Methodologies
This page details the general methodologies which may be implemented by LP Ecological Services during the design and completion of ecology surveys and assessments and the production of ecological reports.
Bespoke or site-specific methodologies are detailed in the relevant ecological reports, if applicable.
Desk Study
Local Planning Policy
A review of the local council website was undertaken to identify planning policies, site allocations, Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS), Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP) and supplementary guidance related to biodiversity which could have implications for the proposed development.
Existing Ecology Survey Data
A review of the local council planning portal was undertaken to identify existing planning applications for the site and surrounding area and any accompanying ecology reports.
Landscape, Geology and Soils
A review of the ‘Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) Interactive Map’ was undertaken to identify the presence of aquifers, soil types and groundwater vulnerability of the site as well as historic landscape classifications for the site. A review of ‘Google Earth’ aerial imagery was undertaken to identify green corridors and stepping stones of habitat connectivity between the site and the surrounding landscape. This information can provide an indication of the types of habitats which may be present on the site and can influence opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement later in the project.
Designated Sites
Statutory Designated Sites
A review of 'MAGIC' was undertaken to identify statutory designated sites within the zone of influence of the site. Where statutory designated sites were present, a review of Natural England’s ‘Designated Sites View’ or the Natural Resources Wales ‘Protected Areas of Land and Sea’ website page was undertaken for further information on their reasons for designation.
Non-Statutory Designated Sites
A review of the local council website was undertaken to identify non-statutory designated sites within the zone of influence of the site. Where this information was not publicly available, non-statutory designated sites within the zone of influence of the site were identified through biological records data purchased from the local biological records centre, if this was deemed to be necessary to meet the objectives of the report.
Habitats and Flora
A review of aerial imagery and OS mapping was undertaken to identify broad habitat types that were present on and surrounding the site.
A review of 'MAGIC' was undertaken to identify the presence of any notable habitats on or surrounding the site including ancient woodland and habitats of principal importance under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (for English sites only as similar habitat information for Welsh sites is not published in the public domain).
'MAGIC' was also used to determine whether the site lies within the National Habitat Network.
A review of the ‘Priority River Habitat Map’ was undertaken to determine whether any watercourses on or connected to the site are classified as priority river habitats.
Records of protected and invasive non-native plant species (as listed under Schedules 8 and 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 respectively) within or surrounding the site were identified through biological records data purchased from the local biological records centre, if this was deemed to be necessary to meet the objectives of the report. Alternatively, data from the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas was reviewed, where data licensing permitted. Only records less than ten years old were considered.
Fauna
A review of aerial imagery and OS mapping was undertaken to identify potential habitats of value for protected and notable fauna within and surrounding the site.
A review of 'MAGIC' was also undertaken to identify the presence of European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) records within the zone of influence of the site as well as great crested newt Triturus cristatus class licence returns and pond survey data within 500m of the site. A check was also made to identify whether the site lies within any areas of potential value for notable species such as countryside stewardship schemes targeting priority species, important bird areas and important plant areas.
Records of protected and notable fauna species within the zone of influence of the site were identified through biological records data purchased from the local biological records centre, if this was deemed to be necessary to meet the objectives of the report. Alternatively, data from the NBN Atlas was reviewed, where data licensing permitted. Only records less than ten years old were considered.
Habitat Surveys
Extended Habitat Survey
The survey was undertaken in accordance with UK Habitat Classification methodology (UKHab Ltd, 2023). Habitat condition was assessed in line with the Statutory Biodiversity Metric Habitat Condition Assessment Sheets (Defra, 2024) and with consideration of the Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for specific habitat types, where appropriate.
Where possible or if deemed necessary to meet the objectives of the report, the survey was completed during the optimal period April to October when plant species are most visible.
A daytime walkover of the site was undertaken and all land parcels within the site boundary were identified, mapped and photographed.
A description of each habitat including area, an assessment of habitat condition and a list of plant species and their distribution with reference to the DAFOR scale (D = Dominant; A = Abundant, F = Frequent, O = Occasional, R = Rare) was compiled. This was informed by sampling using 1sqm quadrats, where appropriate.
Target notes were used to identify specific ecological features, where appropriate.
Protected or invasive non-native plant species listed under Schedules 8 and 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 respectively, were recorded if present and identifiable during the survey.
