Landscape & Ecology Report

Landscape and Ecology Report

We commissioned a landscape and ecology report due to the impact of the proposed solar park.

Landscape and Ecology Review

We instructed JFA Environmental Planning to provide a Landscape and Ecology review for both Amber Valley and North East Derbyshire Councils. Below is a summary of their review. To read the full report, search for the planning application AVA/2020/1224 on the Amber Valley website, click on 'Documents', and insert the reference 1092012 in the search field.

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

A LVIA (Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment) field work was undertaken in the summer and the report submitted in November 2020. There are some concerns with the base data, but the general analysis is robust, on the basis of the data used.

Predicted Effects on Landscape Character

Local Plan Policy EN7 states that any new development must be appropriate to the character of the local landscape, and that the development should have regard to: ‘the scale, layout, design and detailing of local buildings...’ Based upon the results of the LVIA this proposal does not conform to the local plan policy.

The LVIA predicts landscape effects as follows:

National landscape character areas (NC38) The Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfields – major impact
Local landscape area LC4A Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfields – Moderate – major impact
Coalfields Estates Local Character Type – major impact

At the site level

Vegetation – moderate impact
Overall site impacts – major impact

Predicted Effects on Visual Amenity

Local Plan Policy EN35 states that “renewable energy normally permitted providing its environmental effects are acceptable.’ It also states, “in all cases the proposals would not have a significant impact on visual amenity...’. Acceptable is undefined, but it would be reasonable to assume the moderate to major predicted effects would not be acceptable.

A number of viewpoints were assessed. Moderate to major impacts were identified as follows:

At viewpoints 6-9 – moderate to major visuals were identified
At viewpoints 15a-3, which are views from a number of footpaths near Alfreton Brook and Alfreton Church, major visual impacts were identified.
At viewpoint 16b from footpaths near Four Lane Ends and Alfreton, major visual impacts were identified.
At viewpoint 17b1-17c3, a range of views from a footpath between B6013 and Alfreton, major visual impacts were identified.
At viewpoint 18a1-18c2, a footpath near Ufton Fields Farm, major visual impacts were identified.
At viewpoints 19a-19e3, footpaths east and southeast of Ufton Fields Farm, major visual impacts were identified.

Assessment Deficiencies

There are three areas where this assessment is deficient: consultation, consideration of winter views, and the supporting photographic material.

Consultation

For an application of this scale, consultation with the local authority and stakeholders should be undertaken as part of the preparatory process. While an LVIA does depend on a skilled and knowledgeable professional, it’s also critical that they take into account local values, knowledge and priorities. Generally, viewpoints should be agreed with the local planning authority at a minimum and with other stakeholders if possible. In this instance, policy EN35 should be alluded to, as it uses “acceptable” as a criteria for approval of renewables impacts.

Survey Season

The site was visited in late July 2020, when leaf cover was at its maximum. The best practice is to re-visit the site in late autumn/winter when trees and hedgerows are leafless. Assessment of impacts at viewpoints is probably understated, as the site would be more visible in most cases during winter months.

Additional Accurate Visual Representations

Given the scale of the proposals, the viewpoint assessment should utilise accurately plotted photomontages using Accurate Visual Representation at level 1. This would be a wireframe or block outline of the development accurately plotted on the site, with the includes of 3D context and filtering effects of screening vegetation.

Ecology Assessment

Ecology reports for the scale of project detailed require an EcIA (Ecological Impact Assessment) to be undertaken. The EcIA should adhere to national and local planning policies and follow the guidance below:

Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (2018). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine.
British Standard for Biodiversity. Code of practice for planning and development (BS 40202:2013).

In particular, analysis should focus on identifying habitats and species of principal concern. This report did not do this.

Relevant Planning Policies

No planning policy was reviewed. To correctly assess a project, it should be set against all policies and compliance noted below. Some of the local plan policies relevant to biodiversity are mentioned in the LVIA but aren’t replicated or referred to in the ecology report.

National Planning Policy Framework (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2019)
Government Circular: Biodiversiy and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005)
Amber Valley Borough Local Plan

General Inadequacies

Although the report is titled Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIAs), crucial surveys of protected species haven’t been done. There is no assessment of effects and mitigation/enhancements are recommendations to the client not commitments. The report should have met the criteria for a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report as per the guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), but it does not meet the minimum threshold for this. It should be considered an Ecological Walk over Survey and Phase 1 Habitat Assessment. It fails to provide sufficient information to support a planning application.

Fundamental information is missing, key absences are:

The author/s name, their exact qualification
Specific relevant protected species licences held by surveyors
Specific dates of surveys and
Weather on survey dates
Survey limitations, such as access limitations, weather effects should be noted

Designated Sites

Designated sites are inadequately inventoried and assessed for direct or indirect impacts. There are LNRs and SINCs within the impact zone, which are not mentioned.

Ogston Reservoir

The site has been identified within the SSSI impact zone of Ogston Reservoir. This reservoir is designated mainly for it’s important overwintering and summer passage wildfowl and wading bird populations.

To adhere to local and national policies regarding SSSIs, consideration of the site to support the associated bird species during the winter and breeding seasons should have been undertaken, protecting the conservation interests of this designated site.

Oakerthorpe Local Nature Reserve

Water Voles have been flagged in the area of this LNR. No consideration of water voles has been undertaken on site although mapping shows the site is crossed by/adjacent to streams and ditches.

