ENVIRONMENTAL
STATEMENT
Vol 4: Volume of Appendices
June 2007
This page is intentionally blank
Main Campus
Masterplan
Environmental
Statement: Volume IV Volume of Appendices
Black
This page is intentionally blank
The University of
Warwick
Main Campus
Masterplan
Environmental
Statement: Volume IV Volume of Appendices
June 2007
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
The Arup Campus, Blythe Gate, Blythe Valley Park,
Solihull, West Midlands. B90 8AE
Tel +44 (0)121 213 3000 Fax +44 (0)121 213 3001
www.arup.com
This report takes into account the
particular instructions and requirements
of our client.
It is not intended for and should not be
relied upon by any third party and no
responsibility is undertaken to any third
party
Job number
115438
This page is intentionally blank
Contents
Appendix A:
Consultee Comments
Appendix B.1:
Ecological Assessment
Appendix B.2:
Amphibian Survey
Appendix B.3:
Bat Survey
Appendix B.4:
Badger Survey
Appendix B.5:
Breeding Bird Survey
Appendix C.1:
Methodology for Assessing Zones of Visual Influence
Appendix C.2:
Methodology for Preparation of Photomontages
Appendix C.3:
Landscape and Visual Assessment Tables
Appendix D.1:
Air Quality Risk Assessment
Appendix D.2:
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
Appendix E.1:
Noise Survey Measurement Results
Appendix E.2:
Noise Survey Site Photographs
Appendix E.3:
Noise Maps
Appendix E.4:
Traffic Schematic
Appendix F.1:
Archaeological Gazetteer
Appendix F.2:
Buildings Gazetter
Appendix F.3:
Interpretation of Aereal Photographs for Archaeology
Appendix G.1:
Expenditure Impact Methodology
Appendix G.2:
Socioeconomic Assessment: Organisations Consulted
Appendix G.3:
Socioeconomic Assessment: Documents Reviewed
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA\ES\04.
APPENDICES\APPENDIX SHEETS.DOC
ESA01
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Issue 19 June 2007
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix A.1
Consultation
Responses:
Coventry City Council
Screening Opinion
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA AND
SCOPING REPORTS\ES SEPT 2006\02. APPENDICES\APPENDIX
SHEETS.DOC
ESA01
Page 1
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft - For Information Only 12 April 2007
This page is intentionally blank
ES
αβχ
SCREENING OPINION
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT)
(ENGLAND & WALES) REGULATIONS 1999
=====================================
Site: University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry.
Description of Development: University Campus Expansion Masterplan.
===========================================================
The proposal is a masterplan to guide the further development of the Warwick
University Campus, which straddles the administrative boundaries of Coventry
City Council and Warwick District Council. The proposal is for the expansion
of the University's academic, arts, social, administrative and recreational
facilities and falls within paragraph 10 (b) of schedule 2 of the above
Regulations. The City Council has been requested to adopt a screening
opinion as to whether the development is likely to have significant effects on
the environment such that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be
carried out and an Environmental Statement be submitted by the developer
containing the information required by Parts I and II of Schedule 4 of the
Regulations.
This screening opinion takes into account the selection criteria set out in
Schedule 3 to the Regulations.
SENSITIVE AREA
The site is not situated within a Sensitive Area as defined by Regulation 2(1).
CHARACTERISTICS OF DEVELOPMENT.
The submitted masterplan seeks to co-ordinate the further development of the
University, in order to expand its teaching, research and support activities and
facilities, including residential accommodation over a 15-year period. The
development is anticipated to involve approximately 171,000 square metres
(gross external area) of new development (89,000 sq. m. within Coventry,
and 81,900 sq. m. within Warwick) together with 1,080 new associated
parking spaces.
The development, with its highway and service infrastructure works would be
interspersed throughout the campus on Greenfield and Brownfield sites:
81,900 sq. m. within Central campus west situated in Warwickshire Green
Belt (located within the administrative boundary of Warwick District Council);
and 89,000 sq. m. spread over Central campus east, and the Westwood and
Gibbet Hill campuses (located primarily within Coventry and partially within
Warwickshire Green Belt).
The scale of development will have consequential impacts on the local and
Trunk highway network and will inevitably involve engineering and building
operations that will impact on the landscape, fauna and flora, soil, water, air
and material assets.
LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
The University of Warwick straddles administrative boundaries. It is situated
on the southwest boundary of Coventry within the Wainbody, and Westwood
Wards, and within the Parishes of Kenilworth and Stoneleigh, within Warwick
District.
A large part of the application site is nestled within Green Belt, the majority of
which is situated within the Warwick District Council administrative area, and
is predominantly in agricultural and woodland use. The site also includes
areas of land designated within the Coventry Development Plan 2001 for
nature conservation.
The east and west campuses are separated by the Gibbet Hill Road, which
runs along Coventry's administrative boundary with Warwick and which
contain the principal accesses to the southern parts of the campus. The
northern part of the campus can be accessed from Charter Avenue, and Kirby
Corner Road, which run between Charter Avenue and Gibbet Hill Road. The
A45 and A46 provide the primary highway links to the campus.
The surrounding area to the south being Green Belt is very sparsely
populated. Land to the west (Westwood Heath) and east (Cannon Park &
Gibbet Hill) are predominantly characterised by lower density 'suburban'
housing and employment development although this also includes some
green belt. Housing densities are generally much higher north of the site in
the Canley area of the city. The Cannon Park District Shopping centre, and
the Westwood Heath Science Park lie immediately adjacent to the Campus, in
a northwesterly direction.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
Given the location of the campus, and the scale of new development
proposed (and the associated transport implications including extensive
Green Travel proposals) it is highly probable that the proposal will give rise to
significant environmental effects; the exact nature, extent and magnitude,
complexity, duration, frequency, and reversibility of which, together with
appropriate options for mitigation, will need to be fully assessed.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons and under delegated powers it is determined that an
Environmental Statement is required for the above development.
Decision date: 6th June 2006
Signed:
Planning Control Manager.
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix A.2
Consultation
Responses:
Warwick District Council
Screening Opinion
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA AND
SCOPING REPORTS\ES SEPT 2006\02. APPENDICES\APPENDIX
SHEETS.DOC
ESA01
Page 1
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft - For Information Only 12 April 2007
This page is intentionally blank
ES
WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL
SCREENING OPINION
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND & WALES)
REGULATIONS 1999
___________________________________________________
Site :
University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry
Description of Development : University Campus Expansion Masterplan
_________________________________________________________________
The proposal is a masterplan to guide the further development of the Warwick University
Campus, which straddles the administrative boundaries of Coventry City Council and
Warwick District Council, and falls within paragraph 10 (b) of schedule 2 of the above
Regulations. Both Planning Authorities have been requested to adopt a screening
opinion as to whether the development is likely to have significant effects on the
environment such that an Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out and
an Environmental Statement submitted by the developer containing the information
required by Parts I and II of Schedule 4 of the Regulations.
This screening opinion takes into account the selection criteria set out in Schedule 3 to
the Regulations.
SENSITIVE AREA
The site is not situated within a Sensitive Area as defined by Regulation 2(1).
CHARACTERISTICS OF DEVELOPMENT.
The masterplan seeks to co-ordinate the further development of the University, in order
to expand its teaching, research and support activities and facilities, including residential
accommodation over a 15-year period. The development is anticipated to involve
approximately 171,000 square metres (g.e.a.) of new development (89,000 sq. m. within
Coventry, and 81,900 sq. m. within Warwick) together with 1,080 new associated parking
spaces.
The development, with its highway and service infrastructure works would be
interspersed throughout the campus on Greenfield and Brownfield sites: 81,900 sq. m.
within Central campus west situated in Warwickshire Green Belt (located within the
administrative boundary of Warwick District Council); and 89,000 sq. m. spread over
Central campus east, and the Westwood, and Gibbet Hill campuses (located primarily
within Coventry and partially within Warwickshire Green Belt).
The scale of development will have consequential impacts on the local and Trunk
highway network and will inevitably involve engineering and building operations that will
impact on the landscape, fauna and flora, soil, water, air and material assets.
LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
The University of Warwick straddles administrative boundaries. It is situated on the
southwest boundary of Coventry within the Wainbody, and Westwood Wards, and within
the Parishes of Kenilworth and Stoneleigh, within Warwick District.