A scoping assessment was also undertaken for protected and notable fauna including amphibians, reptiles, badgers Meles meles, bats, birds, hazel dormice Muscardinus avellanarius, otter Lutra lutra and water vole Arvicola amphibius. Habitats or features which could be suitable for use by these species for behaviours such as breeding, hibernation, shelter and foraging were identified. Field signs, indicating the presence of these species, were also recorded, where present.
Hedgerow Survey
Field Survey
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the Hedgerow Survey Handbook (Defra, 2007).
Where possible or if deemed necessary to meet the objectives of the report, the survey was completed during the optimal period April to October when plant species are most visible.
A daytime survey was undertaken during which hedgerow(s) within the site boundary were identified, mapped and photographed. A description of each hedgerow including an assessment of habitat condition was provided.
A 30m section of each hedgerow (including both sides of the hedgerow, where accessible) were sampled. For each 30m section, a list of plant species and their distribution with reference to the DAFOR scale (D = Dominant; A = Abundant, F = Frequent, O = Occasional, R = Rare) was compiled along with details of any associated features including:
- A bank or wall supporting the hedgerow.
- Less than 10% gaps.
- On average, at least one tree per 50 metres.
- At least 3 species from a list of 57 woodland plants.
- A ditch.
- A number of connections with other hedgerows, ponds or woodland.
- A parallel hedge within 15 metres.
- An adjacent footpath or byway.
Protected or invasive non-native plant species (listed under Schedules 8 and 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 respectively) were recorded if present and identifiable during the survey.
Field signs of protected fauna were also noted, where present.
Evaluation of Data
The survey data was used to establish whether the hedgerow(s) qualify as “important” under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.
There are eight criteria listed in Part II of Schedule 1 of the Hedgerow Regulations. Criteria 1-5 relate to archaeology/heritage components and are not considered in this report. This report focussed on Criteria 6-8 which relate to ecology and these are summarised below.
6. Contains certain categories of species of birds, animals or plants listed in the Wildlife and Countryside Act or Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) publications.
7. Within an average 30m length, includes:
a. At least 7 woody species.
b. At least 6 woody species and has at least 3 associated features.
c. At least 6 woody species, including a black poplar tree, or large leaved lime, or small leaved lime, or wild service tree; or
d. at least 5 woody species and has at least 4 associated features.
e. The list of 56 woody species comprises mainly shrubs and trees. It generally excludes climbers (such as clematis, honeysuckle and bramble) but includes wild roses.
8. Runs alongside a bridleway, footpath, road used as a public path, or a byway open to all traffic and includes at least 4 woody species, on average in a 30m length and has at least 2 of the associated features listed at (a) to (g) below:
The associated features are:
a. A bank or wall supporting the hedgerow.
b. Less than 10% gaps.
c. On average, at least one tree per 50 metres.
d. At least 3 species from a list of 57 woodland plants.
e. A ditch.
f. A number of connections with other hedgerows, ponds or woodland.
g. A parallel hedge within 15 metres.
River Condition Assessments
Field Survey
A Modular River Physical or MoRPh survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication The MoRPh Survey Technical Reference Manual (2022) and by a qualified surveyor.
A single MoRPh survey is applied to a module of river. The length of each module varies depending on the MoRPh river width (Table 1). Five contiguous MoRPh surveys are carried out to characterise a sub-reach. This set of surveys is known as MoRPh5. MoRPh5 surveys are repeated so that a minimum of 20% of the length of river within the development red line boundary is surveyed (spaced no more than four times the sub-reach length apart). Sub-reaches should be equally spaced and located to best capture variations along within the red line boundary.
The MoRPh survey characterised the channel, banks and immediate bank tops (to 10 m from the bank top edge) of each watercourse. The survey recorded the extent and character of bank and bed sediments, morphological and hydraulic features/habitats, riparian and aquatic vegetation extent and structure, presence and extent of non-native invasive plant species, bank top land use pressures and human interventions within the river channel. Results from the survey created a series of positive and negative indicator scores.
Desk Study
Measurements were taken of planform, natural confinement and valley gradient of the extended river reach (defined as a section of river or stream between an upstream and downstream location, for which the stage or flow is representative of conditions in that section of river or stream) enclosing the project area as well as information on the bed material of the river to determine river type.
Evaluation of Data
The results of both the field survey and the desk study were inputted into the Cartographer software to generate a final condition class for each subreach, ranging from ‘poor’ to ‘good’. The condition will be moved down a condition class if the watercourse is considered to be over-deep (modified to a point where it is less able to interact with its floodplain or riparian margins, as determined by the channel geometry).
