sites;
• identifying, safeguarding and managing existing and potential land for nature
conservation as part of development proposals, particularly where a connected
series of sites can be achieved;
• local planning authorities identifying locations and proposals for habitat and
species management, restoration and creation.
Development likely to have an adverse effect, directly, indirectly or cumulatively, on
important habitats or species will not be permitted unless:
there is an overriding need for the development that outweighs adverse impact on
nature conservation; and
adverse impact on an important nature conservation resource can be adequately
mitigated and/or compensated”
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
6
• Policy EN9: Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows: “Provision should be made for the
creation of new woodland, especially indigenous broad-leaved species, at appropriate
locations in Kent, including provision of new habitats as part of development proposals.
Tree cover and the hedgerow network should be maintained. Additionally, they should be
enhanced where this would improve the landscape, biodiversity, or link existing
woodland habitats”.
In addition policies from the Kent BAP (1997) are relevant, in particular with reference to the
following habitats:
• Hedgerows
To prevent further losses … to extend the hedgerow cover to create links between
isolated woodland and hedge;
All planting to use plants of native stock (where possible of local provenance);
Maintain current stock of hedgerow trees and establish new ones where absent.
• Lowland Farmland
Maintain the existing areas of semi-natural habitat within the farmland matrix and
create new areas increase where possible (e.g. field margins, number of ponds,
woodland shaws, hedges, wet grassland).
2.6.3 Local
The following policies from the Thanet District Adopted Local Plan (2006) are considered
relevant to the proposed site:
• Policy NC1: Habitats: “Development proposals which would result in the loss or damage
to semi-natural habitats or features, will not be permitted. Exceptionally, where a specific
local regional or national need has been identified which overrides the necessity of
retaining the site and for which no suitable alternative site exists, at least an equivalent
area of corresponding habitat will be expected to be created, at the developers expense,
at a suitable location within the district, and well related to other existing habitats. Where
appropriate, the effective long-term management of habitat sites and features will be
secured through the use of planning conditions, legal agreements or other suitable
mechanisms.”
• Policy NC2: Nature Reserve and SSSI: “Development which would materially harm or
detract from the scientific or nature conservation interest of the Thanet SSSI’s or
National Nature Reserve, either directly or indirectly, will not be permitted. Exceptionally,
where it can be demonstrated that the need for the proposed development is compelling
and overrides the national importance of the SSSI’s, and no suitable alternative site
exists, mitigating measures should be incorporated into the development, to minimise the
impact of those proposals or enhance the scientific or nature conservation interest of the
area.”
• Policy NC4: Habitat management and creation: “Development should, wherever
practical, make positive contributions to the retention, creation and management of
wildlife habitats which could contribute to a network of wildlife corridors and stepping
stones”.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
7
3 Methodology
3.1 Assessment methodology
The assessment of significance of effect is determined through combining the magnitude of an
impact with the value and sensitivity of the ecological resource. Categories of severity of effect
have been devised for each combination of impact magnitude and receptor value.
Impacts are discussed individually for each receptor. An overall value has been determined for
total impact on each receptor. In general, a precautionary approach has been adopted such
that the overall severity/magnitude is judged to be at the level of the highest individual impact
on that particular resource.
In order to determine the significance of any effects of the proposed development, it is
necessary to define a robust assessment methodology. This is achieved as follows:
• The value of nature conservation resources present is identified;
• The magnitude of the various impacts that act upon these nature conservation
resources is determined (independently of the evaluation of the resource);
• The significance of the effects of the development is determined using a standard matrix
linking the previous two elements.
3.1.1 Value of resource
An ecological resource is defined as a site/area of nature conservation value. Each site/area
may have more than one feature of value that it supports (for example different habitats or
populations and/or communities of species). Individual ecological resources and the features
that comprise each resource are evaluated according to generally accepted criteria, including
designation and protection status. To attain each level of value/importance, an ecological
resource or one of the features should meet the criteria set out in Table 7.1 below. In some
cases, professional judgement may be required to increase or decrease the allocation of
specific value. This judgement is based on consideration of the following additional criteria:
• Population trends;
• Sustainability of resource;
• Representativeness;
• Potential for substitution/re-creation;
• Position in the ecological unit.
Habitats considered by Natural England to be of national importance for nature conservation
are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are also a range of
international designations including Ramsar sites, candidate Special Areas of Conservation
(cSAC), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), proposed Special Protection Areas (pSPA) and
Special Protection Areas (SPA). Wildlife areas of importance at the local level can be
designated as Local Nature Reserves (LNR) and/or as non-statutory Local Wildlife Sites.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
8
Table 7.1: Value of ecological resource
Value of
Resource
Examples of Selection Criteria
International
(Very high)
An internationally designated site or proposed/candidate site (SPA, pSPA, SAC,
cSAC, possible SAC and/or Ramsar site).
A substantial proportion (e.g. 1%) of the international resource of a habitat listed in
Annex I of the Habitats Directive.
A substantial proportion of the international resource of an internationally important
species or site supporting such a species (or supplying a critical element of their
habitat requirement) e.g.: UK Red Data Book species that is listed as occurring in 15
or fewer 10 km squares in the UK, that is of unfavourable conservation concern in
Europe or of uncertain conservation status or global conservation concern in the UK
BAP; and species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive.
National (High)
A nationally designated site (SSSI, ASSI, NNR, Marine Nature Reserve) or a discrete
area, which meets the selection criteria for national designation (e.g. SSSI selection
criteria).
A substantial proportion (e.g. 1%) of the UK resource of a habitat listed in Annex I of
the Habitats Directive or the UK BAP.
A substantial proportion of a nationally important species or site supporting such a
species (or supplying a critical element of their habitat requirement) e.g.: Species
listed on Schedules 5 and 8 of the WCA (1981); other UK Red Data Book species;
and other species listed as occurring in 15 or fewer 10km squares in the UK.
Regional
(Medium-High)
Sites/populations which exceed the County-level designations but fall short of SSSI
selection guidelines, including the following:
A substantial proportion of the regional resource of a UK BAP habitat or a key habitat
identified in a Regional BAP;
A population of a species listed as being nationally scarce which occurs in 16-100
10km squares in the UK;
A substantial proportion of the regional population of a species listed in a Regional
BAP or relevant Natural Area on account of its regional rarity or localisation; or
Sites supporting 1% or more of a regional population.
County/
Metropolitan
(Medium)
Some designated sites (including SNCI, County Wildlife Sites, Sites of Metropolitan
Importance), Local Nature Reserves.
A substantial area of habitat identified in the County BAP.
Substantial populations of the following species:
• Species listed in a County/Metropolitan “red data book” or BAP on account
of its rarity/localisation in a county context; or
• Sites supporting 1% or more of a county population.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
9
Value of
Resource
Examples of Selection Criteria
District (or
Unitary Authority,
City, or Borough)
(Low-Medium)
Some designated sites (Local Nature Reserves, Sites of Borough Importance). Viable
areas of habitat identified in a District/Borough BAP.
Sites/features that are scarce within the District/Borough or that appreciably enrich
the District/Borough habitat resource.
Sustainable populations of the following species:
• Species listed in a District/Borough BAP on account of its rarity/localisation
in a district context; or
• Sites supporting 1% or more of a District/Borough population.
Local (or Parish)
(Low)
Sites/populations, which appreciably enrich the local habitat resource (for example
hedgerows of medium richness).
Negligible No significant ecological value
3.1.2 Magnitude of Impact
An ‘impact’ is defined as any factor which may result in a change to the existing nature
conservation resource. Once impacts have been determined, the magnitude of each impact
must be assessed. The criteria utilised to determine the magnitude of impact are identified in
Table 7.2. below.
Table 7.2 Magnitude of impact
Magnitude of
Impact
Description
High Adverse
Landtake of a habitat or feature, if it occurs, may be greater than 20%. Where
impacts are indirect, disruption of ecosystem functioning occurs, with loss of species
and loss of diversity. Changes may be long-lasting or permanent, particularly if loss
or major alteration of wildlife habitat occurs. Recovery, if possible, is likely to take
more than three years.
Medium Adverse
Landtake of a habitat or feature, if it occurs is less than 20% of the area. Where
impacts are indirect, qualitative change occurs. The abundance of some of the more
sensitive species may be reduced. Changes in habitat may be longer lasting. Impact
is reversible, or nearly so, although recovery of impacts other than landtake may take
up to three years following cessation of impact.
Low Adverse
Landtake of a habitat or feature, if it occurs, affects less than 5% of the area. Where
indirect impacts occur, some changes in species abundance may occur, but the
impact is reversible. Full recovery is likely in the short term, probably within a year,
following the cessation of impact.
Negligible
With ecological receptors it is often not possible to state categorically that there will
be no impact, but this category is used when the chance of any impact is very low
and if it occurs it is well below the level of detection.
Positive
The change is likely to benefit the receptor in terms of its conservation status, or
substitute the receptor for a one of equal or greater conservation value.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
10
3.1.3 Significance of effects
3.1.3.1 Definition of significance criteria
Significance is assessed against three positive, neutral and three negative categories, as
described in Table 7.3 below.
Table 7.3. Definition of significance criteria
Significance
criteria
Definition
Major adverse The proposed scheme could result in significant major effects with a high risk of
damaging the environment.
Moderate adverse The proposed scheme could cause significant effects with a high risk of damaging
the environment.
Minor adverse The proposed scheme could cause minor effects with a high risk of damaging the
environment. These effects are generally likely to be significant only at the local or
district level.
Neutral Generate a change that is unlikely to affect the integrity of a resource or feature
given the level of information currently available or; Cause effects that would not be
relevant to this decision-making scale. (i.e. effects which are unlikely to be
significant).
Minor Beneficial The proposed scheme would cause a minor improvement in the current situation
with a decreased risk of damaging the environment.
Moderate
Beneficial
The proposed scheme would cause a significant improvement in the current
situation with a decreased risk of damaging the environment.
Major Beneficial The proposed scheme would cause a great improvement in the current situation
with a decreased risk of damaging the environment.
Taking the ecological value of receptor and magnitude into account, these criteria can be
combined to produce an overall evaluation of whether an effect is significant.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
11
Table 7.4: Significance evaluation matrix
Magnitude Value of receptor
of Impact
Very High
(International)
High (National)
Medium – High
(Regional)
Medium (County/
Metropolitan)
Low – Medium
(District/Borough)
Low (Local/Parish/
Neighbourhood)
Negligible
High Major Major
Major/
Moderate
Moderate Moderate
Moderate/
Minor
Neutral
Medium Major
Major/
Moderate
Moderate Moderate Moderate
Moderate/
Minor
Neutral
Low
Major/
Moderate
Moderate Moderate Minor Neutral Neutral Neutral
Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral
3.1.3.2 Level of confidence in predictions
It is also important to consider the likelihood that a change/activity will occur as predicted and
also the degree of confidence in the significance of the effect. For the purposes of this
assessment this will achieved through reference to the following four point scale:
• Certain/near-Certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher.
• Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%.
• Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%.
• Extremely Unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.
3.2 Desk study
A desk-based study was conducted with the aim of identifying details of:
• Statutory designated sites (of national and international importance) for nature
conservation within 5km of the site;
• Non-statutory designated sites (of local importance) for nature conservation within 2km
of the site;
• Records of protected or notable species within 2km of the site.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
12
Table 7.5: List of organisations/websites consulted in desk study
Organisation/website Information requested
Multi-agency Geographic Information for
the Countryside (MAGIC) website
(www.magic.gov.uk)
Location of statutory designated sites within a 5km
radius
Kent and Medway Biological Records
Centre (KMBRC)
Location of non-statutory sites, protected and/or
notable species located within a 2km radius
Kent badger group Badger records within a 2km radius
3.3 Field surveys
3.3.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey
A Scott Wilson ecologist undertook an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the site on 26th
January, 2008. The aim of this survey was to identify the type, extent and quality of habitats
present within the site and to identify the potential of the site to support notable species.
Habitats were mapped in accordance with JNCC guidelines as laid out in Handbook for Phase
1 Habitat Survey: A Technique for Environmental Audit (1990).
Target notes were recorded to provide supplementary information on species composition and
structure and on habitats too small to map. The survey was extended to include targeted signs
of protected species as described by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (now the
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment) (1995).
The Phase 1 survey was also designed to confirm the need for detailed species surveys based
on assessment of habitat suitability for the groups and species concerned, linked to the results
of the desk study.
In addition, the survey included a search for invasive species listed under Schedule 9 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended). Specifically Japanese knotweed (Fallopia
japonica) and giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum).
Botanical nomenclature follows that laid out by Stace (1997) New Flora of the British Isles –
Second Edition.
3.3.2 Great crested newt
Full details of the methodologies utilised during both the scoping survey and the
presence/absence survey can be found within the amphibian and reptile report, which is
included as Appendix 7.2.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
13
3.3.2.1 Scoping survey
No ponds are located within the site boundary. However, two balancing ponds (Pond A and
Pond B) (see Phase 1 Habitat Map - Figure 7.1) are located adjacent to the western boundary
of the site.
The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) score for each of the ponds located adjacent to the site
boundary was calculated as part of a scoping exercise conducted during February 2008. On
the basis of these results the decision was taken to conduct full presence/absence survey.
3.3.2.2 Presence/absence survey
Both Ponds A and B were surveyed on four occasions between 17th and 28th April 2008.
Torching, egg searching and bottle trapping were conducted during all visits.
All surveys were carried out according to the standard methodologies for great crested
newt survey, as laid out in Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature,
2001). All survey visits were conducted under suitable weather conditions.
3.3.3 Bats
3.3.3.1 Potential of trees to support roosting bats
All mature trees within or directly adjacent to the proposed development boundary were
assessed for their potential to support roosting bats on 26th January 2008. In the absence of a
full tree survey, arbitrary tree numbers were allocated.
All trees were initially assessed from the ground using close-focusing binoculars and a high -
powered torch to identify all features with the potential to be utilised by bats (e.g. cavities,
cracks, splits, woodpecker holes, ivy etc). For each feature where the presence of a roost could
not be confirmed or ruled out, features were classified in terms of bat roost potential (negligible,
low, moderate or high). This assessment was based on the presence of features such as rot
holes, loose bark, splits and dense ivy suitable to support bats and the size, extent and
orientation of these features. Where views were obscured, a precautionary approach was
adopted and the feature recorded as being of high bat roost potential.
Any trees found to contain features with moderate/high potential to support roosting bats were
subject to detailed investigation of these features on 19th March 2008. A team of two surveyors
utilising a ladder and endoscope investigated all moderate and high potential features for signs
of use by bats. The aim of this survey was to clarify the potential for these features to support
roosting bats.
3.3.3.2 Potential of buildings to support roosting bats
The large metal industrial buildings at the site are considered to have negligible potential to
support roosting bats and no further survey is proposed.
Full external and internal bat survey of a small brick building identified during the Phase 1
habitat survey (See TN23 - Figure 7.1) was conducted on 19th March 2008.
SI
SI
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SI SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
I
I
SI
SI
SI
I
POND B
POND A
SI
8
7
6
9
3
2
1
4
5
23
18
17
16
10
11 12
15
14
13
21
20
19
24
25
26
22
T6
T5
T4
T3
T2
T1
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
1:5,250
Plot Date: 28.03.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Manston Business Park Phase I.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
Target Note
Tree Number
Occasional Scrub
Standard Tree
Boundary Removed
Fence
Species Poor Hedgerow
Species Poor Hedgerow with Standard Trees
Earth Bank
Wall
Development Redline Boundary
Outside of Development Area
Bare Ground
Broadleaved Plantation
Dense Scrub
Standing Water
Tall Ruderals
PHASE 1
HABITAT MAP
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
FINAL
BB JS
FIGURE 7.1
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
1
A Arable
SI Species poor semi improved grassland
I Improved grassland
T1
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
14
Initially the building was carefully examined externally from the ground using close-focusing
binoculars, to assess the potential to support roosting bats. All potential bat access/egress
points and features with the potential to support roosting bats were identified and recorded,
along with any evidence which might indicate the location of roosts (such as bat droppings,
urine staining and feeding remains). For each feature where the presence of a roost could not
be confirmed or ruled out, features were classified in terms of bat roost potential as being either
of negligible, low, moderate or high potential. This assessment was based on the presence of
features such as roof voids, soffit boards and hanging tiles that could offer potential roost sites
for bats.
The roof void in the east of the building was inspected from the exterior of the building, using a
ladder due to the potential danger of loose asbestos fibres in this section of the roof void. No
access was possible to the roof void in the west end of the building, however the roof void in
this area was inspected via a hole in the chipboard ceiling using torches.
3.3.3.3 Bat activity
A series of three dusk/dawn bat activity surveys were conducted at the site between 15th
and 27th May 2008. In line with standard guidance (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007)
surveys covered the following periods:
• Dusk – approximately half an hour before sunset to 2 hours after sunset; and
• Dawn - 2 hours before sunrise to sunrise.
During each survey a transect route (see Appendix 7.3 – Figure 2) was walked by two
surveyors carrying bat detectors linked to mini-disk players. The transect route
incorporated a total of 14 listening stations at those points considered most likely to be
of value to bats. For the duration of each survey the transect was walked at a steady
pace, stopping for two minutes at each of the pre-defined listening stations.
The time, location, number and species (where possible) was recorded for all bats
encountered during the survey. Any indications of bat roosts that may be present in or
close to the immediate survey area or close were also sought. Such indicators can
include early emerging bats (in relation to the sunset time), as well as “streams of bats”
leaving a roost site.
3.3.4 Birds
Bird surveys focused on land within the red line boundary. However, if the site were found to
support significant populations of wintering or breeding birds, consideration was given to the
need to extend the survey area to include habitats which might be affected by birds displaced
from the development site.
3.3.4.1 Wintering bird survey
The survey was undertaken by an experienced ornithologist using an adaptation of the British
Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Winter Farmland Bird Survey method (1999).
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
15
The Winter Bird Survey visits are ideally aimed at the peak winter season to identify birds
foraging and resting at the site. Due to commissioning later in the season, these visits were
evenly spaced in late winter and were on 10th January, 1st and 21st February, and 7th March
2008.
The surveys were undertaken in suitable weather conditions and between 1.5 hours after
sunrise and before 1.5 hours before sunset to record birds using the site for foraging. All
surveys were undertaken avoiding unfavourable weather conditions, such as heavy rain and/or
strong winds, fog or heavy snow.
The surveys involved walking a transect at slow pace to identify species and numbers present,
and to include a good representation of the habitats on the site. This involved walking as close
to hedgerows as possible to ‘flush out’ hidden birds. In addition nine ‘observation points’ were
included to observe wide views across this open site, for any distant activity or visible flight
lines. Birds were identified by sight and call and records were made of whether they were
foraging, resting or flying over the site. Birds were recorded using standard BTO codes.