Non-statutory Designated Sites

There are no details of the non-statutory designated sites within the zone of influence, including their reason for designation and distance from the site. They have been discounted based on distance without further justification including assessing any pathway connectivity.

Habitats and Mapping

The baseline habitat descriptions are very brief with limited details. Habitats have been incorrectly named, missed or grouped broadly together.

Missing Habitats

Reviewing the Ordnance Survey maps, there are streams and ditches that are not mentioned, discussed or mapped. These are potential great crested newt and water vole habitats that may be affected. It should have been noted in the report if they were found to be present or dry.

Critical information is also missing regarding Alfreton Brook: no distance from the site is specified, and there is no consideration of habitat or topography between the site and the Brook which could result in effects on the watercourse from the construction.

Inadequate Pond Surveys

None of the ponds mentioned are mapped so it’s not possible to identify which ponds are being referred to in the report. There are two additional ponds present on the Amber site which are not mentioned or mapped and haven’t been surveyed.

Mis-identified Habitats

Silage habitat in the Amber report is named as improved grassland, whereas silage should be labelled as an arable habitat.

Broadly Described Habitats

Hedgerows and woodland habitat have been merged together and not properly described or mapped. Gaps in hedgerows are not mapped either.

Incorrect Habitat Evaluation

Evaluation between habitats is not consistent and doesn’t follow the CIEEM EcIA guidelines (2018) in relation to geographic context. The report makes reference to the value of the habitats to protected species, rather than the biodiversity value of the habitats.

Protected Species

Bats

The surveys for bats are inadequate with the report only briefing stating that ‘some mature trees did support various features that could offer opportunities for crevice dwelling bat species.’

There are clear guidelines for the conservation of Bats, which have not been followed. No further details are given, and surveys are only recommended if substations work, or felling is required during clearance works. This is not best practice and could result in liabilities if species are harmed during construction.

To assess the effect of the proposals on bats, the locations of potential roost features in all trees, hedgerows and woodlands likely to be affected on or immediately adjacent to the site should have been identified and subject to further surveys if required.

Great Crested Newts

There was no assessment of ditches on site for great crested newts. The ponds that were assessed, were surveyed in July 2020 and recorded as dry. July is a sub-optimal time of year for such assessments and the unusually dry spring in 2020 may have dried out points in Mid-summer.

Some ponds were discounted on the word of landowners. One was discounted regarding the presence of fish; however great crested newts can still be present and breed even with fish present. The other pond was discounted as being dry.

The presence of great crested newts can’t be ruled out due to inadequate surveys of potential habitat on site.

Badgers

Again, the survey for Badgers was done in July, which is sub-optimal time for badger surveys due to the dense vegetation at this time of year. Setts may have been missed. The duration of the survey is also unknown, which could have provided some assurance that the large sites were adequately surveyed.

Birds

No mention of the habitat potential for bird nesting, feeding and sheltering in winter is considered. There is evidence of skylark, an important ground nesting bird in the vicinity. Therefore, a survey for breeding birds generally following the British Trust of Ornithology Methodology is needed. Conducting overwintering bird surveys for important assemblages of winter resident birds linked to Ogston Reservoir SSSI is recommended.

Reptiles

Surveys for Reptiles should have been undertaken of the field margins, to ensure any populations of reptiles are adequately mitigated for when work occurs.

Dormice

There is no justification given as to why dormice were excluded. Reviews suggest that they’re no longer present except for re-introductions in the last 20 years in the west of the county. However, this is not discussed.

Water Voles

No preliminary assessment or surveys for Water Voles were undertaken.

Hedgehogs

As a species of principal importance, Hedgehogs should be considered if hedgerows/woods are being cleared and fencing may sever access. There is no mention of Hedgehogs.

Impact Assessment

The assessment of effects is inadequate for such a large site. Designated sites, habitats and species should have been specifically assessed in this section.

Without an adequate impact assessment, there is no consideration of the significance of effects, or significance of residual effects after mitigation is considered or an assessment of cumulative effect with other projects in the vicinity.

Mitigations and Enhancements

Mitigations and enhancements within the report are only recommendations and not fixed commitments as required for a EcIA. Without sufficient data on species and their population sizes, the LPA can’t judge whether ecological mitigations or enhancements are sufficient, this fails to meet the requirements of the NPPF.

Mitigation/protection of adjacent wildlife sites, hedgerows, trees and woodland and associated field margins and watercourses is generic not backed by sufficient data and analysis, which makes it inadequate.

Considering there are likely to be hares, badgers and hedgehogs on the site, there is inadequate mammal access points for the size of the site. There is also a missed opportunity of suggested pond enhancements.

Further Survey Work Required

Further survey work is required to establish the presence of the following protected species that are likely to be on site and harmed by the proposals:

Bats
Great crested newts
Badgers
Breeding birds
Overwintering birds
Reptile survey
Water voles

Further Assessment of Effects Required

A detailed assessment of effects is required of any species known to be present, either from existing information or from detailed further surveys. The results of this will require mitigation and enhancements proposals to be reviewed and adjusted and confirmed within EcIA.

Full Report

To read the full report, search for the planning application AVA/2020/1224 on the Amber Valley website, click on 'Documents', and insert the reference 1092012 in the search field.

Read the Full Amber Valley Report