Badger Surveys
The surveys were undertaken in accordance with the publication Surveying Badgers (Harris et al., 1989).
Badger Sett Identification
A daytime walkover of the site, and the surrounding 30m where accessible, was undertaken to identify evidence of badger including setts, bedding material, tracks, hairs, paths, scratching posts, dung pits and latrines and foraging signs such as digging or snuffle holes. Where present, field signs of badger were mapped and photographed.
Badger Sett Characterisation
Trail cameras were deployed to monitor activity associated with the badger setts over a period of four weeks.
Weekly return visits were made to replace the trail camera memory cards and batteries.
Evaluation of Data
The survey data was used to determine whether there were badger setts on the site and, where possible, to enable their characterisation in accordance with the criteria outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
Barn Owl Surveys
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Barn Owl Conservation Handbook (Barn Owl Trust, 2012) and by a licensed barn owl surveyor.
A daytime walkover of a site was undertaken to identify any built structures or mature trees which might offer potential nest or roost sites for barn owls. Potential foraging habitat for barn owls was also noted.
Ladders, torches and endoscopes were used to undertake a close inspection of features that could support nesting or roosting barn owls, where necessary.
Where present, evidence of barn owl was recorded including, but not limited to, live or dead owls, pellets, faeces, eggs, feathers, prey items and nest debris.
Bat Surveys
Preliminary Roost Assessment
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists — Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2023) and by a licensed bat surveyor.
Built Structures
Built structures were subject to a daytime bat walkover survey which comprised an external inspection for the presence of Potential Roost Features (PRFs) including (but not limited to) lifted roof tiles, hanging tiles, gaps in brickwork, fascia boards and timber cladding. An internal inspection was also completed, including any roof voids or cellars.
Ladders, torches and endoscopes were used to undertake a close inspection of PRFs, where accessible.
Evidence of bats including live or dead individuals, droppings, urine staining, scratch marks and feeding remains were recorded, where present.
Where present, droppings were collected and sent to a laboratory for DNA analysis to determine species.
Trees
Trees were subject to a Ground Level Tree Assessment (GLTA) for the presence of PRFs including (but not limited to) cavities, raised bark and ivy cover.
Ladders, torches and endoscopes were used to undertake a close inspection of PRFs, where accessible.
Evidence of bats including live or dead individuals, droppings, urine staining, scratch marks and feeding remains were recorded, where present.
Where present, droppings were collected and sent to a laboratory for DNA analysis to determine species.
Foraging and Commuting Habitat
The value of the site for foraging and commuting bats was assessed based on the habitats present on the site and in the surrounding landscape and taking into account other factors such as light spill and habitat connectivity.
Evaluation of Data
Built structures, trees and foraging and commuting habitat were assessed for their suitability for bats in line with Table 3.
If evidence of roosting activity was identified, the built structure(s) or tree(s) were also classified as a confirmed roost.
Bat Emergence Surveys
The surveys were undertaken in accordance with the publication Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists — Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2023) and were led by a licensed bat surveyor.
Built structures with low, moderate or high roost suitability were subject to a minimum of one, two or three emergence surveys respectively.
Emergence surveys of each built structure were spaced at least three weeks apart and commenced 15 minutes before sunset and continue for at least 90 minutes after sunset.
Emergence surveys were completed during the survey period May to September when bats are active and during weather conditions that were conducive to bat activity i.e., when overnight temperatures were above 10°C, with no rain or strong winds (greater than 10mph).
Full coverage of the Potential Roost Features (PRFs) on each built structure was achieved via appropriate placement of surveyors, accompanied by full spectrum bat detectors, and night vision aids.
Footage from the night vision aids was reviewed, using video analysis software such as ‘Motion Meerkat’ to identify roosting activity.
Where bat calls were recorded that were associated with roosting activity, these were subject to acoustic analysis using sonogram analysis software such as ‘Bat Sound’ to identify bat species.
Evaluation of Data
Where roosts were identified, these were characterised by species, number of bats and roost type, in accordance with the roost types outlined in Table 4.
Bat Hibernation Survey
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists — Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2023) and by a licensed bat surveyor.
A hibernation roost survey was undertaken during the survey period December to February, which comprised two visits completed a minimum of four weeks apart.