3.3.4.2 Breeding bird survey
Breeding birds depend largely on fixed territories. The specific locations of territories
can be mapped, the centres of which generally equate to the most likely locations of
nests. Territory maps for each species were produced and analysed.
Breeding birds were surveyed by recording the presence of territorial males who defend
an area around their nests from neighbouring birds, using the Common Bird Census
(CBC) methodology (Marchant et al. 1990). Under this method territorial males are
detected visually and by their song, the purpose of which is to deter neighbouring males
from entering their territory.
Four survey visits were undertaken by an ornithologist during April and May 2008 (4th
April, 23rd April, 13th May and 29th May 2008). All surveys were undertaken in the morning
between 0700h and 1200h.
Birds were surveyed by walking along or close to the red line boundary of the site,
recording birds within and outside, but close to the boundary. All birds were noted using
standard BTO notation codes. A bird of a given species was said to hold a breeding
territory if it was recorded in the same vicinity of suitable breeding habitat on at least
two of the four visits.
To reduce bias associated with time of day, the route direction was varied on each visit,
with two visits clockwise from the start point and two anti-clockwise. On 4th April and
13th May, surveys were performed clockwise, and on 23rd April and 29th May were
performed anti-clockwise. Surveys were also undertaken avoiding any unfavourable
weather, such as heavy rain and/or strong winds.
The conservation status of recorded birds was then assessed on the basis of the
following criteria:
• EU Birds Directive 1979 Annex 1,
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
16
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 1,
• UK BAP Priority species,
• DEFRA species of principal importance under Section 74 of the CRoW Act 2000
(now to be reviewed and revised under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and
Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006),
• Kent BAP ‘key’ species and
• Green, Red and Amber lists of Birds of Conservation Concern.
3.3.5 Reptiles
The following areas of the site were identified during the extended Phase 1 as containing
habitat potentially suitable for use by common reptile species (see Figure 7.1):
• Areas of tussocky species poor and rough grassland adjoining Pond A;
• Mosaic of scrub, grassland and tall ruderals located to the east of Pond B;
• Embankment and adjoining areas of species poor semi-improved grassland
habitat at TN24.
Subsequently a survey for common reptiles was conducted at the site, in accordance
with the guidelines given by Froglife (1999) and Gent & Gibson (1998). The primary aim
of this survey was to determine the presence/absence of common reptiles at the site,
and if present to give an indication of the population size.
A total of 35 artificial refugia (a combination of black painted corrugated tin and roofing
felt) were placed at the site on 9th April 2008 and checked on a total of seven occasions
between 17th April and 29th May 2008.
A detailed methodology is provided within Appendix 7.2.
3.3.6 Badgers
A comprehensive badger survey of the site was conducted by an experienced surveyor on 26th
January 2008. The survey included all areas of suitable habitat within the site and those
located within 30m of the site boundary where access allowed.
Survey was conducted according to the standard methodology laid out in Surveying for
badgers (Harris et al, 1989). All areas of the site were walked, focusing on identifying signs of
badger activity including the presence of setts, footprints, paths, latrines, hairs, foraging signs
and bedding material. All signs of badger activity were recorded, including for setts the
classification of each entrance according to the level of use and the number of entrance holes.
Subsequently the land surrounding Manston Riding Centre (which directly adjoins the
site) was surveyed on 11th June 2008 using the same methodology. The aim of this
additional visit was to investigate a number of off-site entrances identified during the
previous survey. Particular attention was paid to the steep, scrub-covered bank that
marks the eastern boundary of the riding centre.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
17
3.3.7 Invertebrates
An experienced entomologist visited the site on 25th May 2008. A walk-over assessment
of the site was complemented by the collection of specimens. The day was warm and
bright, but heavy rain had fallen during the night and the herbage and ground were still
very wet.
Invertebrates were located and collected by general methods using sweep net, beating
tray and a stout knife. Flowers, leaf surfaces, rocks, bare ground, logs and tree trunks
were examined by visual searching. Voucher specimens of all but the most common and
characteristic species have been kept.
The survey concentrated on the following major insect groups: Coleoptera (beetles),
Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (bugs, froghoppers etc), Hymenoptera (bees, wasps and ants)
and Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). Some examples of other groups were noted if
seen.
Species recorded were categorised into the following accepted categories of ‘nationally
rare’ (Red Data Book or RDB) and ‘nationally scarce’ (notable);
• Endangered (RDB-1). The rarest taxa. Taxa in danger of extinction in Great
Britain; species with very few recorded localities or living in especially vulnerable
habitats.
• Vulnerable (RDB-2). Very rare species. Taxa likely to move into the RDB1
category; species declining in their range.
• Rare (RDB-3). Rare species. Taxa with small populations and which are at risk;
species estimated to occur in 15 or fewer of the 10-km squares in the national
Ordnance Survey grid since 1970.
• Insufficiently known (RDB-K). Species thought to be very rare in Britain, recorded
from less than 15 of the 10-km squares of the national Ordnance Survey grid since
1970, and which warrant RDB classification of some sort, but for which there is a
recognized lack of accurate information.
• Nationally scarce (notable A). Very local species, thought to occur in 16 to 30 of
the 10-km squares of the national Ordnance Survey grid since 1970.
• Nationally scarce (notable B). Very local species, thought to occur in 31 to 100 of
the 10-km squares of the national Ordnance Survey grid since 1970.
• Nationally scarce status is sometimes not subdivided into categories A and B,
(notable, occurring in 16 to 100 10-km squares).
• Very local status is a much more subjective, but nevertheless useful, measure of
scarcity and is based on personal experience, published and unpublished records.
It is applied to species that are very limited in distribution or confined to very
limited specialist habitats.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
18
4 Defining the baseline
This section provides a summary description of the nature conservation resources present in
the study area and an appraisal of their value. Resources have been identified in terms of
designated sites, habitats, and individual species or groups.
4.1 Designated sites
4.1.1 Desk study
No sites of national or international importance are located at or adjacent to the proposed
development boundary. A total of seven sites of national or international importance are located
within 5km of the proposed site. All of these sites are associated with the coastline and are
located over 3km from the proposed development site. Details are summarised in Table 7.6
below:
Table 7.6 – Statutory designated sites located within 5km of the proposed development
Site and
designation
Reasons for notification Distance from
site
Thanet Coast
Special Area of
Conservation
(SAC)
Longest stretch of coastal chalk in the UK supporting Annex 1
habitats which include reefs on soft chalk and submerged or
partially submerged sea caves.
3.2km
Sandwich Bay SAC Diverse sand dune system supporting a range of Annex 1
habitats including embryonic, shifting and fixed dunes.
3.1km
Thanet Coast and
Sandwich Bay
Special Protection
Area (SPA) &
Ramsar site
Coastal site consisting of a long stretch of rocky shore, adjoining
areas of estuary, sand dune, maritime grassland, saltmarsh and
grazing marsh. The site holds important numbers of Turnstone
(Arenaria interpres), and is also used by large numbers of
migratory birds as they make landfall in Britain in spring or depart
for continental Europe in autumn.
3.2km
Thanet Coast Site
of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI)
Unstable chalk cliffs and foreshore (including shingle and sand
mudflats) with smaller areas of saltmarsh, coastal lagoons,
coastal gill woodland and cliff top grassland
3.1km
Sandwich Bay to
Hacklinge Marshes
SSSI
Most important sand dune system in South East England
supporting a range of habitats including mudflats, saltmarsh,
chalk cliffs etc and a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna.
3.1km
Sandwich and
Pegwell Bay
National Nature
Reserve (NNR)
The reserve is a mixture of natural, semi-natural and artificial
habitats. Natural habitats include; eroding chalk cliffs and wave
cut platforms, intertidal mudflats, developing beaches, sand
dunes and saltmarsh.
3.1km
A single non-statutory site of local importance lies within the 2km search boundary. This site is
located around 1.1km to the south west of the proposed development and consists of a stretch
of roadside verge. Details are given in Table 7.7 below:
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
19
Table 7.7 – Non-statutory sites located within 2km of the proposed development
Site and designation Reasons for notification Distance
from site
Stretch of verge
adjoining the A299 -
Roadside Nature
Reserve (RNR)
Network of roadside verges identified as scarce or threatened
habitats or species and managed by Kent Wildlife Trust. No
specific information for this site provided.
1.1. km
4.1.2 Evaluation
Thanet Coast SAC, Sandwich Bay SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and
Ramsar site are all considered to be of International (Very high) ecological value. Thanet Coast
SSSI, Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI and Sandwich and Pegwell Bay NNR are all
entirely contained within these sites and are therefore for the purpose of this assessment also
considered to be of International (Very high) ecological value. This assessment is based upon
the rare coastal habitats and diversity of species which these sites support.
The Roadside Nature Reserve (RNR) which is located adjacent to the A299 is considered to be
of District (Low-Medium) ecological value.
4.2 Habitats
4.2.1 Desk study
The desk study identified no notable habitats (other than those located within designated sites
described above) within the search area.
4.2.2 Field survey
The following Phase 1 habitats (see Figure 7.1 and Appendix 7.1) were identified at the site:
• Arable fields and bare ground;
• Species poor semi-improved grassland;
• Improved grassland;
• Tall ruderals;
• Hedgerows, standard trees and scrub;
• Ponds;
• Buildings and hardstanding.
4.2.2.1 Arable fields and bare ground
The majority of the site consists of large flat arable fields. At the time of survey (January 2008),
these supported a young winter barley crop. The fields appear to be intensively farmed with no
grassland field margins.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
20
In addition the site contains several small areas of bare ground in the west of the site (e.g.
TN3) where topsoil appears to have been stripped to control ruderal growth.
4.2.2.2 Species poor semi-improved grassland
The site supports a number of areas of species poor semi-improved grassland.
A small area of unmanaged species poor semi-improved grassland is located on the western
boundary of the site adjacent to Pond A. The sward is dominated by red fescue (Festuca rubra)
with abundant false-oat grass (Arrhenatherum elatius). In addition it contains frequent bristly
ox-tongue (Picris echoides), locally frequent Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus). Occasional
species include creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), dove’s-foot crane’s-bill (Geranium molle),
Brassica sp and ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata).
In addition several large areas of species poor semi-improved grassland (e.g. TN2, TN7, TN8 &
TN9) are located in close proximity to the existing industrial buildings located towards the
centre of the site. The sward in these areas is generally cut short and dominated by common
bent (Agrostis capillaris) and perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne) with frequent ribwort
plantain (Plantago lanceolata), common daisy (Bellis perennis), bristly ox-tongue (Picris
echoides). Occasional species include dove’s-foot crane’s-bill (Geranium molle), common
cat’s-ear (Hypochoeris radicata) and common field speedwell (Veronica persica).
An area of similar species composition but with a moderate sward length is located to the south
(TN24) of the above areas. A number of fields of horse grazed pasture with a similar species
composition adjoin the B2190 in the south of the site.
The small area of ground adjoining the track to the north of the Cummins factory (TN5)
supports a mosaic of long sward species poor semi-improved grassland with occasional tall
ruderals and occasional bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna)
scrub.
4.2.2.3 Improved grassland
Two small fields of improved grassland are present within the redline boundary. The first is
located to the east of the residential properties adjoining Alland Grange Lane. The second is
located adjacent to the B2190 in the south east of the site. Both are dominated by very shortly
grazed perennial rye grass sward.
4.2.2.4 Tall ruderals
The area to the east of Columbus Avenue consists of disturbed ground which is now
revegetating with a sward dominated by ruderals. The sward contains abundant Yorkshire fog
(Holcus lanatus) with frequent bristly ox-tongue (Picris echoides) and charlock (Sinapis
arvensis) and locally abundant hemlock (Conium maculatum) and red fescue (Festuca rubra).
Cover is patchy with area mostly dominated with ruderals and some areas of bare ground.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
21
4.2.2.5 Hedgerows, standard trees and scrub
Many of the field boundaries within the proposed development site are not demarked by
hedgerows. Those hedges which are present are generally flail cut and species poor,
dominated by hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) with occasional field maple (Acer campestre)
and elder (Sambucus nigra).
The small remnant section of hedgerow located within the arable field to the west of Alland
Grange Lane (TN10) is dominated by hawthorn with occasional elder, field rose (Rosa
arvensis), English elm (Ulmus procera) and ivy (Ilex aquifolium). The sward below is species
poor with occasional hedge woundwort (Stachys sylvatica) and ruderals.
Standards of sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus) and English elm are found in close association
with the above section of hedge. In addition the hedgerow to the west of Alland Grange Lane
contains one semi-mature pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) and two mature English elm.
The steep embankment adjoining the Riding Centre is dominated by dense elder scrub with
frequent hawthorn and ivy. In addition small areas of bramble and hawthorn scrub are located
within the mosaic of habitat to the north of the Cummins factory.
A small area of semi-natural woodland containing mature English elm and pedunculate oak is
located at Alland Grange directly adjacent to the proposed development site. In addition small
areas of mixed broad-leaved plantation are located adjacent to the north west boundary of the
site (close to TN6) and on the eastern boundary (TN16).
4.2.2.6 Ponds
Two balancing ponds are located adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed
development site.
Pond A (TN1) appears to be relatively species poor, supporting dense stands of common reed
(Phragmites australis) on the western bank (~4m deep), locally dominant bulrush (Typha
latifolia), and occasional other common species. The eastern margin of the pond consists of a
steep-sided concrete headwall.
Pond B (TN6) supports a similar range of species to Pond A with the margins dominated by
common reed with occasional bulrush.
4.2.2.7 Buildings and hardstanding
Several large industrial units of metal construction are located towards the centre of the site. A
series of small wooden sheds are located in close proximity to these buildings. All of these
structures appear to be in a good condition.
A small single-storey brick building is located towards the centre of the site. This building is in a
poor state of repair with a pitched roof which consists mainly of asbestos cement panels. In
addition a number of domestic houses and converted farm buildings adjoin the proposed
development site.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
22
4.2.3 Evaluation
The majority of habitats at the site are considered to be of Local (Low) ecological value. In
addition the combination of habitats does not form any obvious significant ecological network
and as such the network of habitats at the site as a whole are considered to be of Local (Low)
ecological value. Habitats are assessed individually below. The value of populations/individuals
of protected species associated with these habitats is assessed independently below.
4.2.3.1 Arable fields and bare ground
Around 80% of the proposed development site consists of species poor arable fields and bare
ground. No arable field margins (a UK BAP Priority Habitat type) are present.
This area of habitat does fall within the Lowland Farmland Habitat Action Plan (HAP) described
in the Kent BAP. However, the objective of this HAP is to maintain suitable areas of seminatural
habitat within the farmland matrix (rather than all lowland farmland). As such it is not
relevant in evaluating the value of the arable habitats present. Arable farmland is abundant
within the wider local area and as such the areas on site (58ha) are considered to be of only
Local (Low) ecological value.
4.2.3.2 Species poor semi-improved grassland
The small areas of species poor grassland which are present at the site are relatively
ubiquitous. Given the relatively small extent of these areas (9ha) they are considered in terms
of this assessment to be of Local (Low) ecological value.
4.2.3.3 Improved grassland
The areas of improved grassland are species poor, and are considered to be of negligible
ecological value.
4.2.3.4 Tall ruderals
The area of tall ruderal habitat appears to have developed at the site relatively recently,
following the stripping of topsoil from the area. The community appears to be species poor,
relatively homogenous and limited in extent. This area is therefore considered to be of only
Local (Low) ecological value.
4.2.3.5 Hedgerows, standard trees and scrub
The scattered scrub within the development boundary is species poor and limited in extent. The
extent of the hedgerows present is also limited given the size of the total site. Those present
are generally species poor, however their value is enhanced by the presence of mature
standards (either within or adjacent to the hedgerow) in some areas. None of the hedgerows
present are considered to meet the ecological requirements to qualify as ‘important hedgerows’
under The Hedgerow Regulations 1997.
However, hedgerows are a UK BAP Priority Habitat Type and the subject of a HAP within the
Kent BAP. Due to the decline of this habitat type on both a national and local level the
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
23
hedgerows and associated mature standards and scrub present are considered to be of District
(Low - Medium) ecological value.
4.2.3.6 Ponds
The two balancing ponds which adjoin the site both appear to be botanically relatively species
poor. Both are considered to fall within the Kent BAP HAP for Standing Water which has the
target of retaining all current areas of standing water in Kent. Study of Ordnance Survey (OS)
mapping suggests that standing water bodies are relatively scarce in the immediate
surrounding 2km area. As a result, despite the small size and function of the balancing ponds
they are considered to be of District (Low-Medium) ecological value.
4.2.3.7 Buildings and hardstanding
The buildings and hardstanding at the site are considered to be of negligible ecological value.
4.3 Species
4.3.1 Protected and/or notable plants
4.3.1.1 Desk study
No protected or notable plant species have been previously recorded within the proposed
development site. The notable species dense-flowered fumitory (Fumaria densiflora) was
recorded approximately 1km to the north west of the site in 1987.
4.3.1.2 Field study
No signs of protected or notable plants were recorded during the Phase 1 habitat survey.
However, it is acknowledged that the timing of the botanical survey was not suitable to detect
all
4.3.1.3 Evaluation
While the timing of the botanical survey was not optimal, given the habitats present at the site
the potential for the presence of protected or notable species is considered very low. As such
the site is considered to be of negligible value for protected and/or notable plants.
4.3.2 Amphibians
4.3.2.1 Desk study
There are no previous records of great crested newt from within the proposed development
site. However, great crested newts have previously been recorded at Quex Park (around 600m
to the north-west of the proposed development site).
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
24
Table 7.8 – Protected and/or notable amphibians recorded within 2km of the proposed
development
Species
(common
name)
Species (Latin
name)
Date of
last record
Distance
from site
(m)
Legal Status
Great
Crested
Newt
Triturus cristatus 1985 600 Conservation Regulations 1994,
WCA Schedule 5, Habitats
Directive Annex 2
Smooth
Newt
Triturus vulgaris 1985 600 Bern Convention, Appendix 3
Palmate
Newt
Triturus
helveticus
1985 600 Bern Convention, Appendix 3
4.3.2.2 Field survey
4.3.2.2.1 Scoping
Two balancing ponds are located adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed
development site. Pond A is around 80m in length and between 10-15m wide. The eastern
boundary of the pond consists of a concrete headwall, however the western margin contains
some shallow areas, in particular in the north of the pond. The water quality appears good and
only around 10% of the western bank is shaded. The surrounding banks and small area of
rough grassland adjacent to the pond provide potentially suitable newt foraging habitat.