The survey visits included a close-up inspection of potential roost features for hibernating bats, using ladders, an endoscope and torch, where accessible.
For sites with a ‘low’ likelihood of hibernating bats being present, automated bat detectors were deployed inside built structures for a period of two weeks to record bat activity simultaneously with each survey visit. For sites with a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ likelihood of hibernating bats being present, automated bat detectors were deployed for period of two weeks each month between November and March.
Acoustic analysis of the bat calls recorded by the automated bat detectors was completed using sonogram analysis software such as ‘Bat Sound’ to identify bat species.
Bat Activity Surveys
The surveys were undertaken in accordance with the publication Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists — Good Practice Guidelines (Collins, 2023) and were led by a licensed bat surveyor.
Three bat activity surveys were undertaken, one in spring (April to May), summer (June to September) and autumn (September to October) to obtain data across the seasons when bats are active.
Bat activity surveys were completed during weather conditions that were conducive to bat activity i.e., when overnight temperatures were above 10°C, with no rain or strong winds (greater than 10mph).
Each bat activity survey comprised night time bat walkovers and the deployment of automated detectors.
The night time bat walkovers commenced at sunset and continued for at least two hours after sunset. For the first 30 minutes of the survey, surveyors were positioned at vantage points. After the first 30 minutes, a pre-defined transect route was walked. Surveyors used full spectrum bat detectors to record bat activity.
For sites with ‘low’ value, automated bat detectors were deployed for a minimum of five consecutive nights during the three bat activity surveys in suitable bat foraging and commuting habitat within the site boundary. These started recording at sunset and finished at sunrise each night. For sites with ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ value, automated bat detectors were deployed for a minimum of five consecutive nights each month between April and October.
Acoustic analysis of the bat calls recorded by the automated bat detectors was completed using sonogram analysis software such as ‘Bat Sound’ to identify bat species.
Evaluation of Data
The survey data was used to establish the assemblage of bat species using the site as well as any variation in bat activity across the seasons and in different areas of the site.
Great Crested Newt Surveys
Habitat Suitability Index
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for Great Crested Newt (Oldham et al., 2000).
Waterbodies within 250m of the site were identified using aerial imagery and Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping. If waterbodies appeared to be potentially suitable for great crested newts Triturus cristatus, with connectivity to the site, and if impacts to great crested newts as a result of the proposed development were possible, waterbodies were subject to a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment (if access was permitted).
Where possible, the survey was completed during the optimal period April to October when plant species are most visible.
HSI is a standard measure of calculating the suitability of a waterbody to support breeding great crested newts, based on an assessment of 10 characteristics (indices), including size, shading, depth and vegetation profile. The assessment generates a number between 0 and 1 for each of the indices which are combined to provide an overall assessment of a waterbody’s suitability to support great crested newts on a categorical scale, as show in in Table 5.
eDNA Sampling
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Using eDNA to Develop a National Citizen Science-based Monitoring Programme for the Great Crested Newt (Biggs et al., 2014) and by a licensed great crested newt surveyor.
Waterbodies within 250m of the site were identified using aerial imagery and Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping. If waterbodies appeared to be potentially suitable for great crested newts, with connectivity to the site, and if impacts to great crested newts as a result of the proposed development were possible, waterbodies were subject to environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling (if access was permitted).
The eDNA survey was completed during the survey period 15th April to 30thJune, as specified in the survey guidance.
eDNA sampling involved collecting samples of water from a waterbody and sending these off to a laboratory for analysis to identify the presence or absence of great crested newt DNA.
The sampling protocol is as follows:
- 20 samples were taken from around the entire perimeter of the waterbody.
- The surveyor stayed out of the water while taking the samples (extension poles were used in situations where open/sufficiently deep water was at a distance from the dry banks.
- Survey locations were distributed around the pond perimeter but micro-siting was used to select locations most likely to be used by great crested newts.
- At each sample location the water column was stirred prior to taking the sample but care was taken to avoid disturbing the sediment on the base of the pond.
- Once all 20 samples were taken, 15ml of the total sample were pipetted into each of the 6 sampling tubes, whilst ensuring that the water in the sample bag was mixed before taking each 15ml sample and that only one sample tube was opened at any one time.
- At all times the surveyor ensured that the risk of contaminating the sampling equipment was minimised by avoiding the placement of the ladle or pipette on the ground or on any otherwise potentially contaminated surfaces and by changing gloves between the initial sampling stage and the pipetting stages of the method.