Pond B is around 45m in length and varies between 10-20m in width. While some sections of
the pond appear to support deep water, the eastern and western margins include some shallow
sections suitable for egg laying and display. The water quality appears good and only around
15% of the margin is shaded. The surrounding areas of grassland and young plantation
represents potentially suitable terrestrial habitat.
HSI scores for the ponds located adjacent to the site area as follows:
• Pond A (Long thin pond adjoining existing roundabout) – HSI = 0.76
• Pond B (Pond to the north of existing factory) – HSI = 0.80.
The lowest published HSI score obtained at a site known to support breeding GCNs is 0.43
(Oldham et al, 2000).
4.3.2.2.2 Presence/absence survey
Full survey results are included within Appendix 7.2.
No great crested newts were recorded during the presence/absence survey.
A maximum count of one adult smooth newt was recorded at Pond A. In addition the
pond was found to support a large number of goldfish and a small number of large koi
carp.
A maximum count of one adult smooth newt and six common frogs was recorded at
Pond B. No fish were recorded.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
25
4.3.2.3 Evaluation
Based on the completion of a full presence /absence survey under suitable conditions,
great crested newts are presumed to be absent from both Ponds A and B.
Using the guidance table provided in Chapter 8 of the Herpetofauna Workers Manual
(Eds. Gent and Gibson, 1998) it is possible to make a broad estimate of population size.
On this basis Pond A is assumed to support a ‘low’ population of smooth newt. Pond B
is assumed to support ‘low’ populations of both smooth newt and common frog.
Based on the above the populations of common amphibians associated with Ponds A
and B are considered to be of only local (low) value.
4.3.3 Bats
4.3.3.1 Desk study
All species of bat and their roosts (whether bats are present or not) are protected under the
Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Table 7.9 – Bat species recorded within vicinity of the proposed development
Species
(common
name)
Species (Latin
name)
Date of
last record
Distance
from site
(m)
Legal Status
Common
pipistrelle
bat
Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
26/07/2001
500
Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
Soprano
pipistrelle
bat
Pipistrellus
pygmaeus
18/06/1997 1600 Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
Brown longeared
bat
Plecotus auritus 24/01/2003 1250 Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
Natterer’s
bat
Myotis nattereri 09/01/2005 1250 Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
Whiskered
bat
Myotis
mystacinus
24/09/1985 2000 Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula 08/10/1985
2000
Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
ES Addendum - Chapter 7 – Ecology June 2008
26
Species
(common
name)
Species (Latin
name)
Date of
last record
Distance
from site
(m)
Legal Status
Daubenton’s
bat
Myotis
daubentonii
30/01/1988 1250 Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
Serotine bat Eptesicus
serotinus
20/08/2001 2600 Conservation Regulations
1994 Schedule 2, WCA
Schedule 5, Habitats Directive
Annex 2, CRoW Act 2000
4.3.3.2 Field survey
4.3.3.2.1 Trees
A total of seven mature trees with the potential to support roosting bats were identified during
the initial investigation of bat roosting potential. Based on this assessment a single mature
English elm (T2 – see Figure 7.1) (which is located in close association to a short area of
defunct hedgerow) was assessed to contains two features considered to have high potential to
support roosting bats. A further two trees (T3 and T4) were considered to have moderate
potential to support roosting bats.
No bats or signs of bats were identified during further investigation of these features. Revised
bat roost potential of all features are detailed in Table 7.10 below.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
27
Table 7.10 – Bat roosting potential of trees at the China Gateway site following further assessment
Tree number & species Nature of
feature
Approximate
height of feature
Direction
of cavity
Comments Bat roost
potential
T1 Sycamore Ivy cover 0-10m N/A Mature sycamore with ivy covered trunk. LOW
2 x
woodpecker
holes
4m East Cavities inspected using an endoscope and found
to be shallow (around 5cm deep), leading slightly
upwards. No signs of bats.
MODERATE
Branch
cavity
2.5m leading to
small cavity at 3m
South On west facing branch – cavity extends around
70cm and is around 5cm at its widest point. No
signs of bats found, but cavity could have thermal
stability required in hibernation/maternity roosts.
Cavity at 3m downwards facing, but cavity is
relatively dry.
HIGH (including
potential for
hibernation and
maternity roosts)
Branch
cavity
3.5m South On west facing branch – cavity extends around
100cm and is around 5cm at its widest point. No
signs of bats found, but cavity could have thermal
stability required in hibernation/maternity roosts.
HIGH (including
potential for
hibernation and
maternity roosts)
T2
English elm
Trunk cavity 2.5m South Trunk cavity leads to cavity beneath loose dead
bark above. This cavity under bark varies from 0.5
to 7cm at wide point and provides suitable roost
sites for crevice dwelling bat species.
MODERATE
Ivy cover - N/A Heavy T3 ivy cover. LOW
English elm
Trunk cavity 3m South Possible trunk cavity – entrance slightly obscured
by ivy cover.
MODERATE
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
28
Tree number & species Nature of
feature
Approximate
height of feature
Direction
of cavity
Comments Bat roost
potential
Ivy - N/A Dense T4 ivy cover. LOW
English elm
Branch
cavity
2m North Elbow of limb contains shallow cavity around 5cm
deep. No signs of bats identified.
MODERATE
T5
English Elm
Ivy - N/A Dense ivy cover. LOW
Branch
cavity
T6 8m South west Upward facing so likely to be filled by rainfall. LOW
English Elm
Ivy - N/A - LOW
T7
Pedunculate oak
No features Negligible
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
29
4.3.3.2.2 Buildings
The large metal industrial buildings and series of wooden sheds towards the centre of the site
are in good condition and no obvious potential access/egress points are present. In addition
they are likely to have poor thermal stability. As such they are considered to have negligible
potential to support roosting bats.
No signs of bat activity were identified during further survey of the small brick toilet block
located just to the north of the pyrotechnics company.
The toilet block is a single storey brick building in two sections, separated by an internal wall.
The building appears to date from around 1930. The building has a pitched roof clad with
sheets of corrugated asbestos cement and corrugated metal. There is no cavity wall. The
northern wall of the building is obscured by dense elder shrub, and could not be closely
inspected.
There are cracks present between bricks on the east and west walls of the building. These
cracks are mainly cobwebbed, and contain no signs of bats. No signs of bats were found on the
exterior of the building.
Windows on the south, west and east faces of the building are boarded up. Broken windows
create potential bat access points to the interior of the building. Cavities around 30cm wide are
present on the east and west face of the building, at the apex between the brick wall and
roofing material. This cavity leads to the roof void between the chipboard ceiling of the toilet
cubicles and the metal/asbestos sheet roof. This sheet roof sits on two wooden beams at the
gable.
No bats or signs of bats were found during internal survey of the building. The roof void is
generally unsuitable for bats, as there are few suitable cavities that could be used as roost
sites. The broken windows lead to toilet cubicles, which lack features that could be used by
roosting bats. A gap in the ceiling of one cubicle in the west of the building leads to the roof
void.
The roof void has some, limited potential to act as a transitory roost or feeding perch. However,
no feeding remains were seen. Due to the lack of suitable features and of signs of previous bat
activity, the building is considered overall to have low potential to support roosting bats.
4.3.3.2.3 Bat activity
Full results from the bat activity survey are included in Appendix 7.3.
Only two species of bat were recorded during the 2008 activity surveys, namely common
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) and soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus).
However, it is likely that a number of the other common species which were recorded in
the desk study (e.g. noctule and serotine) will also utilise the site on an occasional
basis.
For both common and soprano pipistrelle only low levels of activity were detected.
During dusk surveys occasional foraging passes were noted (a maximum of six passes
during any one visit). No activity was recorded during any of the dawn surveys.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
30
The small number of passes recorded were in general widely scattered across the areas
of suitable habitat at the site, with the only clear concentration associated with the area
of young plantation to the east of Pond B, just outside the site boundary. As such, little
or no bat activity was found to be associated with the majority of hedgerows and other
linear features that were identified during the extended Phase 1 habitat survey as being
potentially important to bats.
4.3.3.3 Evaluation
4.3.3.3.1 Trees
No trees roosts are known to occur at the site. However, the features identified within trees T2,
T3 and T4 have been identified as having high and moderate potential to support bats.
However, given the transitory nature of bat roosts and the fact that a relatively diverse range of
bat species (8 in total) have been recorded within 2km of the site, there is the potential that
these features could be utilised in the future. As such they are considered here as being of
Local (Low) conservation value.
Remaining trees are considered to be of negligible value with regard to roosting bats.
4.3.3.3.2 Buildings
Based on the results of the initial and further investigations all buildings at the site are
considered to be of negligible value for roosting bats.
4.3.3.3.3 Bat activity
Only two species of bat were recorded during the 2008 activity surveys, namely common
pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle.
Soprano pipistrelle is listed as a Priority species within the recently reviewed UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), based on its rapid decline over the last 25 years.
However, a species action plan is not yet available. Common pipistrelle is no longer
listed as a UK BAP Priority species.
While both species of pipistrelle have suffered a widespread national decline over the
last 25 years, the species remain relatively widespread. While areas of habitat suitable
for use in bat navigation and foraging are present within the development boundary,
surveys have shown that these are only utilised on an occasional basis.
Based on these results the site is considered to be of only Local (Low) value to the local
bat populations with regard to foraging and wider navigation.
4.3.4 Birds
4.3.4.1 Desk study
The only desk study recorded from within or adjacent to the site is for Great spotted
woodpecker (Dendrocopus major), at Manston Riding Centre. Great spotted woodpecker
is a red listed species on the RSPB Birds of Conservation Concern List.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
31
A summary of species listed on the European Communities Council Directive of the
Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds Directive) or on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (WCA1) are summarised in Table 7.11 below. A variety of other UK BAP
priority species and RSPB red and amber listed species have also previously been
recorded with a 2km radius. None of these records lie within the same 1km grid square
as the development site.
Table 7.11 Summary of records of protected or notable bird species within 2km
Common Name Scientific Name Species status
Hen harrier Circus cyaneus ECB, WCA1
Montagu’s harrier Circus pygargus ECB, WCA1
Merlin Falco columbarius ECB, WCA1
Hobby Falco subbuteo WCA1
Peregrine Falco peregrinnus ECB, WCA1
Quail Cotrurnix coturnix WCA1
Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria ECB
Ruff Philomachus pugnax ECB, WCA1
Wryneck Jynx torquilla ECB, WCA1
Black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros WCA1
Redwing Turdus viscivrous WCA1
4.3.4.2 Field survey
4.3.4.2.1 Wintering birds
A total of 31 species were identified foraging, roosting or flying throughout the survey area.
Common farmland species present can be divided into two categories, those associated with
the hedgerow, scrub and woodland habitats, and those associated with the open field
environment. Scrub, hedgerow and woodland species present included wren, blue tit, robin,
blackbird, dunnock, chaffinch, great tit, greenfinch and collard dove. Species characteristic of
the open field habitat were flocks of wood pigeon, black-headed gull and carrion crow, some in
large numbers. Around 200 wood pigeon were recorded on the 2nd visit flying around the site
and foraging in the open fields, along with 102 on the 3rd visit and 75 on the 4th visit. Other
notable counts included 34 crows on the 1st visit, 64 black-headed gull on the 2nd visit. Redwing
numbers were unusually low, with just the odd single bird. Also unusually no fieldfare flocks
were present.
Green woodpecker and great spotted woodpecker were only recorded foraging once and are
probably more closely associated with adjacent woodland areas. Skylark was recorded on all
four visits in the arable fields, but in low numbers. Numbers did increase as the season went
on, with the most on the 4th visit.
Waterfowl utilising the two water bodies adjacent to the site have been limited to low numbers
of common species, predominantly mallard and moorhen.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
32
4.3.4.2.2 Breeding birds
A total of 47 species were recorded during the survey. Appendix 7.4 lists all the bird
species recorded throughout the survey area with their relevant breeding activity. 23
species were recorded as breeding. Table 7.12 below presents the conservation and
protection status of the breeding species.
Figures 7.2 and 7.3 display the centre points of breeding territories
Table 7.12 Conservation status of breeding species within the site
Common
name
Specific
name
Wildlife and
Countryside
Act 1981,
Schedule 1
Red
list
Amber
list
Green
list
UK
BAP
priority
species
CRoW
Sect.
74
Starling Sturnus
vulgaris
House
sparrow
Passer
domesticus
Skylark Alauda
arvensis
Corn
bunting
Emberiza
calandra
Linnet Carduelis
cannabina
Grey
partridge
Perdix perdix
Song thrush Turdus
philomelos
Dunnock Prunella
modularis
Green
woodpecker
Picus viridis
Meadow
pipit
Anthus
pratensis
Blackbird Turdus
merula
Blackcap Sylvia
atricapilla
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
33
Common
name
Specific
name
Wildlife and
Countryside
Act 1981,
Schedule 1
Red
list
Amber
list
Green
list
UK
BAP
priority
species
CRoW
Sect.
74
Blue tit Parus
caeruleus
Greenfinch Carduelis
chloris
Great tit Parus major
Little grebe Tachybaptus
ruficollis
Mallard Anas
platyrhynchos
Moorhen Gallinula
chloropus
Robin Erithacus
rubecula
Reed
warbler
Acrocephalus
scirpaceus
Whitethroat Sylvia
communis
Wood
pigeon
Columba
palumbus
Wren Troglodytes
troglodytes
4.3.4.3 Evaluation
4.3.4.3.1 Wintering birds
Only one species listed in Schedule 1 of the WCA was recorded in the survey area, namely
redwing. Whilst this is a rare breeding bird in the north of the UK, they are common winter
visitors from Scandinavia and their presence at the site is of no particular significance.
Five UK BAP Priority species and four species of principal importance under Section 74 of the
CRoW Act 2000 (house sparrow (only UK BAP), linnet, reed bunting, song thrush and skylark)
were recorded in the survey area. No Kent LBAP species were recorded.
CB
S.
HS
CB
S.
S.
S.
ST
S.
LI
CB
S.
S.
S.
S.
LI
SG
HS
ST
SG
P.
S.
S.
S.
S.
CB
CB
HS
P.
CB
S.
S.
S.
S.
CB
S.
S. S.
D.
D.
D.
G.
MP
CB
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
Plot Date: 10.06.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 7.2 - Breeding Birds.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
BREEDING BIRD
TERRITORIES -
AMBER OR RED LISTED
SPECIES
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
BREEDING BIRDS
FINAL
JM GD
FIGURE 7.2
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
1:5,250
Red listed bird of
conservation concern
Amber listed bird of
conservation concern
Development
Redline Boundary
B. Blackbird
BC Blackcap
BT Blue Tit
CB Corn Bunting
D. Dunnock
G. Green Woodpecker
GR Greenfinch
GT Great Tit
HS House Sparrow
LG Little Grebe
LI Linnet
MA Mallard
MH Moorhen
MP Meadow Pipit
P. Grey Partridge
R. Robin
RW Reed Warbler
S. Skylark
SG Starling
ST Song Thrush
WH Whitethroat
WP Wood Pigeon
WR Wren
NB. Dot shows centre of
breeding territory
WR
WP
WR
WR
R.
WP
B.
BC BT
GT
WR
B.
B.
R.
WRWP
B.
WH
BC
WP
WR
B.
BC
R.
WR
B.
WH
B.
B.
WR
MH
RW
B.
RWMH
MH
B.
GR
MA
RW
MH
RW
MH
WH WH
LG
RW
BT WH
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
Plot Date: 10.06.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 7.3 - Breeding Birds_green.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
BREEDING BIRD
TERRITORIES -
GREEN LISTED
SPECIES
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
BREEDING BIRDS
FINAL
JM GD
FIGURE 7.3
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
1:5,250
Green listed birds of
conservation concern
Development
Redline Boundary
B. Blackbird
BC Blackcap
BT Blue Tit
CB Corn Bunting
D. Dunnock
G. Green Woodpecker
GR Greenfinch
GT Great Tit
HS House Sparrow
LG Little Grebe
LI Linnet
MA Mallard
MH Moorhen
MP Meadow Pipit
P. Grey Partridge
R. Robin
RW Reed Warbler
S. Skylark
SG Starling
ST Song Thrush
WH Whitethroat
WP Wood Pigeon
WR Wren
NB. Dot shows centre of
breeding territory
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
34
Five Birds of Conservation Concern Red List species (skylark, song thrush, reed bunting,
house sparrow and linnet) were recorded.
Many species (some in high numbers such as wood pigeon, black-headed gull and carrion
crow) were recorded utilising the open field habitats for feeding and roosting. Other wintering
communal species such as skylark and redwing were only present in low numbers. Flocks of
seed eating species were also in relatively low numbers with the largest flock being 35 linnet on
the 4th visit. This is probably due to the lack of a suitable source of seed plants and suitable
farming techniques that provide split grain and/or stubble on site.
The wintering bird communities recorded at the site were composed of common bird species
typical of arable agricultural land with hedgerows. No large concentrations of wintering birds of
particular conservation concern (such as lapwing and golden plover) were recorded.
Based on the above the site is considered to be of only Local (Low) value for wintering birds.
4.3.4.3.2 Breeding birds
No European protected species or UK specially protected species, under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act (1981) were identified as breeding within the survey area, although
one species (marsh harrier) was observed flying over the site.
Eight UK BAP Priority species were identified as breeding on the site (see Appendix 7.4)
(starling, house sparrow, skylark, corn bunting, linnet, grey partridge, dunnock, song
thrush), with one additional species (herring gull) using the site without evidence of
breeding. Five of these are also species of principal importance under Section 74 of the
CRoW Act 2000. No species on the local Kent BAP were recorded.
Seven Red List species were identified as breeding on the site (starling, house sparrow,
skylark, corn bunting, linnet, grey partridge and song thrush).
Three Amber List species (green woodpecker, meadow pipit and dunnock) were
identified as breeding on the site. Eight further Amber List species were observed
during surveys, without clear evidence of breeding (marsh harrier, kestrel, black-headed
gull, lesser black-backed gull, herring gull, stock dove, swallow, house martin).
Thirteen Green list species were recorded breeding on site (blue tit, whitethroat, reed
warbler, little grebe, moorhen, mallard, greenfinch, blackbird, wren, great tit, blackcap,
wood pigeon and robin).
The woodland and scrub habitat on the margins of the site were found to support the
greatest density of breeding species. In particular, the scrub and hedgerow habitat
adjoining the arable fields supports whitethroat, blackcap, wren, linnet and wood
pigeon. The more disturbed habitats adjacent to the riding centre and Alland Grange
supported a greater density of common ‘garden’ species such as blackbird, robin, blue
tit and wood pigeon.
The large arable fields provided breeding habitat for grey partridge, corn bunting and
skylark. In addition to their nationally protected species all three of these species are
likely to be notable in a local context.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
35
A total of six corn bunting breeding territories were identified within the site boundary,
all to the west of Alland Grange. A further two corn bunting territories are located
adjacent to the site boundary.
A maximum of 11 skylark territories were identified, the majority associated with the
area of arable land to the north of the existing business park.
A total of four grey partridge territories were identified, scattered widely across the site.
The two ponds towards the western side of the site were found to support range of
breeding species characteristic of wetland habitat including reed warbler, moorhen,
mallard.
The site is considered to be of District (Low-medium) importance for breeding birds due
primarily to the presence of corn bunting, skylark and grey partridge.
4.3.5 Reptiles
4.3.5.1 Desk study
No reptiles have been recorded at or within 2km of the proposed development boundary.
4.3.5.2 Field survey
No reptiles were recorded during the presence/absence survey.
4.3.5.3 Evaluation
Reptiles are presumed to be absent from the habitats within the development boundary. As
such the site is considered to be of negligible value for reptiles.
4.3.6 Badgers
4.3.6.1 Desk study
There are no previous records of badger within a 2km radius of the development boundary.
4.3.6.2 Field survey
No signs of badger activity were identified within the proposed development site.
Suitable habitat for the construction of badger setts in the remainder of the site is
limited to the bases of the existing hedgerows. No signs of badger activity were
recorded. There is evidence of both fox and rabbit activity in the wider site.
Initial surveys identified a number of large entrances on the eastern face of a steep
embankment within the grounds of Manston Riding School. Mammal paths running
below the barbed wire fence at the boundary of the proposed development site were
also recorded in this area, including some fox hairs.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
36
Closer investigation of these entrances shows that the majority consist of large rabbit
warrens, in places with merged entrance holes. One entrance hole is considerably larger
than the others, leading to a tunnel around 15cm in width. Several fox droppings were
found on the spoil heap suggesting that the hole is utilised by fox. No signs of badger
activity (such as latrines, snuffle holes or hairs) were found associated with any of the
entrances or within the remainder of the Riding Centre land.
4.3.6.3 Evaluation
No badger activity has been identified at the site, or within suitable adjoining habitat.
The site is considered to be of negligible value with respect to badgers and they are
presumed absent.
4.3.7 Invertebrates
4.3.7.1 Desk study
No protected or notable invertebrate species have been previously recorded at or within a 2km
radius of the site.
4.3.7.2 Field survey
Fifty-six invertebrate species were recorded. They can be broken down as follows:
• Coleoptera (beetles) - 30 species
• Diptera (flies) – 11 species
• Hemiptera (bugs) – 1 species
• Hymenoptera (bees, wasps etc) – 7 species
• Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) – 5 species
• Aranaea (spiders) – 2 species
Most of the insects seen or collected were common species, which might be expected to
occur in any open area in southern England. Very few species were associated with the
open areas of arable fields.
A summary of unusual or scarce insects found at the site is provided in Table 7.13
below. Full details of these species are provided in Appendix 7.5.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
37
Table 7.13 Summary of unusual or scarce insects recorded
Species Description Status
Myrmica specioides Small red ant Nationally Rare (RDB
category 3)
Ischnotus sequensi Minute black wevil Insufficiently known (RDB
category K)
Odynerus melanocephalus Medium sized black and
yellow mason wasp
Nationally scarce (notable A)
Harpalus ardosiacus Medium sized blue ground fly Nationally scarce (notable B)
Longitarus dorsalis Minute black and yellow flea
beetle
Nationally scarce (notable B)
Bruchidius varius Minute bean weevil Very local
Epyris niger Minute black parasitoid Very local
Graptus triguttatus Medium-sized brown weevil Very local
Metopoplax ditomoides Small black and grey bug Very local
Platystoma seminationis Small picture-winged fly Very local
Tephritis divisa Small picture-winged fly Very local
4.3.7.3 Evaluation
Fifty-six species is a relatively poor number of species given the size of the site. This
will to some extent have been affected by the limited recording effort that could be made
during a single visit, and the wet weather prior to the survey.
Much of the site is still under arable farming and as such has no or very low invertebrate
potential. The remaining habitat suitable for invertebrates is more or less limited to
roadside verges, former arable land allowed to grow fallow for one or two years, and
some marginal areas around recently developed plots which have grown up with wild
flowers alongside some ornamental trees and shrubs.
On the whole, the site has very little in the way of invertebrate interest, however a total
of five species considered to be nationally rare or scarce were recorded.
All of the nationally scarce and ‘very local’ species in Table 7.13 are typical of roadside
verges, disturbed ground and field edges, where a rich diversity of annual flowers has
become established. As a consequence they are all probably widespread in the local
area, existing in small pockets of available habitat.
The two ‘red data book’ species (Myrmica specioides and Ischnotus sequensi) are very
specifically north Kent insects, and although very limited geographically in the UK, they
are also considered likely to be widespread in the surrounding local area.
Based on the likely widespread nature of these species in the surrounding local area the
populations present at this site are considered to be of at best County (Medium) value.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
38
4.4 Summary of Ecological Resources
Table 7.14 - Value of ecological receptors
Receptor Value
Thanet Coast SAC; Sandwich Bay SAC; Thanet Coast and
Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar Site
(incorporating Thanet Coast SSSI, Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge
Marshes SSSI and Sandwich and Pegwell Bay NNR)
International (Very
High)
Designated
Sites
A299 Roadside Nature Reserve District (Low-
Medium)
Arable fields Local (Low)
Species poor semi-improved grassland Local (Low)
Improved grassland Negligible
Tall ruderals Local (Low)
Hedgerows, associated mature standards and scrub District (Low-
Medium)
Balancing ponds District (Low-
Medium)
Buildings and hardstanding Negligible
Habitats
Network of habitats at the site as a whole Local (Low)
Amphibians Local (Low)
Bats Local (Low)
Birds - wintering Local (Low)
Birds - breeding District (Low-
Medium)
Reptiles Negligible
Badgers Negligible
Fauna
Invertebrates County (Medium)
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
39
5 Assessing effects and their significance
The effects of the proposed development and their significance are considered below prior to
the implementation of any mitigation measures which are not intrinsic to the scheme. This
assessment is based on the following assumptions:
• Development of the entire 71.57 ha site as part of a three phase development;
• Site preparation and construction of Phase 1 anticipated to cover a total 36 month
period. During the first 12-18 months construction activity will be limited to the Gateway
building and the two large (X type) units in the north west of the site. Following
completion of these buildings construction will commence on the remainder of Phase 1;
• Detailed applications for Phase 2 and 3 of the development to be submitted
concurrently on the granting of planning permission following approval of the Phase 1
application. Construction of Phases 2 and 3 will also be concurrent and are anticipated to
require a similar construction period;
• For the purposes of the assessment operation of the facility is considered as the
completion of main construction works for all phases of the development (anticipated to
be 2014)
• With the exception of existing hedgerows along the site boundary all current habitats at
the site will be lost;
• None of the functions of the proposed business units are intrinsically linked to the use of
air travel (e.g. air freight warehousing);
• No increase in waste water outfalls to coastal designated sites as a result of the
development, due to the use of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS);
• Best practice construction methods will be followed, in particular regarding the use and
storage of chemicals and dust minimisation methods (e.g. wetting of dust producing plant
and machinery, covering of all vehicles carrying spoil, regular road sweeping/wetting);
• Clearance of vegetation will be undertaken outside the bird nesting season
(beginning of March to the end of August).
5.1 Effects during demolition and construction
5.1.1 Designated sites
Impacts on designated sites during demolition and construction are likely to be negligible
given the distance between these receptors and the source. As such a neutral effect is
predicted.
5.1.2 Habitats
The following section of the assessment considers the effects of the proposed development as
a whole on the habitats present.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
40
5.1.2.1 Permanent landtake
The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of all arable fields and bare
ground at the site (58ha) and therefore would be considered a high adverse impact (defined
in Table 7.2). Given the Local (Low) value of the receptor this would result in a certain minor
adverse effect.
The permanent loss of all species poor semi-improved grassland habitat at the site (9ha) would
be considered a high adverse impact. Given the Local (Low) value of the receptor this would
result in a certain minor adverse effect.
The permanent loss of all improved grassland (1.6ha) (considered to be of negligible value) is
considered a high adverse impact resulting in a certain neutral effect.
The permanent loss of 1.5ha of tall ruderal habitat represents around 25% of the total
availability of this habitat type within the immediate local area. As such it would be considered
to represent a high adverse impact. The value of this habitat is considered to be Local (Low)
therefore resulting in a certain minor adverse effect.
The proposed scheme will result in permanent loss of approximately 50m of existing
hedgerows (less than 5% of total at the site). In addition it will result in the loss of all scattered
scrub three associated mature standards, including two mature English elm (approximately
50% mature standards at the site). In combination these losses are considered to represent a
medium adverse impact. Given the District (Low-Medium) value of the receptor this would
result in a certain moderate adverse effect.
The balancing ponds are located outside of the redline boundary and thus no direct impacts are
anticipated as a consequence of land take.
Permanent loss of the hardstanding and existing buildings within the development boundary
would be considered a high adverse impact. These habitats are of negligible value and as
such would result in a certain neutral effect.
5.1.2.2 Pollution and dust deposition
The key potential pollution impact during the construction/demolition period relates to potential
spillage of chemicals or fuels, in particular within the vicinity of the balancing ponds located
adjacent to the site. This would be considered to represent a low adverse impact. Given the
District (Low-Medium) value of these waterbodies a spillage of this type would result in a
probable neutral effect.
During the demolition and construction period dust-generating activities will be taking place at
several locations, for varying periods of time. However, it is not currently known exactly when
and where dust-generating activities will occur.
Dust deposition can result in a range of physical effects on habitats. These include the
blockage and damage of stomata, shading of the leaf surface (both resulting in a reduction in
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
41
the efficiency of photosynthesis), and cumulative effects (e.g. drought stress on already
stressed species). In addition dust deposition has the potential to alter soil or water chemistry
resulting in associated changes in botanical and faunal species composition.
It is assumed that dust minimisation measures will be implemented (e.g. wetting of dust
producing plant and machinery, covering of all vehicles carrying spoil, regular road
sweeping/wetting) and as such the potential effects of dust deposition will be temporary and
limited to those areas of habitat close to the proposed development site.
In all cases the likely impact of dust deposition is anticipated to be low adverse. Given that no
receptors are considered to be of more than District (low-medium) value it is probable that the
overall effect will be neutral.
5.1.3 Species
5.1.3.1.1 Common amphibians – Direct killing and injury
The ‘low’ populations of smooth newt and common frog associated with Ponds A and B are
considered to be of Local (Low) value.
Both Ponds A and B are located outside of the site boundary and the majority of habitat within
the site boundary is considered to be of limited value for amphibians. As such while the
presence of common amphibians in low numbers can’t be ruled out, the likely impact of
construction is considered negligible. As such it is probable that the overall effect will be
neutral.
5.1.3.1.2 Bats - Direct killing and injury
No known bat roosts will be lost as a result of the proposed development. However, given the
mobile nature of bat roosts there is the potential for features to be occupied prior to site
clearance. If this were to happen it is likely to result in a low-adverse impact, resulting in an
overall neutral effect. However, mitigation is required to prevent an offence under the Habitat
Regulations (1994 as amended) and Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended)
5.1.3.1.3 Bats – Reduction of potential roost resource
Two trees containing features with a moderate/high potential to support roosting bats and a
further tree with low potential will be lost. These trees are considered to be of Local (Low)
value. All buildings are considered to be of negligible value.
Permanent loss of these features would be considered a low adverse impact on the basis of a
small reduction in the overall roost resource in the wider local area. As such it is probable that
the overall effect will be neutral.
5.1.3.1.4 Bats – Loss of foraging habitat and features potentially important in bat
navigation/orientation
The site is considered to be of Local (Low) value with regard to bat foraging, navigation
and orientation.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
42
The proposed site master plan includes the retention of all significant hedgerows which
surround the existing site. As such the majority of existing features with potential to be
utilised in foraging or navigation will be retained. Habitat loss is therefore likely to only
result in a low adverse impact with respect to foraging and navigation/orientation. Based
on the value of the receptor (Local) it is probable that the overall effect will be neutral.
5.1.3.1.5 Breeding birds – Direct killing and injury
Clearance of vegetation during the bird nesting season has the potential to result in a
medium to high adverse impact, resulting in a probable moderate adverse effect.
5.1.3.1.6 Wintering birds – Habitat loss
The site is considered to be of only Local (Low) value for wintering birds.
The arable fields will be lost as a result of the development, however the hedgerows on
the boundary of the site and the adjacent balancing ponds will be retained. Given that
arable habitat is widespread in the immediate vicinity of the site, it is likely that wintering
bird populations will be displaced onto neighbouring land.
Permanent loss of habitat would therefore be considered a medium adverse impact with
regard to wintering birds resulting in a probable minor adverse effect.
5.1.3.1.7 Breeding Birds – Habitat loss
Three of the Red list species which utilise the site as breeding habitat, namely corn
bunting, skylark and grey partridge are closely associated with farmland habitats. Corn
bunting depends on weedy stubble fields for winter food, and on grazed farmland for
breeding habitat3.
Although these fields will be lost as a breeding and foraging resource the habitat to be
lost are well represented in the immediate vicinity of the site.
The impact of the permanent loss of these habitats is therefore considered to be
medium adverse with respect to breeding birds resulting in a probable moderate
adverse effect.
5.1.3.1.8 Breeding and wintering birds – Disturbance
Given that construction of each phase of the development is likely to cover a period of at
least 24 months there is the potential for the disturbance of both breeding and wintering
birds utilising adjacent areas of habitat over two seasons.
Noise and visual disturbance has the potential to impact on both foraging and nesting
behaviour. The most common effect of noise and visual disturbance is a flight response
from the bird being disturbed. In turn this response can often result in a flushing
response from other surrounding birds.
3UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Species Action Plan: Corn bunting (Miliaria calandra)
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
43
Repeated flight response to disturbance carries an energetic cost, which in turn requires
an increased food intake in order to maintain condition. Birds are often most sensitive to
very loud and irregular peak noise events (e.g. piling), habituating to lower level
background noise.
The development will be progressed in phases and hence there will be areas of
undisturbed habitat available throughout the construction phase. It is likely that more
sensitive bird species will be displaced to these retained habitats, and on to
neighbouring land during the construction phase. As such repeated disturbance is
considered unlikely and only a low adverse impact is anticipated, resulting in a probable
neutral effect on both wintering and breeding bird populations.
Birds – Indirect effects
Displacement of breeding birds into neighbouring habitats during the construction and
operational stages of the development has the potential to result in negative impacts on any
populations within the receptor habitats. The magnitude of the impact depends on the degree
of ‘saturation’ of the receptor habitat and the availability of ecological ‘niches’ to accommodate
the displaced birds. Given the relatively low numbers of birds recorded on the site and the
availability of similar habitat in the immediate vicinity, the likely impact on receiving habitats is
considered to be low adverse, resulting in a probable neutral effect on both wintering and
breeding bird populations in the wider local area.
5.1.3.1.9 Reptiles
Reptiles are presumed to be absent from the site and therefore the habitat present it is
considered to be of negligible value. As such no impacts on reptiles are anticipated, and
the overall effect will be neutral.
5.1.3.1.10 Badger
Land within the development boundary is considered to have negligible value with
respect to badger. As such no impacts on badger are anticipated, and the overall effect
will be neutral.
5.1.3.1.11 Invertebrates
Notable invertebrates identified at the site are principally associated with road verges
and field edges. All significant existing hedgerows surrounding the site will be retained,
however all arable habitat, ruderal and rough grassland habitats within the site will be
permanently lost.
The wider local area contains habitats similar in nature to those present at the site, with
large areas of arable habitat alongside small patches of rough grassland and ruderal
habitats.
Prior to mitigation the impact of these on-site habitat losses is considered likely to be
medium adverse. Given the value of the receptor (County) it is probable that this will
result in a moderate adverse effect.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
44
5.2 Effects during operation
5.2.1 Designated Sites
5.2.1.1 Increased airfreight
5.2.1.1.1 Air pollution
Whilst the site is located adjacent to Kent International Airport (KIA), the use of airfreight by
business units at the development is not intrinsic to the proposed planning applications (to be
submitted in three phases). The development will comprise a combination of mixed use light
industrial (B1c), general industrial (B2) and warehouse and distribution (B8) units. Given that
the exact nature of the end users are not known at this stage it is not possible to accurately
predict if there will be a change in air freight movement through KIA as a result of the proposed
development.
An increase in the number of flights passing through KIA would be likely to result in increased
emissions of a variety of pollutants, in particular nitrogen (NOx). An increase in the deposition of
nitrogen from the atmosphere to soils is generally regarded to lead to an increase in fertility,
which can have a serious deleterious effect on the quality of semi-natural, nitrogen-limited
habitats. High NOx levels can also have direct effects on organisms.
The most acute impacts of NOx take place close to where they are emitted4, but individual
sources of pollution will also contribute to an increase in the general background levels of
pollutants at a wider scale.
Many of the sites of international and national value identified within 5km of the proposed
development site are considered potentially susceptible to increased air pollution, in particular
NOx. Modelling has identified Sandwich Bay SAC, Thanet Coast SAC and Thanet Coast and
Sandwich Bay SPA to be above the critical load threshold for nitrogen deposition.
As a consequence, increases in deposition of nitrogen at these sites have the potential to result
in adverse impacts on both the sensitive habitats present (notably sand dune systems) and
some of the species (e.g. little tern) for which the sites are designated. In addition an
associated decrease in the quality of these habitats may reduce their ability to support other
species for which the SPA/Ramsar sites have been designated.
The scale of any impact resulting from an increase in flights would be dependent on a number
of factors including flight paths, direction of prevailing winds, type of aircraft and fuel type.
If there is any absolute increase in air flights through KIA as a result of the development, given
the value of receptors (international) this is likely to bring about a significant adverse effect.
5.2.1.1.2 Bird disturbance
Increases in the number of flights over the SPA/Ramsar sites have the potential to result in
direct disturbance of qualifying species. As for air pollution impacts, since airfreight increases
4 For example, the majority of NOx produced by road traffic is deposited within 200 m of the roadside (Department of Transport,
2005).
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
45
are not intrinsically linked to the current application the extent of these impacts cannot be
quantified at this stage.