Population Estimate Surveys
The surveys were undertaken in accordance with the publication Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook (Langton et al., 2001) and by a licensing great crested newt surveyor.
Population estimate surveys were undertaken of waterbodies where great crested newt presence was confirmed via eDNA sampling.
Population estimate surveys were completed during the survey period April to June when great crested newts are breeding in waterbodies and during weather conditions that were conducive to great crested newt activity i.e., when overnight temperatures were above 6°C, with no rain or strong winds (greater than 10mph).
The population estimate surveys comprised six visits, three of which were completed between mid-April and mid-May in accordance with survey guidance. During each visit, three of the following survey techniques were implemented:
- Egg searches - a search of suitable aquatic and emergent vegetation around the margins of each waterbody to identify great crested newt eggs and determine if the waterbody is in use for breeding. If great crested newt eggs were identified, no further egg searches were undertaken at that waterbody to preserve the great crested newt population as well as other newt species.
- Torch surveys - a high-powered torch was used to scan the surface of each waterbody at dusk and the visible number of great crested newts were counted.
- Netting - a net was used to sweep through the water and the number of captured great crested newts were counted.
- Bottle traps (with an air bubble) were deployed at dusk around the edges of the waterbodies at 2m intervals and then collected the following morning. The number of trapped great crested newts were counted.
Evaluation of Data
The peak count of great crested newts in a single survey was calculated and the highest peak count was used to estimate population size in accordance with Table 6.
Otter Survey
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Ecology of the European Otter (Chanin, 2003).
A detailed visual search was undertaken of waterbodies or watercourses on or adjacent to the site with potential suitability for otter to at least the surrounding 100m, where access was permitted. Field signs including live or dead otters, holts, dens, couches, tracks, trails and spraint were recorded where present.
The survey was not completed during or following any heavy rain or when water levels were high as this could wash away evidence.
Reptile Survey
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Herpetofauna Worker’s Manual (Gent and Gibson, 2003).
Artificial refugia was deployed in suitable habitat at the site and allowed to “bed-in” for at least two weeks. The refugia comprised steel ‘tins’ (corrugated steel sheets of approximately 50cm x 50cm square) and sheets of bitumen felt (approximately 100cm x 50xm square). The steel tins are regarded to have better habitat value for certain species (particularly snakes) due to their superior thermal retention. Seven visits to check the refugia were undertaken and the presence of any reptiles was recorded.
Evaluation of Data
Following the surveys, if reptiles are present a population size estimate was determined, based on Table 8.
The site was also evaluated to see if it qualified as a ‘key reptile site’ by meeting at least one of the following criteria:
a) Supports three or more reptile species.
b) Supports two snake species.
c) Supports an exceptional population of one species.
d) Supports an assemblage of species scoring at least 4.
e) Does not satisfy criteria a-d but is of regional importance due to local rarity.
Water Vole Survey
The survey was undertaken in accordance with the publication Water Vole Conservation Handbook (Strachan et al., 2011).
Two visits, one between April and June and another between July and September (in accordance with survey guidance) were undertaken which comprised a detailed visual search of waterbodies or watercourses on or adjacent to the site with potential suitability for water vole to at least the surrounding 10m, where access was permitted. Field signs including live or dead water voles, burrows, tracks, droppings and feeding remains were recorded where present.
The survey was not completed during or following any heavy rain or when water levels were high as this could wash away evidence.
Biodiversity Impact Assessment
Objectives
Biodiversity net gain (BNG) requires developments to ensure that habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development.
The objectives of the Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) are as follows:
- to describe the habitats that are present on the site pre-development;
- to describe the habitats that will be retained, created or enhanced on the site post-development;
- to calculate the net change in biodiversity as a result of the proposed development; and,
- to provide recommendations to ensure that the proposed development delivers a measurable net gain in biodiversity, in accordance with the Environment Act 2021.
Statutory Biodiversity Metric
The biodiversity value of the site pre- and post-development, and the subsequent change in the biodiversity value of the site, was calculated, using the Statutory Biodiversity Metric and accompanying tools, to determine if the targeted level of biodiversity net gain has been achieved.
The pre-development habitat value of the site was calculated using the results of the desk study, extended habitat survey and other vegetation and/or habitat surveys that were completed for the site.