5.2.1.2 Increased road traffic
Given the proposed land use it is clear that the proposed development will result in an increase
in traffic within the immediate local area. This increase will be a combination of road freight and
movements associated with employees commuting to and from work. Given that the exact
nature of end user businesses are not know at this stage, the transport assessment (see
Chapter 12) has considered two scenarios for the breakdown of business types utilising the
development. Based on a worst case scenario this assessment has shown that in comparison
with predicted 2014 baseline levels (i.e. in the absence of the development) the development
could potentially result in a:
• 75% increase in AM Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) numbers and a 113.5% increase in
PM HGV numbers;
• 6.4% increase in AM Light Goods Vehicle (LGV) numbers and a 5.5% increase in PM
LGV numbers.
Increases in levels of SOx and NOx as a result of these increases will be mainly restricted to the
development site and areas adjacent to the key roads servicing the development (e.g. majority
of NOx produced by road traffic is deposited within 200 m of the roadside - Department of
Transport, 2005).
The only designated site located within 200m of major access route to the site is the RNR
adjoining the A299. This receptor is considered in this assessment to be of District (Low-
Medium) value. The worst case scenario increases in road traffic are likely to result in a
medium adverse impact on the integrity of the site. This would result in a probable moderate
adverse effect.
5.2.1.3 Increased movement of freight by ship (via ports)
5.2.1.3.1 Air pollution
The movement of freight by ship by business units at the development is not intrinsic to the
proposed planning applications (to be submitted in three phases). The development will
comprise a combination of mixed use light industrial (B1c), general industrial (B2) and
warehouse and distribution (B8) units. Given that the exact nature of the end users are not
known at this stage it is not possible to accurately predict if there will be a change in freight
movement through local ports as a result of the proposed development.
An increase in the number of ships would be likely to result in increased emissions of a variety
of pollutants, in particular nitrogen (NOx). An increase in the deposition of nitrogen from the
atmosphere to soils is generally regarded to lead to an increase in fertility, which can have a
serious deleterious effect on the quality of semi-natural, nitrogen-limited habitats.
Many of the sites of international and national value identified within 5km of the proposed
development site are considered potentially susceptible to increased air pollution, in particular
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
46
NOx. Modelling has identified Sandwich Bay SAC, Thanet Coast SAC and Thanet Coast and
Sandwich Bay SPA to be above the critical load threshold for nitrogen deposition.
As a consequence, increases in deposition of nitrogen at these sites have the potential to result
in adverse impacts on both the sensitive habitats present (notably sand dune systems) and
some of the species (e.g. little tern) for which the sites are designated. In addition an
associated decrease in the quality of these habitats may reduce their ability to support other
species for which the SPA/Ramsar sites have been designated.
The scale of any impact resulting from an increase in shipping movement would be dependent
on a number of factors.
If there is any absolute increase in shipping as a result of the development, given the value of
receptors (international) this is likely to bring about a significant adverse effect.
5.2.1.3.2 Incidental pollution
As for airfreight an increase in the movement of freight via ships at local ports (Ramsgate and
Margate) is not intrinsic to the proposed planning application and at present the scale of any
potential increase can not be ascertained.
Increased incidental pollution (as a result of fuel or chemical spillages) as a consequence of
increased freight movement by ship has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts on
the sensitive habitats of the coastal designated site (e.g. reefs, sea caves and sand dunes).
The magnitude of any impact resulting from an increase in shipping would be dependent on a
number of factors including the shipping channels utilised and the exact form of pollutant.
If there is any absolute increase in ship movement through local ports as a result of the
development, given the value of receptors (international) this is likely to bring about a
significant adverse effect.
5.2.1.3.3 Bird disturbance
Increases in ship movements in close proximity to the SPA/Ramsar sites have the potential to
result in disturbance of qualifying species. As for air pollution impacts, since airfreight increases
are not intrinsically linked to the current application the extent of these impacts cannot be
quantified at this stage.
5.2.2 Species
5.2.2.1 Bats
During operation there will be increased lighting levels across the site. High lighting
levels can deter some species of bat, however the two species of Pipistrelle recorded at
the site are known to often readily forage in and around lights. Given the low level of
foraging activity currently associated with this site, this may increase the value of the
site for some species.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
47
As such increased light levels are in this case considered to represent a negligible
impact, resulting in a neutral overall effect.
5.2.2.2 Birds
5.2.2.2.1 Bird disturbance
The development will comprise industrial units with associated car parking areas and
access roads. Human activity outside the units is likely to be low, and the retained
habitat which adjoins the site, such as the ponds to the west, will be screened by new
planting and landscaped areas. Disturbance to birds during the operations stage of the
development is thus considered to be negligible to low adverse. Given the value of the
receptor (District to Local) it is probable that this will result in an overall neutral effect.
5.2.2.2.2 Habitat creation
There will be an increase in the area of managed lawns and woodland planting as a
result of the landscaping scheme. This is likely to benefit certain species such as wood
pigeon, blue tit, great tit, robin and blackbird. All of these species are ubiquitous and
generally increasing in number. The net gain in habitat for these species is considered a
minor positive impact, resulting in a probable overall neutral effect.
5.2.2.3 Other protected species
No impacts on other protected species including common amphibians, common reptiles
and badger are anticipated during operation. As such the effects of operation with
regard to these species will be neutral.
5.3 Cumulative effects
Consideration of the following committed developments has been made in assessing the
cumulative effect of the development:
• EuroKent Business Park. Haine Road, Ramsgate – further 2ha expansion which will
include commercial, office, light industrial and distribution units;
• Westwood Cross development, near Margate - mixed use urban extension comprising
up to 1100 new homes with some associated commercial and employment use;
• Expansion of existing Invicta Produce premises at Columbus Avenue – 0.2ha expansion
of existing industrial premises within existing Manston Business Park.
All of the above developments have the potential to contribute to a regional increase in freight
movements within the wider local area. As such, cumulative effects may include increased
movements of freight through both KIA and local ports. In turn this has the potential to
contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on the network of coastal designated sites, as a result
of increased air pollution, bird disturbance and incidental pollution. The scale of these impacts
(and thus the resulting effect) cannot be accurately quantified at this stage.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
48
The potential for other significant cumulative effects is considered negligible.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
49
6 Mitigation, compensation and enhancement
6.1 Designated Sites
6.1.1 Sites of International importance
Prior to mitigation a potential impact of the proposed development is an increase in the quantity
of freight passing through KIA and local ports such as Ramsgate and Margate.
However, the movement of freight via these means is not an intrinsic part of the proposed
planning application and it is not possible to quantify any change in freight volume at this time.
Furthermore, the magnitude of these impacts will be largely determined by decisions outside
the control of both the developer and end-user (e.g. flight path of aircraft, type of plane and fuel
utilised, route of shipping lane)
Determining the significance of these effects will also require consideration of changes on a
regional scale (including both in combination and cumulative effects of other committed
developments) in order to accurately determine absolute increases rather than relative changes
(e.g. an increase in use of air freight may be accompanied by an associated decrease in
shipping).
Both KIA and local ports are already governed by agreements that dictate existing operational
limits. Based on the above any potential impacts of the development on sites of international
importance are considered best addressed through regulation of these limits by local and
regional government. Operational limits should take account of the potential impacts on
designated sites and encourage monitoring of these sites in order to determine that favourable
conservation status is maintained.
Accurate monitoring of changes in freight movements across the region will be important in the
setting of operational targets. In order to record changes in freight movement as a result of the
proposed development the developer will be obliged to provide the local authority with an
annual breakdown of freight quantities and methods utilised by onsite businesses. This will be
provided through implementation of a Section 106 agreement or similar.
6.1.2 Roadside Nature Reserve
A green transport policy for the proposed scheme has been prepared (see Chapter 12 -
Transport) in order to reduce the impacts of employees working at the site. This is anticipated
to result in a 20% reduction in worse case scenario levels for cars.
A botanical survey of the RNR will be conducted prior to construction in order to more
accurately ascertain current site conditions and susceptibility to air pollution. Subsequently a
mitigation/compensation strategy will be agreed with Kent Wildlife Trust and included within a
Section 106 agreement or similar.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
50
6.2 Habitats
6.2.1 Habitat creation
Given the proximity of the proposed development to KIA the overall landscape design for the
development (incorporating ecological mitigation) has been influenced by the following
guidance documents:
• Civil Aviation Authority (2007) CAP 772 - Bird strike Risk Management for Aerodromes;
• Airport Operators Association & General Aviation Awareness Council (2006)
Safeguarding of Aerodromes Advice Note 3: Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity
Landscaping and Building Design.
Within these constraints efforts have been made to maximise the ecological value of mitigation
habitats at the site.
The indicative site master plan (See Appendix 5B of the ES) incorporates a total of 16.6 ha of
semi-improved grassland. This consists of 15ha of dry grassland and 1.6ha of damp grassland
(within swales/balancing ponds with porous gravel bases). A detailed landscaping plan for
Phase 1 has been submitted alongside the planning application. Details for Phases 2
and 3 will accompany later detailed applications.
Proposed species lists for the landscaping planting are shown within Chapter 5 (Landscape
and Visual Design) of the ES. Dry grassland areas will be sown with a diverse mixture of
native grasses and wildflowers suited to the underlying lime rich substrate. As such they are
likely to qualify as areas of chalk grassland, a declining habitat in Kent and the subject of HAP
within the Kent BAP (1997).
All grassland areas will be managed with regard to guidance designed to minimise the risk of
potential bird strike. Within this constraint the majority of dry grassland areas and all damp
grassland areas will be managed through twice annual cutting, avoiding the main flowering
season in order to allow a variety of wildflowers to set seed. Smaller areas of dry grassland will
be managed as public open space and mown regularly.
An area of ecological mitigation habitat around 1ha in size will be created between the
residential properties to the east of Alland Grange Lane and the Riding Centre as part of Phase
3 of the application.
The majority of this area will be managed to increase its value for terrestrial
invertebrates (see 6.3.4 below) through promoting the development of a self-seeded area
of rough grassland/ruderals typical of the field edge and verge habitats currently present
within the site.
The wider landscape scheme will incorporate a wide range of native tree and shrubs,
including both structural and ornamental planting. In addition native species hedgerows
will be planted in association with landscape bunds at the margins with all existing
residential properties.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
51
6.3 Species
6.3.1 Amphibians
If small numbers of common amphibians (fewer than 10 individuals) are encountered
during clearance works these should be transferred to an area of retained habitat
utilising a plastic container with a loose-fitting lid (to ensure some air flow).
If high numbers (in this case defined as more than 10 individuals) are encountered then
works should halt immediately in this area of the site and an ecologist consulted.
6.3.2 Bats
No signs of bats were identified during the further investigation of trees T2 and T3 (see Figure
7.1). However, both trees are considered to have high potential to be utilised by roosting bats.
Given the transitory nature of bat roosts a dusk emergence and dawn re-entry survey will be
conducted immediately prior to felling to confirm the absence of bats. Given that emergence
surveys are only considered valid during the period May to September (inclusive) this places a
seasonal constraint on the timing of felling.
In the unlikely event that bats or signs of bats are found during these or any other clearance
works on site, works will halt immediately and an ecologist contacted immediately. The
requirement for a Natural England licence to cover the works will then be considered.
6.3.3 Birds
Birds and their nests are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as
amended). Clearance of hedgerows, trees and scrub will therefore be undertaken
outside of the period that bird species are likely to be breeding (unless absence of
nesting birds is confirmed by an ecologist immediately prior to works commencing)5.
Measures to limit the disturbance of birds utilising adjacent habitats will be implemented
as part of the demolition and construction method statement.
It is not possible mitigate for habitat losses associated with some of the notable bird
species which currently utilise the site (e.g. corn bunting, grey partridge and skylark)
within the development boundary. These species depend on extensive areas of
cultivated land which are incompatible with the proposed development. Mitigation for
these species should therefore be provided off-site, through providing funds to improve
the carrying capacity of existing habitat in the wider local area. The exact details of this
scheme would form the basis of a Section 106 agreement or similar.
6.3.4 Invertebrates
The areas of existing habitat which lie to the south of the proposed alignment for the
access road which will run to the north of the Cummins factory will be retained in their
5 Although there is no legally defined nesting season, it recommended that removal of suitable habitat should be avoided between 1st
March and 31st August inclusive.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
52
current state. Any areas in this area of the site which are disturbed to the south of the
new road will be allowed to recolonise naturally (i.e. no reseeding) (see Figure 7.4).
In addition in order to promote areas of suitable marginal habitat the habitat directly
adjoining (within 3m) of all retained hedgerows will be left to reseed naturally (see Figure
7.4).
The invertebrate value of the area of ecological mitigation habitat located between the
residential properties to the east of Alland Grange Lane and the Riding Centre will be
enhanced though the incorporation of various habitat piles (dead wood, rocks, rubble,
exposed earth). In addition the area will incorporate a number of small earth bunds.
Around 50% of the final area (~0.5ha) will be allowed to recolonise naturally in order to
promote the development of invertebrate habitat suitable for those species previously
recorded at the site.
In the long term these areas of habitat should be divided into suitable management
compartments and strimmed back in rotation every 2-3 years. This approach will aim to
maximise the structural of the habitats and to ensure that some areas in an early stage
of recolonisation are available at all times.
Willow species will be incorporated into the overall planting design for the site, to
increase the availability of habitat suitable for Ischnotus sequensi.
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
1:5,250
Plot Date: 12.06.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 7.4 - Invertebrate Mitigation Proposals.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
Development Redline
Boundary
Outside of Development
Area
Areas of invertebrate
mitigation habitat
INVERTEBRATE
MITIGATION
PROPOSALS
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
FINAL
JM JS
FIGURE 7.4
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
53
7 Residual Effects
7.1 Designated sites
7.1.1 Sites of International importance
Controlling the pollution impacts of freight movements at source through operational limits
should prevent any deterioration in conservation status of the identified qualifying sites. As
such no residual effect as a direct consequence of the development is anticipated.
7.1.2 Roadside Nature Reserve
Following the implementation of mitigation/compensation the residual effect of the development
on the RNR is considered to be neutral.
7.2 Habitats
Following implementation of the proposed habitat creation measures there will be a net gain in
both the extent and value of semi-improved grassland at the site.
While the exact extent of hedgerow planting within the landscape masterplan is yet to be
finalised this is likely to exceed the ~50m which are due to be removed. As such a net gain in
hedgerow (a UK BAP priority habitat type) is anticipated. In addition the extensive tree planting
at the site will in the long-term result in an increase in the age structure and number of standard
trees present at the site.
In combination these measures are considered likely to result in a minor beneficial residual
effect.
7.3 Species
7.3.1 Birds
The provision of off-site mitigation to enhance the breeding and foraging value of
habitats in the wider local area will reduce the impacts of habitat loss with respect to
wintering and breeding birds.
Following the implementation of mitigation, it is anticipated that the impact on both
wintering and breeding bird populations will be reduced to neutral adverse. The residual
effect will therefore be neutral.
Restriction of site clearance to outside the bird breeding season will result reduce
impacts associated with direct, killing and injury to negligible, resulting in a neutral
residual effect.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
54
7.3.2 Invertebrates
Species recorded at the site include a number which are considered to be nationally
scarce or rare. However, in the local context they are considered likely to be widespread.
As a result following the implementation of proposed mitigation measures it is
considered likely that these areas will attract the same types of insects as currently
occur. As such the overall impact is likely to be negligible, resulting in a neutral residual
effect.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
55
8 Conclusions
Following the incorporation of all suggested mitigation measures the impacts of the
proposed development would be reduced to a level that residual effects are unlikely to
be significant.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
56
Table 7. 15 – Summary of impacts and effects of proposed China Gateway development
Receptor Value of
receptor
Impact Magnitude of
impact
Significance of effect (prior
to mitigation)
Mitigation, compensation and
enhancement
Residual
effect
Designated Sites
Thanet Coast SAC;
Sandwich Bay SAC; Thanet
Coast and Sandwich Bay
Special Protection Area
(SPA) & Ramsar Site
(incorporating Thanet Coast
SSSI; Sandwich Bay to
Hacklinge Marshes SSSI;
and Sandwich and Pegwell
Bay NNR
International
(very high)
Demolition and
construction
Operation
(including
cumulative)
Increased
airfreight
(resulting in
potential air
pollution and bird
disturbance)
Increased
movement of
freight via ships
and local ports
(resulting in
potential air
pollution,
incidental
pollution and bird
disturbance)
Negligible
Unquantifiable at
present
Unquantifiable at
present
Neutral
Unquantifiable
Unquantifiable
-
Regulation of existing operation
limits by local and regional
government to consider potential
impacts on designated sites.
Operators obliged to provide the
local authority with an annual
breakdown of freight quantities and
methods utilised by onsite
businesses through implementation
of a Section 106 agreement or
similar.
-
Unknown
Unknown
RNR adjacent to the A299 District (Low-
Medium)
Increased road
traffic (resulting
in increased
nitrogen
deposition)
Medium adverse Moderate adverse Phase 1 habitat survey of the RNR
to be conducted prior to
construction to ascertain current
site conditions and susceptibility to
air pollution.
Subsequently a mitigation strategy
will be agreed with Kent Wildlife
Trust and included within a Section
106 agreement or similar.
Neutral
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
57
Receptor Value of
receptor
Impact Magnitude of
impact
Significance (prior to
mitigation)
Mitigation Residual
impact
Habitats
Arable fields and bare ground Local (Low) Permanent
landtake of
58ha
High adverse Minor adverse
Species poor semi-improved
grassland
Local (Low) Permanent
landtake of
9ha
High adverse Minor adverse
Improved grassland Negligible Permanent
landtake of
1.6ha
High adverse Neutral
Tall ruderals Local (Low) Permanent
landtake of
1.5ha
High adverse Minor adverse
Hedgerows, standard trees and
scrub
District (Low-
Medium)
Permanent
landtake of
approximately
50m of
hedgerow, 3
standard
mature trees
and all
scattered
scrub
Medium adverse Moderate adverse
Buildings and hardstanding Negligible Permanent
landtake of all
within
development
boundary
High adverse Neutral
Creation of 16.6ha of semiimproved
grassland consisting of
15ha of dry grassland and 1.6ha of
damp grassland (within
swales/balancing ponds with
porous gravel bases). All utilising
native species.
Widespread planting of native tree
species and hedgerow planting in
excess of 50m.
Minor
beneficial
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
58
Receptor Value of
receptor
Impact Magnitude of
impact
Significance
(prior to
mitigation)
Mitigation Residual
impact
Species
Common amphibians Local (Low) Direct, killing
and injury
Negligible Neutral - Neutral
Bats (Roosting) Local (Low) Direct killing
and injury
Reduction of
potential roost
resource
Low adverse
Low adverse
Neutral
Neutral
Emergence survey to be conducted
immediately prior to felling. As such
felling is constrained to the period
May to September inclusive.
-
Neutral
-
Bats (Foraging/navigation) Local (Low) Habitat loss Low adverse Neutral - Neutral
Wintering birds Local (Low) Habitat loss
Disturbance
Medium adverse
Low adverse
Minor adverse
Neutral
Provision of funds to improve the
carrying capacity of off-site
farmland habitats.
Creation of 16.6ha of semiimproved
grassland and increased
age structure of trees and shrubs
-
Neutral
Neutral
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
59
Receptor Value of
receptor
Impact Magnitude of
impact
Significance
(prior to
mitigation)
Mitigation Residual
impact
Breeding birds District (Low-
Medium)
Direct,
killing, and,
injury
Habitat loss
Medium
adverse
Medium
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Avoid clearance during season
when birds are likely to be
breeding (March to September
inclusive).
Provision of funds to improve
the carrying capacity of off-site
farmland habitats.
Creation of 16.6ha of semiimproved
grassland and
increased age structure of trees
and shrubs
Neutral
Neutral
Reptiles Negligible None None Neutral - Neutral
Badgers Negligible None None Neutral - Neutral
Invertebrates County
(Medium)
Habitat loss Medium Moderate
adverse
Retention of existing habitat (see
Figure 7.4).
Field to the west of the riding
centre to be enhanced through
provision of habitat piles and
allowing area of ~0.5ha to reseed
naturally.
Neutral
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
60
9 References
Airport Operators Association & General Aviation Awareness Council (2006) Safeguarding of
Aerodromes Advice Note 3: Potential Bird Hazards from Amenity Landscaping and Building
Design.
Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation
Trust, London.
British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) (1999) Winter Farmland Bird Survey - Methodology for Field
Surveyors, BTO, Thetford.
Civil Aviation Authority (2007) CAP 772 - Bird strike Risk Management for Aerodromes
Department for Transport (2005) - Interim Advice Note 61/04. Guidance for Undertaking
Environmental Assessment of Air Quality for Sensitive Ecosystems in Internationally
Designated Nature Conservation Sites and SSSI’s (Supplement to DMRB 11.3.1). HMSO,
London.
English Nature. (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. English Nature,
Peterborough.
Froglife (1999) Advice Note 10 – Reptile Survey. Froglife, Peterborough.
Gregory, et al (2002) The Population Status of Birds in the UK - Birds of Conservation Concern:
2002-2007. BTO and others.
Harris, S., Cresswell, P., & Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying Badgers. Occasional Publication of
the Mammal Society No 9. The Mammal Society, London.
Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for baseline ecological assessment. E
and FN Spon, London.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (1990) Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey – A
technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group (1997) Kent Biodiversity Action Plan – A
framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife. Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group – c/o
Kent County Council, Maidstone.
Kent County Council/Medway Council (2006) Kent and Medway Structure Plan – Mapping out
the future. Kent County Council, Maidstone.
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 (4), pp143-155.
Stace, C. (1997). New Flora of the British Isles. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
61
Thanet District Council (2006) Thanet District Adopted Local Plan. Viewed on 09/01/08 at
http://thanet.devplan.org.uk/
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
62
Appendix 7.1 Target notes for Extended Phase 1
habitat survey
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
63
Weather – Dry but overcast
Surveyor – John Simmons
Date – 26/01/08
TN1. Attenuation/balancing pond around 10m wide with dense stands of common reed on the western
bank (~4m deep) and locally dominant bulrush.
Eastern margin supports occasional willow scrub/trees with shallow margins potentially suitable for
use by amphibians – casts shade over around 10% of the pond.
3 waterfowl recorded utilising pond at time of survey.
Western bank consists of steep concrete sided wall which is unsuitable for use by amphibians. Large
industrial estate further to the west – to the east is a small area of rough grassland grading into
arable fields. Water quality appears OK.
TN2. Sward 15-20cm in height of species poor unmanaged semi-improved grassland. Sward dominated
by red fescue with abundant common bent and locally abundant false-oat grass. In addition the
sward contains frequent bristly ox-tongue, locally frequent Yorkshire fog. Occasional species include
creeping thistle, dove’s-foot crane’s-bill, Brassica sp and ribwort plantain.
TN3. Bare ground – recently cleared consisting of topsoil scrape with some areas starting to revegetate.
TN4. Tussocky sward dominated by red fescue with frequent ribwort plantain. Occasional species include
yarrow, creeping thistle. Lines of staked horse chestnut with occasional young staked beech. Good
potential foraging habitat for any GCN’s using the adjacent pond.
TN5. Tall species poor semi-improved grassland with occasional tall ruderals including hemlock,
occasional bramble and hawthorn scrub. Due to the combination of habitats it is considered to have
moderate potential to support reptiles.
TN6. Pond margin dominated by common reed with occasional bulrush. Several small willows around the
margin, shading around 10% of the margin.
No waterfowl at time of survey. However, adjacent bank appears to be heavily bird grazed. Water
quality appears to be good. Some areas of the margin are shallow and suitable for amphibians.
Adjacent bank supports relatively short red fescue dominated grassland and small block of mixed
broad-leaved plantation containing field maple, beech, yew, silver birch.
TN7. Large topsoil mound vegetated with rough grasses dominated by common bent and Yorkshire fog
and ruderals including frequent alexanders.
Fox hole within bank with large entrance which narrows quickly. Possible occasional use by rabbits.
TN8. Short cut species poor semi-improved grassland. Dominated by common bent and perennial ryegrass
with frequent ribwort plantain, common daisy, bristly ox-tongue. Occasional species include
dove’s-foot crane’s-bill, common cat’s-ear and common field speedwell.
TN9. Species poor semi-improved grassland – cut short and dominated by common bent and perennial
rye-grass with occasional herbs like TN8.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
64
TN10. Hedgerow dominated by hawthorn and elder with occasional ivy, field rose, and English elm.
Species poor below – occasional hedge woundwort and ruderals. Three standard trees in close
association with hedgerow
(T1) Mature sycamore at northern end with ivy cover that has low potential to support bats.
(T2) Mature English elm
a) loose bark at 1.5m – east facing with low/moderate potential for occasional use. Investigated
and no signs of use.
b) 2 x woodpecker holes at 4m – east facing – moderate potential – unable to see how far it goes
back. Cracks and crevices in dead wood above – highly complex and requires further
investigation.
c) South facing cavity on west facing branch – cavity may continue up into tree.
d) South facing cavity at 2.5m may lead to gap beneath dead bark above – dead wood at limit of
ladder.
(T3) English elm – mature around 60cm DBH
a) heavy ivy cover – low bat potential
b) possible trunk cavity at 3m – south facing – entrance slightly obscured by ivy.
TN11. Hawthorn hedge with frequent ivy and occasional field maple, pedunculate oak and sycamore.
TN12. Hawthorn hedge – mature around 2m and previously flail managed.
TN13. Bramble dominated hedgerow adjacent to wall.
TN14. Mature hedgerow around 4m in height – hawthorn, elder, ivy and bramble. Occasional signs of
rabbit activity.
TN15. Potential badger sett in adjacent land – located just after a clearer area of the bank. Access to
riding club required. Also signs of fox activity in this area.
Around 20m from end of hedge. Excavation around the base of mature hawthorn on adjacent
bank.
TN16 Plantation block behind chain link fence - dominated by field maple ash and hawthorn. Level with
no signs of badger activity.
TN17. Mature English elm (T5)
(a) Dense ivy cover
(b) Snapped branch above. 2 snapped branches but both upward pointing therefore only of low
potential.
TN18. Mature elm dominated by dense ivy (T6). Elbow of limb containing cavity at around 2m – north
facing unclear how far it goes back but considered to be of moderate potential.
TN19. Metal silos with negligible bat potential. Associated grassland dominated by perennial rye-grass
with occasional ribwort plantain, bristly ox-tongue common bent and annual meadow-grass.
TN20. Slightly longer area with abandoned machinery – low reptile potential – lacking any significant
cover.
TN21. Water treatment works ?
TN22. Development of large metal skinned building in progress.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
65
TN23. Small shed building with asbestos cement roof. Poor state of repair with lots of potential
access/egress points.
TN24. Rough grassland with a moderate sward length – dominated by Yorkshire fog with abundant
common bent and bristly ox-tongue with locally abundant alexanders and Brassica sp and
occasional cock’s-foot and annual mercury.
Only considered to be of low reptile potential due to lack of associated cover.
TN25. More tussocky but similar species to that in TN24.
TN26. Disturbed and revegetated ground with abundant Yorkshire fog, bristly ox-tongue and Charlock
with locally abundant hemlock and red fescue. Cover is patchy with area mostly dominated with
ruderals and some areas of bare ground.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
66
Appendix 7.2 Amphibian and reptile report
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile survey
FINAL
June 2008
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
This document has been prepared for the titled project or named
part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other
project without an independent check being carried out as to its
suitability and prior written authority of Scott Wilson being obtained.
Scott Wilson accepts no responsibility or liability for the
consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than
the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or
relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by
such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to
indemnify Scott Wilson for all loss or damage resulting there from.
Scott Wilson accepts no responsibility or liability for this document
to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.
Revision Schedule
Amphibian and Reptile Report
June 2008
Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
01 10/06/2008 DRAFT Emily Cook
Graduate Ecologist
John Simmons
Ecologist
John Simmons
Ecologist
02 18/06/08 FINAL Emily Cook
Graduate Ecologist
John Simmons
Ecologist
John Simmons
Ecologist
Scott Wilson
Scott House
Alen?on Link
Basingstoke
Hampshire
RG21 7PP
Tel. 01256 310200
Fax. 01256 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1
2 Legislation.................................................................................... 2
2.1 Great crested newt ...................................................................................................2
2.2 Common amphibians................................................................................................2
2.3 Common reptiles ......................................................................................................2
3 Methodology................................................................................. 3
3.1 Desk study................................................................................................................3
3.2 Field survey ..............................................................................................................3
4 Results ......................................................................................... 6
4.1 Amphibians...............................................................................................................6
4.2 Reptiles ....................................................................................................................8
5 Conclusions and recommendations............................................ 10
5.1 Amphibians.............................................................................................................10
5.2 Common reptiles ....................................................................................................11
6 References................................................................................. 12
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
1
1 Introduction
Scott Wilson Ltd was commissioned by Commercial Group Properties PLC in February
2008 to undertake surveys to determine the presence or absence of great crested newts
and reptiles at the proposed China Gateway site..
The China Gateway site is located at Manston, on the Thanet Coast in Kent. The 71.57ha
site will eventually be covered by three separate planning application areas for a total
development of up to 325,158 sq metres (3.5 million sq ft) of predominantly mixed B1(c),
B2 or B8 uses.
A planning submission made in March 2008 included an application for outline planning
permission for the entire 71.57ha site (see Figure 1), and a detailed application covering
an area of 31.68 ha which lies largely within the existing Manston Business Park (Phase
1). It includes proposals for a prominent Gateway building, a restaurant and amenity
blocks. An Environmental Statement (ES) covering the entire 71.57ha site supported this
submission.
The remainder of the China Gateway Manston site (i.e. that which lies outside of the
designated employment area) will be subject to later detailed planning application(s)
(Phase 2 and Phase 3).
Due to seasonal constraints a number of protected species surveys required in support of
the ES (including bat activity surveys) could not be complete at the time of initial
submission. Following consultation with Natural England and Thanet District Council it was
agreed that an updated ecology chapter would be submitted as an addendum to the
Environmental Statement (ES) prior to determination.
The proposed development site supports a range of habitats including arable fields,
species poor semi-improved grassland, ruderal plant communities and hedgerows. Two
balancing ponds are located adjacent to the north-west boundary of the site.
The aim of the current amphibian surveys was to determine the presence/absence of great
crested newts at water bodies located within 500m of the proposed site boundary. Reptile
surveys aimed to determine presence/absence solely within the development boundary.
This information was required to inform the ES addendum and determine the impacts that
may result on these species groups as a result of the proposed development.
Following Section 2 of the report outlines relevant legislation. Section 3 outlines
methodologies utilised for the surveys. Sections 4 and 5 outline the results and
conclusions respectively.
Phase 1
Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 3
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
1:5,250
Plot Date: 11.06.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 1 Development Boundary & Application Phases.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
& APPLICATION PHASES
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
FINAL
JM JS
FIGURE 1
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
Development Redline Boundary
Outside of Development Area
Phase 1 Application
Phase 2 Application
Phase 3 Application
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
2
2 Legislation
2.1 Great crested newt
Great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) are afforded full protection under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (1981 as amended) and Annex IV of the Conservation (Natural Habitats
&c) Regulations (1994 as amended).
Through the implementation of these Regulations, it is an offence to deliberately capture,
injure disturb or kill a great crested newt, or to deliberately take or destroy its eggs. It is
also an offence to deliberately or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any
structure which a great crested newt uses for shelter or protection. This protection includes
both the breeding pond itself and terrestrial habitat utilised for foraging and hibernation
which may be distant from the breeding pond.
Great crested newt habitat is widely considered to extend up to 500m (the accepted
maximum roaming distance) from a breeding pond where areas of connective suitable
habitat exist.
2.2 Common amphibians
The four common amphibians common frog (Rana temporaria), common toad (Bufo bufo),
palmate newt (Triturus helveticus) and smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) have no legal
protection other than that provided by subsection 9.5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act
(1981 as amended) which makes it an offence to sell them. However, general animal
welfare guidelines do apply (i.e. causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily).
Common toad is listed as a Priority Species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP),
based on its rapid decline over the last twenty-five years. However, a species action plan
for the species is yet to be prepared.
2.3 Common reptiles
The four UK species of reptile with the potential to occur on site (grass snake (Natrix
natrix), slow worm (Anguis fragilis), common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) and adder (Vipera
berus) are all protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Under
this legislation it is an offence to intentionally kill or injure these species.
Both slow worm and common lizard are now listed as Priority Species in the UK BAP
based on a rapid decline in their numbers over the last twenty-five years. Species action
plans for both species are yet to be prepared.
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
3
3 Methodology
3.1 Desk study
A desk study was undertaken in support of the ES in December 2007. Records for all
protected or notable species onsite and within a 2km radius of the site boundary were
obtained from the Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC).
KMBRC’s records include that submitted by local amphibian and reptile groups and
members of the public.
3.2 Field survey
3.2.1 Amphibians
3.2.1.1 Scoping
The Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, conducted during January 2008 (Scott Wilson,
2008) confirmed that no water bodies were present within the site boundary. However, two
balancing ponds were identified directly adjacent to the western boundary (See Figure 2).
A scoping visit was subsequently conducted during early February, in order to investigate
more closely the potential of off-site water bodies to support great crested newt.
During the visit a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) score was calculated for each pond using
the criteria devised by Oldham et al (2001). This system utilises a series of key habitat
criteria (e.g. pond area, permanence, shading, density, macrophyte (large aquatic plants)
cover, presence of waterfowl etc) to provide a quantitative measure of the suitability of
habitat for great crested newts.
An HSI score of 1 represents a pond with optimum habitat conditions (and thus a high
probability of occurrence) while an HSI score of 0 represents very poor habitat (and thus
minimal probability of occurrence).
3.2.1.2 Presence/ absence Survey
Water bodies identified for detailed survey were initially surveyed on four occasions. In line
with current Natural England guidance for presence/absence survey (English Nature,
2001) at least two of these visits were conducted during the period mid-April to mid-May.
All surveys were carried out according to the standard methodologies for great crested
newt survey, as laid out in Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (English Nature,
2001).
Survey visits were conducted on the following evenings:
SI
SI
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
SI SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
I
I
SI
SI
SI
I
POND B
POND A
SI
Refugia
1-18
Refugia
19-26
Refugia
27-33
Refugia
34-35
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
1:5,250
Plot Date: 28.03.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 2 Location of Artificial Refugia Utillised During Reptile Presence_Absence Survey.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
Occasional Scrub
Standard Tree
Location of Artificial Reptile Refugia
Boundary Removed
Fence
Species Poor Hedgerow
Species Poor Hedgerow with Standard Trees
Earth Bank
Wall
Development Redline Boundary
Outside of Development Area
Bare Ground
Broadleaved Plantation
Dense Scrub
Standing Water
Tall Ruderals
LOCATION OF
ARTIFICIAL REFUGIA
UTILISED DURING REPTILE
PRESENCE/ABSENCE SURVEY
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
FINAL
JM JS
FIGURE 2
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
A Arable
SI Species poor semi improved grassland
I Improved grassland
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
4
• Visit 1 – Thursday 17th April 2008;
• Visit 2 – Monday 21st April 2008;
• Visit 3 – Thursday 24th April 2008; and
• Visit 4 – Monday 28th April 2008.
Torching, egg searching and bottle trapping were conducted at both Pond A and Pond B
during all visits. All survey visits were conducted under suitable weather conditions. Nighttime
air temperatures for all survey visits were above 5?C.
Sections of Pond B were highly turbid throughout the survey period. However, based on
the combination of methods used this is not considered a significant constraint to the
overall accuracy of the survey.
3.2.2 Reptiles
3.2.2.1 Scoping
The Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey of the site conducted in January 2008 identified the
following areas of the site as potentially suitable to support common reptiles (Figure 2.) :
• Areas of tussocky species poor and rough grassland adjoining Pond A;
• Mosaic of scrub, grassland and tall ruderals located to the east of Pond B;
• Embankment and adjoining areas of species poor semi-improved grassland habitat
at TN24.
3.2.2.2 Presence/ absence survey
A survey for common reptiles was conducted at the site during spring/early summer 2008,
in accordance with the guidelines given by Froglife (1999) and Gent & Gibson (1998). The
primary aim of this survey was to determine the presence/absence of common reptiles at
the site, and to give an indication of the reptile population at the site.
A total of 35 artificial refugia (a combination of black painted corrugated tin and roofing felt)
were placed at the site on 9th April 2008. A mixture of the artificial refugia types were
placed in each of the areas of potential habitat identified during the Extended Phase 1
habitat survey.
The artificial refugia were left to settle for a period 13 days, and were then checked for
reptiles a total of 7 times between the 17th April 2008 and the 29th of May.
Six of the seven survey visits were conducted during suitable weather conditions (see
Table 4.4) with air temperature between 9?C and 18?C. Heavy rain and/or windy days were
avoided. During each survey a transect route was walked between artificial refugia, with
suitable basking sites and existing refugia carefully examined for reptiles. Each refugia was
lifted to check for individuals under the tin or felt. For each reptile encountered, where
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
5
possible the species, life stage, sex and size were recorded. In order to prevent
unnecessary disturbance all sizes were estimated.
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
6
4 Results
4.1 Amphibians
4.1.1 Desk study
No previous records exist for amphibians within the development boundary.
Table 4.1 below summarises previous amphibian records within 2 km of the site boundary..