The post-development habitat value of the site was calculated using the proposed development plan and landscaping proposals.
Separate calculations were completed for areas of habitat, hedgerows and watercourses, where present.
For each pre- and post-development habitat, the following information was recorded:
- Habitat type, based on UK Habitat Classification methodology and whether this constitutes an irreplaceable or priority habitat.
- Area or length - this was measured for areas or linear habitats using mapping software. The Tree Helper Tool within the Statutory Biodiversity Metric and information within the Statutory Biodiversity Metric User Guide was used to calculate the area of individual trees, if present.
- Habitat condition - pre-development habitat condition for each habitat type and/or parcel (where applicable) was assessed in accordance with The Statutory Biodiversity Metric -Technical Annex 1: Condition Assessment Sheets and Methodology (Defra, 2024) using the results of the extended habitat survey to determine whether the habitat was in poor, moderate or good condition. Post-development habitats followed the same process using information provided within the landscaping proposals and the statutory biodiversity metric user guide, using professional judgement.
- Strategic significance - if the site or habitat within the site was allocated for biodiversity purposes or if there was a specific biodiversity-related local planning policy that was applicable to the site or habitat, it was assigned high strategic value. All other habitats were assigned low strategic value.
- Evidence of degradation since 30th January 2020.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Objectives
The objectives of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) are as follows:
- to identify the likely ecological constraints associated with the proposed development;
- to inform master-planning to allow significant ecological effects to be avoided or minimised wherever possible;
- to identify any additional surveys that may be required to establish an ecological baseline and to inform an ecological impact assessment;
- to identify any mitigation measures that may be required, following the ‘Mitigation Hierarchy’;
- to determine feasibility of the proposed development delivering a measurable net gain in biodiversity, in accordance with the Environment Act 2021 (unless exempt); and,
- to identify opportunities to deliver other ecological enhancement within the proposed development.
Scope of Assessment
Zone of Influence
A zone of influence was adopted for the PEA (defined as the area(s) over which ecological features may be affected by the biophysical changes caused by a proposed development and associated activities).
Ecological Features
Designated sites, habitats and protected and notable species were considered within the PEA in relation to the proposed development.
Consultation
Where appropriate, representative stakeholders were consulted regarding the proposed development.
Identification of Ecological Constraints and Opportunities
Potential ecological constraints in relation to the proposed development were identified. Measures to avoid, minimise or otherwise mitigate for potentially significant effects on ecological features were set out, where feasible. The requirement for further surveys to inform an ecological impact assessment were detailed, where applicable. Opportunities for biodiversity enhancement were also set out.
Ecological Impact Assessment
Objectives
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is a process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential effects of development-related or other proposed actions on habitats, species and ecosystems.
The objectives of the EcIA were as follows:
- to establish an ecological baseline for the site, via the completion of a desk study and field surveys;
- to identify potentially important ecological features within the zone of influence of the project;
- to identify potential impacts on ecological features (in the absence of mitigation), both for the proposed development itself and in cumulation with other development projects;
- to identify and describe any mitigation measures that may be required, following the ‘Mitigation Hierarchy’;
- to determine the significance of any potential residual effects on important ecological features (following the incorporation of mitigation), both for the proposed development itself and in cumulation with other development projects;
- to describe how the proposed development will deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity, in accordance with the Environment Act 2021 (unless exempt), alongside the incorporation of other ecological enhancements; and,
- to confirm whether the proposed development complies with relevant legislation and planning policy.
Scope of Assessment
Zone of Influence
A zone of influence was adopted for the EcIA (defined as the area(s) over which ecological features may be affected by the biophysical changes caused by a proposed development and associated activities).
Ecological Features
Designated sites, habitats and protected and notable species were considered within the EcIA in relation to the proposed development.
Consultation
Where appropriate, representative stakeholders were consulted regarding the proposed development.
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts that could affect ecological features within the zone of influence of the site, in relation to the proposed development, in the absence of mitigation, were identified both for the proposed development itself and in cumulation with other development projects. Mitigation measures to avoid, minimise or compensate for these impacts were described, where appropriate and the significance of any residual effects which may subsequently occur following implementation of these measures was concluded.
Copyright © 2024 - LP Ecological Services Ltd - All Rights Reserved.
LP Ecological Services Ltd is a private limited company registered in England. Registered number 15638820. VAT registration number 503052447.