All records are associated with a pond at Quex Park, located around 600m to the northwest
of the proposed development site.
Table 4.1. Existing records of amphibians within 2 km of the site boundary
Species
(common
name)
Species (Latin
name)
Date of
last
record
Grid Reference Distance from
site (m)
Great
Crested
Newt
Triturus
cristatus
1985 TR310864 600
Smooth
Newt
Triturus vulgaris 1985 TR310864 600
Palmate
Newt
Triturus
helveticus
1985 TR310864 600
4.1.2 Field survey
4.1.2.1 Scoping
A description of the two balancing ponds located adjacent to the site boundary are given
below:
• Pond A – around 80m in length and between 10-15m wide. The eastern boundary
of the pond consists of a concrete headwall, however the western margin contains
some shallow areas, in particular in the north of the pond. The water quality
appears good and only around 10% of the western bank is shaded. The
surrounding banks and small area of rough grassland adjacent to the pond provide
potentially suitable newt foraging habitat;
• Pond B - around 45m in length and varies between 10-20m in width. While some
sections of the pond appear to support deep water, the eastern and western
margins include some shallow sections suitable for egg laying and display. The
water quality appears good and only around 15% of the margin is shaded. The
surrounding areas of grassland and young plantation represents potentially
suitable terrestrial habitat.
HSI scores for the above ponds were calculated to be as follows:
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
7
• Pond A (Long thin pond adjoining existing roundabout) – HSI = 0.76;
• Pond B (Pond to the north of existing factory) – HSI = 0.80.
The lowest published HSI score obtained at a site known to support breeding GCNs is 0.43
(Oldham et al, 2000).
While neither pond is considered ideal for use by great crested newts, each contains
sufficient suitable features to give relatively high HSI scores. Given that great crested
newts have also been previously recorded within 1km of the site, it was not possible to rule
out the presence of great crested newts. As such presence/absence survey were
conducted at both ponds (see below).
4.1.2.2 Presence/ absence survey
Survey results for Pond A and B are included below in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.
Table 4.2: Summary of amphibian survey results for Pond A
Date of survey Survey method
Torch Bottle traps Egg
search
Visit 1 – Thursday
17th April 2008
No amphibians
5 medium sized Koi carp (~20cm)
and around 50 juvenile goldfish
Nil Nil
Visit 2 – Monday 21st
April 2008
No amphibians.
Around 50 goldfish and 3 large
(30cm +) koi carp
1 adult male
smooth newt
Nil
Visit 3 – Thursday
24th April 2008
No amphibians.
Hundreds of goldfish and 4 large
koi carp
Nil Nil
Visit 4 – Monday 28th
April 2008
1 adult male smooth newt
Hundreds of goldfish.
Nil Nil
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
8
Table 4.3: Summary of amphibian survey results for Pond B
Date of survey Survey method
Torch Bottle trap Egg
search
Visit 1 – Thursday
17th April 2008
Nil Nil Nil
Visit 2 – Monday 21st
April 2008
Nil Nil Nil
Visit 3 – Thursday
24th April 2008
Nil 1 adult male
smooth newt.
6 adult
common frog
sex not
identified.
Nil
Visit 4 – Monday 28th
April 2008
Nil Nil Nil
No great crested newts were recorded during the presence/absence survey.
A maximum count of one adult smooth newt was recorded at Pond A. In addition the pond
was found to support a large number of goldfish and a small number of large koi carp.
A maximum count of one adult smooth newt and six common frogs was recorded at Pond
B. No fish were recorded.
4.2 Reptiles
4.2.1 Desk study
The desk study revealed no previous records of reptiles either on the development site, or
within the 2 km search radius of the site boundary.
4.2.2 Field survey
4.2.2.1 Presence/ Absence Survey
No reptiles were recorded during the seven survey visits. A summary of conditions for each
of the survey visits conducted is shown in Table 4.4 below.
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
9
Table 4.4: Summary of conditions and results for reptile presence/absence survey visits
Date of Visit Visit
Number
Temp.(?C) No. of artificial refugia
checked and in valid
survey locations
(Total =35)
Reptiles
recorded
18/04/2008 1 7 35 Nil
22/04/2008 2 14 35 Nil
23/04/2008 3 12 34 Nil
25/04/2008 4 16 35 Nil
29/04/2008 5 10 35 Nil
13/05/2008 6 16 35 Nil
29/05/2008 7 16 33 Nil
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
10
5 Conclusions and recommendations
N.B. Conclusions and recommendations drawn from the current survey data should only
be considered to represent a valid baseline for a period of up to two years from the date of
survey. After this point resurvey may be necessary.
5.1 Amphibians
5.1.1 Great crested newt
No great crested newts were recorded during the presence/absence survey. Based on the
completion of a full presence /absence survey under suitable conditions, great crested
newts are presumed to be absent from both Ponds A and B.
Given that great crested newts are presumed to be absent from the site, no further survey
or mitigation work with regard to this species is required.
In the unlikely event that a great crested newt is identified at the development site then all
works should halt immediately and an ecologist called to site.
5.1.2 Common amphibians
A maximum count of 1 smooth newt was recorded at both Ponds A and B. In addition a
maximum count of 6 common frogs at Pond B.
Using the guidance table provided in Chapter 8 of the Herpetofauna Workers Manual (Eds.
Gent and Gibson, 1998) it is possible to make a broad estimate of population size. On this
basis Pond A is assumed to support a ‘low’ population of smooth newt. Pond B is assumed
to support ‘low’ populations of both smooth newt and common frog.
The majority of individuals from these populations are likely to be closely associated with
habitat which immediately surround the ponds, and therefore not within the site boundary.
The presence of small number of common amphibians within the site boundary cannot be
ruled out. However given the small populations identified the potential for common
amphibians to be utilising the strip of rough grassland to the north of the Cummins factory
is considered low. In the arable fields and other sparsely populated on site habitats which
surround Ponds A and B the potential is considered only negligible.
If small numbers of common amphibians (less than 10 individuals) are encountered during
works these should be transferred to an area of retained habitat utilising a plastic container
with a loose-fitting lid (to ensure some air flow). If high numbers (in this case defined as
more than 10 individuals) are encountered then works should halt immediately in this area
of the site and an ecologist consulted.
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
11
5.2 Common reptiles
No reptiles were recorded at the site during the presence/absence survey. Based on these
results it is assumed that reptiles are absent from the development site.
In the unlikely event that a common reptile is encountered during site clearance then works
should halt for a short period to allow opportunity for the individual to move away of its own
accord. If the reptile fails to leave the area of works then it should be transferred to an area
of adjacent retained habitat in a plastic container with a loose fitting lid.
Commercial Group Properties PLC
China Gateway, Manston
Amphibian and reptile report June 2008
12
6 References
English Nature (2001) - Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature,
Peterborough.
Froglife (1999) - Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting
surveys for snake and lizard conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet Number 10. Froglife,
Halesworth.
Gent, A. H., and Gibson S. D., (Ed’s) (1998) Herpetofauna workers’ manual. Joint Nature
Conservancy Committee.
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 (4),
pp143-155.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
67
Appendix 7.3 Bat activity surveys report
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys
FINAL
June 2008
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Scott Wilson
Scott House
Alen?on Link
Basingstoke
Hampshire
RG21 7PP
Tel 01256 310200
Fax 01256 310201
www.scottwilson.com
This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's
appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed
to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson
accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the
purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may
copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior
written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions,
or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the
context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal
or tax advice or opinion.
? Scott Wilson Ltd 2008
Revision Schedule
Bat activity surveys report
June 2008
Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
01 11/06/08 FINAL Andrew Waller
Sub-consultant (ASW
Ecology)
John Simmons
Ecologist (Scott Wilson)
Dr Joe Franklin
Ecologist (Scott Wilson)
John Simmons
Ecologist (Scott Wilson)
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................... 1
2 Legislative context ............................................................................ 2
3 Methodology ..................................................................................... 3
3.1 Desk study......................................................................................................................3
3.2 Field study ......................................................................................................................3
3.3 Constraints .....................................................................................................................4
4 Results.............................................................................................. 5
4.1 Desk study......................................................................................................................5
4.2 Field study ......................................................................................................................6
5 Conclusions and recommendations .................................................. 9
6 References ......................................................................................10
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
1
1 Introduction
Scott Wilson Ltd was commissioned by Commercial Group Properties plc in March 2008 to
undertake bat activity surveys to inform a planning application for the proposed China Gateway
development at Manston, Kent.
The 71.57ha site will eventually be covered by three separate planning application areas for a
total development of up to 325,158 sq metres (3.5 million sq ft) of predominantly mixed B1(c),
B2 or B8 uses (see Figure 1).
A planning submission made in March 2008 included an application for outline planning
permission for the entire 71.57ha site (see Figure 1), and a detailed application covering an
area of 31.68ha (Phase 1) that lies largely within the existing Manston Business Park. An
Environmental Statement (ES) covering the 71.57ha site supported this submission.
The Phase 1 application covers an area of 31.687 ha making use of the existing brownfield
land and undeveloped employment land. It includes proposals for a prominent Gateway
building, a restaurant and amenity blocks. The remainder of the China Gateway Manston site
(i.e. that which lies outside of the designated employment area) will be subject to a later
detailed planning application(s) (Phase 2 and Phase 3) covering the remainder of the area
covered by this ES.
Due to seasonal constraints several protected species surveys required in support of the ES
(including those for reptiles and great crested newts) were not complete at the time of
submission. Following consultation with Natural England and Thanet District Council it was
agreed that an updated ecology chapter would be submitted as an addendum to the
Environmental Statement (ES) prior to determination.
The proposed development site supports a range of habitats but is dominated by arable fields,
with smaller areas of species poor semi-improved grassland, ruderal plant communities and a
number of well developed hedgerows. Two balancing ponds are located just outside of the site
boundary in the north-west of the site.
The principal aim of the bat activity survey was to assess the importance of on-site features for
foraging and bat navigation. A secondary aim of the surveys was to indicate any buildings or
trees within or adjacent to the scheme that may support roosting bats.
Previously all trees and buildings to be lost as a result of the development have been assessed
for their potential to support bats. Results of these assessments are contained within the ES.
Section 2 of the following report outlines relevant legislation. Section 3 outlines methodologies
utilised for the surveys. Sections 4 and 5 outline the results and conclusions respectively.
Phase 1
Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 3
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
1:5,250
Plot Date: 11.06.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 1 Development Boundary & Application Phases.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
& APPLICATION PHASES
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
FINAL
JM JS
FIGURE 1
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
Development Redline Boundary
Outside of Development Area
Phase 1 Application
Phase 2 Application
Phase 3 Application
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
2
2 Legislative context
All species of bat and their roosts (whether bats are present or not) are protected under the
Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Taken together, under this legislation it is an offence
to:
• Damage/destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat (N.B. this is an offence
whether the act is deliberate or not);
• deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat;
• deliberately, intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat;
• intentionally or recklessly disturb access to any structure which a bat uses for shelter or
protection.
A bat roost is defined as ''any structure or place, which is used for shelter or protection'' or a
''breeding site or resting place''. Because bats commonly use the same roosts at particular
times of the year after periods of absence, the roost is protected whether or not bats are
resident.
Given the above legislation the potential presence of bats at a site represents a material
consideration in the planning process. Even where planning permission is not required there is
still a legal responsibility placed on the developer to ensure that a Natural England licence is
obtained to cover any works that have the potential to result in an offence under the above
legislation.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
3
3 Methodology
3.1 Desk study
A desk study was undertaken in support of the ES in December 2007. Records for all protected
or notable species onsite and within a 2km radius of the site boundary were obtained from the
Kent and Medway Biological Records Centre (KMBRC).
KMBRC’s records include that submitted by the local bat group and members of the public.
3.2 Field study
A series of three dusk/dawn bat activity surveys were conducted at the proposed China
Gateway site on the following dates:
• Visit 1 - Dusk of 15th May 2008 & dawn of 16th May 2008;
• Visit 2 - Dusk of 21st May 2008 & dawn of 22nd May 2008;
• Visit 3 - Dusk of 27th May 2008 & dawn of 28th May 2008.
On each of the above survey dates the transect route shown in Figure 2 was walked by two
surveyors carrying Bat Box Duet detectors linked to mini-disk players. Surveys covered the
following periods:
• Dusk – approximately half an hour before sunset to 2 hours after sunset; and
• Dawn - 2 hours before sunrise to sunrise.
These survey periods are in line with the standard guidance provided in Bat Surveys – Good
Practice Guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007).
The transect route incorporated a total of 14 listening stations at those points considered most
likely to be of value to bats (see Figure 2). During each survey the transect was walked at a
steady pace, stopping for two minutes at each of the pre-defined listening stations.
The time, location, number, species (where possible) and direction of flight were recorded for
each bat pass (discreet burst of echolocation heard, or bat activity observed) encountered
during the survey. Any indications of bat roosts being present in the immediate survey area or
close were also recorded. Such indicators can include early emerging bats (in relation to the
sunset time), as well as “streams of bats” leaving a roost site.
At the start of each survey sunset/sunrise time, temperature at sunset/sunrise, wind speed and
the types of invertebrates flying were recorded.
N
M
L
K
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
1:5,250
Plot Date: 11.06.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 2 Bat Transect Route and Listening Point Locations.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
BAT TRANSECT
ROUTE AND LISTENING
POINT LOCATIONS
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
FINAL
JM JS
FIGURE 2
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
Bat Listening Points
Bat Transect Route
Development Redline Boundary
A
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
4
3.3 Constraints
All survey visits were conducted during May 2008. Given the development programme it was
not possible to space survey visits more widely between May and August. May is however
considered optimum for bat activity survey (Bat Conservation Trust, 2007). All features with
potential to support maternity roosts that are to be lost as a result of the development were
inspected during March 2008 and no evidence of bats was recorded. As such this is not
considered to represent a constraint to the survey.
Period of light drizzle were encountered during the surveys of 15th/16th May and 27th/28th May.
However, in all cases this was not considered heavy enough to prevent insects flying. As such
this is not considered to represent a significant constraint to the survey.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
5
4 Results
4.1 Desk study
Table 4.1 – Bat species recorded within vicinity of the proposed development
Species
(common
name)
Species (Latin name) Date of last
record
Distance from
site (m)
Common
pipistrelle bat
Pipistrellus pipistrellus 26/07/2001
500
Soprano
pipistrelle bat
Pipistrellus pygmaeus 18/06/1997 1600
Brown longeared
bat
Plecotus auritus 24/01/2003 1250
Natterer’s bat Myotis nattereri 09/01/2005 1250
Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus 24/09/1985 2000
Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula 08/10/1985 2000
Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii 30/01/1988 1250
Serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus 20/08/2001 2600
KMBRC hold records for a total of eight bat species within a 2km radius of the proposed
development site. There are no previous records of bats within the site boundary. The closest
previous record is 500m from the site.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
6
4.2 Field study
Figure 2 shows the transect route utilised and listening station reference numbers. Figure 3
shows a summary of the locations bats were recorded during the survey.
4.2.1 Dusk 15th May 2008
Weather: cloudy, moderate wind, quite mild, dry but some drizzle later
Sunset time: 20.38pm Sunset temp: 15?C
Windspeed: 11mph Invertebrates: mosquitoes, moths and various small flies
Table 4.2 Summary of results from dusk bat activity survey on 15th May 2008
Time Transect
point/listening
point
Species Description
21.17 Listening point
B
Pipistrelle
sp.
(Pipistrellus
sp)
One pipistrelle (no echolocation -
species unclear) seen next to Pond B
21.23 Common
pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus
pipistrellus)
One common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus
pipistrellus) seen extremely briefly just
after above pond
4.2.2 Dawn 16th May 2008
Weather: overcast, light wind, quite cool, occasional drizzle
Sunrise time: 05.02am Sunrise temp: 13?C
Windspeed: 7mph (max) Invertebrates: various small flies seen
No bat activity were recorded during the dawn survey.
4.2.3 Dusk 21st May 2008
Weather: quite clear, dry, mild, calm.
Sunset time: 20.46pm Sunset temp: 11?C
Windspeed: 0mph (max) Invertebrates noted: mosquitoes, small moths and various
flies
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
7
Table 4.3 Summary of results from dusk bat activity survey on 21st May 2008
Time Transect
point/listening
point
Species Description
21:20
-
21:21
Near listening
point B
1 x common
pipistrelle
Near transect listening point B, between
the pond and scrub.
21.25
-
21.26
Listening point
B
1 x common
pipistrelle, 1
x soprano
pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus
pygmaeus)
One common pipistrelle and just later
one probable soprano pipistrelle at the
same time over pond at transect
listening point B
21:33 Just north of
listening point
B
1 x common
pipistrelle
Near building corner close to transect
listening point B.
21:37 Adjacent to
young tree
planting to the
east of Pond B
1 x common
pipistrelle
Foraging along edge of tree line
21:40 Near listening
point A
1 x soprano
pipistrelle
Over channel
22:02 Near listening
point F
2 x common
pipistrelle
Seen close to silos
4.2.4 Dawn 22nd May 2008
Weather: clear mostly, dry, cool, light wind
Sunrise time: 4.54am Sunrise temp: 9?C
Windspeed: 2mph (max) Invertebrates: moths and various small flies seen
No bat activity was recorded during the dawn survey.
4.2.5 Dusk 27th May 2008
Weather: overcast, light wind, mild, drizzle at times
Sunset time: 8.54pm Sunset temp: 18?C
Windspeed: 6mph (max) Invertebrates noted: moths
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
8
Table 4.4 Summary of results from dusk bat activity survey on 27th May 2008
Time Transect
point/listening
point
Species Description
21:28
–
21:29
Listening point
G
1 x common
pipistrelle
Flying outside houses at transect
listening point G
21:34 Listening point
H
1 x common
pipistrelle
Foraging around hedge opposite the
three mature trees within the field
21:56 Listening point
K
2 x common
pipistrelles
Foraging extensively along treeline
close to first house at transect listening
point K.
4.2.6 Dawn 28th May 2008
Weather: overcast, breezy, quite mild, occasional light shower
Sunrise time: 4.47am Sunrise temp: 12?C
Windspeed: 8mph (max) Invertebrates noted: various moths
No bat activity was recorded during the dawn survey.
4.2.7 Summary
During all three evening bat surveys, activity recorded within/adjacent to the site was limited.
Peak bat activity of 6 passes was recorded on the evening of 21st May. All activity observed
during the three dusk surveys was of foraging bats. No commuting activity was recorded, or
any evidence of bats leaving a roost site. No activity was recorded during any of the three dawn
surveys.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
9
5 Conclusions and recommendations
N.B. Conclusions and recommendations drawn from the current survey data should only be
considered to represent a valid baseline for a period of up to two years from the date of survey.
After this point resurvey may be necessary.
Two species of bat were recorded during the 2008 activity surveys, namely common pipistrelle
and soprano pipistrelle. Both species of bat and their roosts are protected under the
Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Soprano pipistrelle is now listed as a Priority species within the recently reviewed UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), based on its rapid decline over the last 25 years. A species
action plan is not yet available. Common pipistrelle was removed from the UK BAP Priority
species list in 2007.
No bat activity was recorded during the three dawn surveys. Activity recorded during the dusk
surveys was predominantly within land to the west of Alland Grange Lane. Only one bat pass
was recorded in land to the east of Alland Grange Lane (covered by survey points K, L and M).
This finding is possibly related to the fact that this area of the site is a large open arable field of
limited value to bats as foraging habitat.
Activity recorded to the west of Alland Grange Lane was associated with bats foraging along
hedgerows and within the area of young plantation woodland outside the site boundary (to east
of survey point B).
Bats navigate within the landscape between roost and foraging sites by following “flight lines”
such as hedgerows and other linear habitat features. None of the bat activity recorded during
the dusk surveys was indicative of bat species commuting along potential flight lines identified
during the extend Phase 1 habitat survey.
None of the bat activity recorded indicated the presence of a roost site within the development
boundary.
Based on the limited activity recorded, the site is considered to be of only low value to local bat
populations with regard to foraging and navigation.
Large areas of habitat containing features suitable for both roosting and foraging are present in
the wider local landscape. It is likely that these areas are currently used by bats, in preference
to the limited areas of suitable habitat available within the site boundary. Overall, the loss of onsite
foraging habitat is considered unlikely to result in any adverse effect on the wider local bat
population.
The proposed site master plan includes the retention of all significant hedgerows which
surround the existing site. As such the majority of existing features with potential to be utilised
in foraging or navigation will be retained.
N
M
L
K
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE INTENDED AND ONLY
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE USED
NOTES
Revision Details
Drawing Status
Job Title
Drawing Title
By
Check
Date Suffix
Scale at A3
Drawn Approved
Stage 1 check Stage 2 check Originated Date
Drawing Number Rev
1:5,250
Plot Date: 28.03.08
Filepath: K:\D117016_Manston Business Park\MXDs\Figure 3 Locations of Bats Found During Bat Activity Sureys- Spring 2008.mxd
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey
material with the permission of Ordnance Survey
on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's
Stationary Office.
? Crown copyright
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or
civil proceedings.
100020449 2008
Copyright
LOCATIONS OF BATS FOUND
DURING BAT ACTIVITY SUREYS
SPRING 2008
CHINA GATEWAY
MANSTON
FINAL
JM JS
FIGURE 3
Scott House
Basing View, Basingstoke
Hampshire, RG21 4JG
Telephone (01256) 310200
Fax (01256) 310201
www.scottwilson.com
Scott Wilson
Bat Listening Points
Development Redline Boundary
Outside of Development Area
Common Pipistrelle
Soprano Pipistrelle
A
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Bat activity surveys report June 2008
10
6 References
Bat Conservation Trust (2007) Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines. Bat Conservation Trust, London.
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
68
Appendix 7.4 Bird survey results
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
69
Table 7.4.1 below lists all bird species recorded at the site during the course of the 2008 breeding bird
surveys.
Activities are indicated as follows: B = breeding, pB = possibly breeding/breeding nearby, Fl = flying over
the site, V = visitor/resting, I = introduced species.
Table 7.4.1 List of all bird species present on site and adjacent habitat during 2008
breeding bird surveys
Common Name Specific Name B pB Fl V I
Black-Headed
Gull
Larus ridibundus
Blackbird Turdus merula
Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla
Blue Tit Parus caeruleus
Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs
Chiffchaff
Phylloscopus
collybita
Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto
Corn bunting Emberiza calandra
Crow Corvus corone
Cuckoo Cuculus canorus
Dunnock Prunella modularis
Feral Pigeon Columba livia
Great Tit Parus major
Green
Woodpecker
Picus viridis
Greenfinch Carduelis chloris
Grey Heron Ardea cinerea
Grey Partridge Perdix perdix
Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis
Herring Gull Larus argentatus
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
70
Common Name Specific Name B pB Fl V I
House Martin Delichon urbica
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Jackdaw Corvus monedula
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus
Lesser Black-
Backed Gull
Larus fuscus
Linnet Carduelis cannabina
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis
Long-Tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus
Magpie Pica pica
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus
Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis
Moorhen Gallinula chloropus
Pheasant Phasianus colchicus
Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba
Reed Warbler
Acrocephalus
scirpaceus
Ring-Necked
Parakeet
Psittacula krameri
Robin Erithacus rubecula
Rook Corvus frugilegus
Skylark Alauda arvensis
Song Thrush Turdus philomelos
Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Stock Dove Columba oenas
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
71
Common Name Specific Name B pB Fl V I
Swallow Hirundo rustica
Swift Apus apus
Whitethroat Sylvia communis
Woodpigeon Columba palumbus
Wren
Troglodytes
troglodytes
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Chapter 7 - Ecology June 2008
72
Appendix 7.5 Preliminary assessment of
invertebrate interest
Commercial Group Properties plc
China Gateway, Manston
Preliminary assessment of invertebrate
interest
FINAL
June 2008
Scott Wilson
Scott House
Alencon Link
Basingstoke
Hampshire
RG21 7PP
Tel 01256 310200
Fax 01256 310201
This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with
its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and
confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use
of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and
provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the
contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott
Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and
relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do
not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.
? Scott Wilson Ltd 2008
Revision Schedule
Preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest
June 2008
Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
01 12/06/08 FINAL Richard Jones
(Sub-consultant(
John Simmons
Ecologist (Scott Wilson)
John Simmons
Ecologist
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent:
Preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest
BY RICHARD A. JONES F.R.E.S., F.L.S.
135 Friern Road, East Dulwich, London SE22 0AZ
CONTENTS
Summary . . . . . . 2
Introduction . . . . . . 3
Methods . . . . . . 3
Site visits . . . . . 3
Site compartments . . . . 3
Location and collection of specimens . . 3
Taxonomic coverage . . . . 3
Survey results . . . . . . 3
General . . . . . 3
Noteworthy species . . . . 4
Discussion . . . . . . 6
Future invertebrate monitoring of the site . . 6
Conclusion . . . . . . 6
Future mitigation . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . 7
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent:
preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest
BY RICHARD A. JONES F.R.E.S., F.L.S.
135 Friern Road, East Dulwich, London SE22 0AZ
SUMMARY
• An invertebrate survey of land near Manston, Ramsgate, Kent, was commissioned
prior to development.
• An initial site visit was made on 25 May 2008.
• A list of 56 invertebrate species was recorded, a relatively poor list but one that
reflects the limited habitat at the site and just a single field visit.
• Several unusual and scarce insects were found including:
Harpalus ardosiacus, a nationally scarce ground beetle
Ischnotus sequensi, a nationally rare weevil
Longitarsus dorsalis, a nationally scarce flea beetle
Myrmica specioides, a nationally rare ant
Odynerus melanocephalus, a nationally scarce mason wasp
• These and many of the other insects found during the survey visit are species
associated with disturbed ground such as verges and field edges.
• The nationally rare species, Myrmica specioides, and Ischnotus sequensi are
particularly found in this area of north Kent, and are well established in the area.
• It is suggested that a further field visit in late summer will discover a different range
of invertebrate species, but it is not thought that any very dramatic finds will be made.
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent:
preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest
BY RICHARD A. JONES F.R.E.S., F.L.S.
135 Friern Road, East Dulwich, London SE22 0AZ
INTRODUCTION
An area of former farmland north of Kent International Airport, at Manston, near
Ramsgate has been scheduled for development. This invertebrate survey was
commissioned as part of a larger environmental impact assessment being carried out by
Scott Wilson.
METHODS
Site visits
The area was visited on 25 May 2008. The day was warm and bright, but heavy rain had
fallen during the night and the herbage and ground were still very wet. A walk-over
assessment of the site was complemented by the collection of specimens.
Site compartments
The site is relatively small, so has not been subdivided into compartments.
Location and collection of specimens
Invertebrates were located and collected by general methods using sweep net, beating
tray and a stout knife. Flowers, leaf surfaces, rocks, bare ground, logs and tree trunks
were examined by visual searching. Voucher specimens of all but the most common and
characteristic species have been kept.
Taxonomic coverage
The survey concentrated on the following major insect groups: Coleoptera (beetles),
Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (bugs, froghoppers etc), Hymenoptera (bees, wasps and ants)
and Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths). Some examples of other groups were noted if
seen.
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
SURVEY RESULTS
General
A list of 56 invertebrate species was recorded. They represent:
Coleoptera (beetles) 30 species
Diptera (flies) 11
Hemiptera (bugs) 1
Hymenoptera (bees, wasps etc) 7
Lepidoptera (butterflies & moths) 5
Aranaea (spiders) 2
Total 56
Fifty-six species is a relatively poor number given the size of the site. It is a reflection on
the limited available habitat, the recent wet weather and the limited recording effort that
could be made with just a single visit.
Noteworthy species
Most of the insects seen or collected were common ones, which might be expected to turn
up in any open area in southern England. However, a number are uncommon or otherwise
unusual and worthy of comment.
The following species are picked out as being especially noteworthy. Criteria for
allocation of accepted ‘nationally rare’ (red data book) and ‘nationally scarce’ (notable)
statuses are varied and complex. However, they are listed in brief here.
• Endangered (RDB-1). The rarest taxa. Taxa in danger of extinction in Great Britain;
species with very few recorded localities or living in especially vulnerable
habitats.
• Vulnerable (RDB-2). Very rare species. Taxa likely to move into the RDB1 category;
species declining in their range.
• Rare (RDB-3). Rare species. Taxa with small populations and which are at risk;
species estimated to occur in 15 or fewer of the 10-km squares in the national
Ordnance Survey grid since 1970.
• Insufficiently known (RDB-K). Species thought to be very rare in Britain, recorded
from less than 15 of the 10-km squares of the national Ordnance Survey grid since
1970, and which warrant RDB classification of some sort, but for which there is a
recognized lack of accurate information.
• Nationally scarce (notable A). Very local species, thought to occur in 16 to 30 of the
10-km squares of the national Ordnance Survey grid since 1970.
• Nationally scarce (notable B). Very local species, thought to occur in 31 to 100 of the
10-km squares of the national Ordnance Survey grid since 1970.
• Nationally scarce status is sometimes not subdivided into categories A and B,
(notable, occurring in 16 to 100 10-km squares).
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
• Very local status is a much more subjective, but nevertheless useful, measure of
scarcity and is based on personal experience, published and unpublished records. It
is applied to species that are very limited in distribution or confined to very limited
specialist habitats.
The following is a list of some of the more interesting and noteworthy species
taken in the area.
Nationally Rare (RDB category 3)
Myrmica specioides Bond., a small red ant, family Formicidae. Status: nationally rare:
red data book category 3, Shirt, 1987; Falk, 1991). This rare ant is seemingly
restricted to the sandy coasts of Kent and Essex. A small colony was found under
a piece of wood, 25.v.2008.
Insufficiently known (RBB category K)
Ischnotus sequensi (Stier.) (formerly Rhynchaenus populi Fab.), a minute black weevil,
family Curculionidae. Status: nationally rare, but insufficiently known (red data
book category K, Hyman & Parsons, 1992). Until this beetle was ‘rediscovered’
near Canterbury in 1952, it was regarded as being only doubtfully British and
known only from old suspect records from Kent and London. Recent finds
suggest that although very limited geographically to northern Kent and southern
Essex it is well established in the area. The larvae feed on poplars and sallows.
Two specimens were beaten from a sallow tree, 25.v.2008.
Nationally scarce (notable A)
Odynerus melanocephalus (Gmelin), a medium-sized black and yellow mason wasp,
family Eumenidae. Status: nationally scarce (notable A, Falk, 1991). This scarce
mason wasp makes its small burrow nests in bare soil, usually clay or sand. It is
very scarce in southern England and has suffered a dramatic decline since about
1970 (Edwards, 1997; Archer, 2003). One specimen was found flying about
bramble flowers, 25.v.2008.
Nationally scarce (notable B)
Harpalus ardosiacus Luts., a medium-sized blue ground beetle, family Carabidae. Status:
nationally scarce (notable B, Hyman & Parsons, 1992). This is mainly a species of
southern England, and most localities are coastal or estuarine, with a large series
of localities on the north Kent coast (Luff, 1998). One specimen was seen under a
piece of litter on a roadside verge, 25.v.2008.
Longitarsus dorsalis (Fabricius), a minute black and yellow flea beetle, family
Chrysomelidae. Status: nationally scarce (notable B, Hyman & Parsons, 1992).
Although widespread across much of England, this is mainly a southern species. It
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
occurs on ragworts, usually on dry sandy or chalky soils or on coastal cliffs and
landslips. Several specimens were swept from roadsides, 25.v.2008.
Very local
Bruchidius varius (Olivier), a minute bean weevil, family Bruchidae. Status: very local.
A recent colonist to Britain, although still relatively uncommon in the UK, this
species has spread over much of south-east England since it was first discovered
on the south coast in 1994 (Jones, 2007). Several specimens were swept,
25.v.2008.
Epyris niger Westwood, a minute black parasitoid, family Bethylidae. Status: very local.
This scarce insect is recorded from a handful of southern vice-counties, although
it belongs to a little-studied group of insects and is probably under-recorded. Its
life history is not known, but it is thought to be a parasitoid of beetles. One
specimen was found by general sweeping, 25.v.2008.
Graptus triguttatus (Fab.), a medium-sized brown weevil, family Curculionidae. Status:
very local. This scarce weevil occurs in sandy and chalky places, under stones and
at the roots of herbage. It is predominantly a southern insect. Although
provisionally listed with nationally scarce (notable) status by Hyman (1985,
1986), this was not confirmed by Hyman & Parsons, 1992). One specimen was
found by grubbing at plant roots, 25.v.2008.
Metopoplax ditomoides (Costa), a small black and grey ground bug, family Lygaeidae.
Status: very local, but spreading. A single specimen of this bug was first found in
Britain on a rubbish tip in Hounslow in 1953, after its spread had been monitored
across Europe. Regarded as a vagrant or adventitious species, it was not included
in the review of British Hemiptera (Kirby, 1992), but was rediscovered in Britain,
in Oxfordshire, shortly after publication. It feeds on various species of mayweed,
Matricaria. It has since been found on a number of occasions in south-east
England, and appears to be spreading (Jones, 2007). One specimen was swept
from Matricaria plants, 25.v.2008.
Platystoma seminationis Fabricius, a small picture-winged fly, family Platystomatidae.
Status: very local. A species of rough damp grassland, woodland rides and marshy
places. Although widely recorded across the UK, it is not common. Two
specimens were swept and others were observed in the fallow fields, 25.v.2008.
Tephritis divisa Rondani, a small picture-winged fly, family Tephritidae. Status: very
local, perhaps a new colonist to the UK. On the continent this fly has been reared
from the flower heads of bristly ox-tongue, Picris echinoides, a widespread and
common plant of disturbed ground such as brownfield sites. It was first found in
Britain, on the Sussex Coast, in 2005, and is likely to be a new arrival to the
country. Two specimens were swept on rough flowery ground, 25.v.2008.
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of the survey visit on 25th May was to make a general assessment of
the invertebrate biodiversity potential of the site. Much of the site is still under arable
farming and as such has no or very low invertebrate potential. The remaining habitat
suitable for invertebrates is more or less limited to roadside verges, former arable land
allowed to grow fallow for one or two years, and some marginal areas around recently
developed plots which have grown up with wild flowers alongside some ornamental trees
and shrubs.
On the whole, the site has very little in the way of invertebrate interest, but the
short selection of scarce species given above demonstrates that even in these
circumstances, a site can be home to unusual insects.
Most of the scarce species listed above are typical of roadside verges, disturbed
ground and field edges, where a rich diversity of annual flowers has become established.
All of the nationally scarce and ‘very local’ species fall into this category, and they are all
probably widespread in the area, existing in small pockets of available habitat.
The two ‘red data book’ species are very specifically north Kent insects, and
although very limited geographically in the UK, they are also probably widespread in the
area.
FUTURE INVERTEBRATE MONITORING OF THE SITE
A single visit in May has produced an initial list of species. Although further visits
throughout the year would undoubtedly find new species, including (probably) more
scarce ones, the site is unlikely to produce any startling or very unusual finds.
CONCLUSION
The site at Manston supports a small number of notable invertebrates. These are mainly
associated with the road verges and field edges. The arable land has no or only very little
invertebrate interest.
FUTURE MITIGATION
If the development of the site proceeds, there is some scope for enhancing the existing
habitat for invertebrates. This will involve little or no horticultural landscaping or
planting. Instead, any marginal land should be allowed to grow up with the local mix of
ruderal and annual wildflowers that already occur in the area. This need not even involve
purchasing and spreading seed, because the local flora is already capable of colonizing
the site by wind- and animal-borne seeds. As the local field-edge flora becomes
established, it will attract the same types of insects as already occur here.
Manston, near Ramsgate, Kent: preliminary assessment of invertebrate interest. Richard A. Jones. 2008
REFERENCES
Archer, M.E. 2003. The British potter and mason wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae;
Eumenidae) a handbook. Privately printed.
Edwards, R. 1997. Provisional atlas of the aculeate Hymenoptera of Britain and Ireland.
Part 1. Abbots Ripton: Biological Records Centre.
Falk, S. 1991. A review of the scarce and threatened bees, wasps and ants of Great
Britain. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.
Hyman, P.S. 1985. A provisional review of the status of British Coleoptera. Invertebrate
Site Register Report Number 60. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.
Hyman, P.S. 1986. A national review of British Coleoptera. Ia. A review of the statuses of
British Coleoptera (in taxonomic order). Invertebrate Site Register report No. 64.
Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council.
Hyman, P.S. & Parsons, M.S. 1992. A review of the scarce and threatened Coleoptera of
Great Britain. Part 1. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Jones, R.A. 2007. ‘All of a buzz in the Thames Gateway’: further evidence that London
and Thames Gateway brownfields are important refuges for many scarce and red
data book invertebrates. Interim report. Unpublished report for Buglife, the
Invertebrate Conservation Trust.
Kirby, P. 1992. A review of the scarce and threatened Hemiptera of Great Britain.
Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Luff, M.L. 1998. Provisional atlas of the ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) of
Britain. Abbots Ripton: Biological Records Centre.
Shirt, D.B. (ed.) 1987. British red data books: 2. Insects. Peterborough: Nature
Conservancy Council.