A large part of the application site is nestled within Green Belt, the majority of which is
situated within the Warwick District Council administrative area, and is predominantly in
agricultural and woodland use. The site also includes areas of land designated within the
Coventry Development Plan 2001 for nature conservation.
The east and west campuses are separated by the Gibbet Hill Road, which runs along
Coventry's administrative boundary with Warwick and which contain the principal
accesses to the southern parts of the campus. The northern part of the campus can be
accessed from Charter Avenue, and Kirby Corner Road, which run between Charter
Avenue and Gibbet Hill Road. The A45 and A46 provide the primary highway links to the
campus.
The surrounding area to the south being Green Belt is very sparsely populated. Land to
the west (Westwood Heath) and east (Cannon Park & Gibbet Hill) are predominantly
characterised by lower density 'suburban' housing and employment development
although this also includes some green belt. Housing densities are generally much
higher north of the site in the Canley area of the city. The Cannon Park District
Shopping centre, and the Westwood Heath Science Park lie immediately adjacent to the
Campus, in a north-westerly direction.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT
Given the location of the campus, and the scale of new development proposed (and the
associated transport implications including extensive Green Travel proposals) it is highly
probable that the proposal will give rise to significant environmental impacts; the exact
nature, extent and magnitude, complexity, duration, frequency, and reversibility of which,
together with appropriate options for mitigation, will need to be fully assessed.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons and under delegated powers it is determined that an
Environmental Statement is required for the above development.
Decision date: 06 June 2006
Signed:
John Archer
Head of Planning and Engineering
Appendix A.3
Consultation
Responses:
Coventry City Council
Scoping Opinion
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA AND
SCOPING REPORTS\ES SEPT 2006\02. APPENDICES\APPENDIX
SHEETS.DOC
ESA01
Page 1
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft - For Information Only 12 April 2007
This page is intentionally blank
αβχ
SCOPING OPINION
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT)
(ENGLAND & WALES) REGULATIONS 1999
=====================================
Site: University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry
Description of Development:
University Campus Expansion Masterplan.
===========================================================
The proposed development which straddles the administrative boundaries of
Coventry City Council and Warwick District Council is for the expansion of the
University's academic, arts, social, administrative, and residential facilities,
and falls within paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 of the above Regulations, and
the City Council has been requested to adopt a scoping opinion in accordance
with Regulation 10 of Part IV of the Regulations to identify, based on the
submitted Environmental Scoping Report, the content and extent of the
information to be provided by the developer in an Environmental Statement
('ES'), for the proposed planning application.
Submitted Environmental Scoping Report.
The submitted Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) was prepared by Ove
Arup and Partners Ltd (December 2005), and submitted by Turley Associates
who intend to submit an Environmental Statement, to support a proposal for
further development of the University of Warwick Campus in accordance with
a fifteen-year masterplan. The development is anticipated to involve
approximately 171,000 sq. m. (g.e.a.) of new development (89,000 sq. m.
within Coventry and 81,900 sq. m. within Warwick) together with 1,080 new
associated parking spaces.
The Environmental Scoping Report provides elementary details of the
proposed development and its location, consultation, construction, planning
context, and the approach to be adopted in the preparation of the ES together
with conclusions and recommendations.
Consultation.
In accordance with Regulation 10(4), the following bodies have been
consulted:
• English Nature,
• Environment Agency,
• Highway Agency,
• Warwickshire County Council (Strategic Planning and Local Highway
Authority),
• Coal Authority,
• Warwickshire Wildlife Trust,
• Severn Trent Water Ltd.
• Countryside Agency.
• Coventry City Council as Local Highway Authority.
Decision.
The local planning authority has had regard to the suggested scope of work
for the Environmental Statement as set out in the Applicant's ESR and the
nature of the Regulations 10(4) consultation responses, and is of the view that
in addition to matters set out in the ESR any ES shall address the following
matters:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The alternatives assessed to minimise Green Belt release;
The options assessed to minimise the impacts on the highway
network and proposals to provide satisfactory transport
arrangements including proposals for Green Travel, pedestrians,
cyclists, and public transport;
The phasing in regard to both 1. & 2. above;
Any impacts on Coventry City Council's draft Air Quality Action Plan
(AQAP), and the Stoneleigh Road corridor between Kenilworth
Road and the A46, must be assessed in accordance with PPG 23,
and DEFRA Guidance TG (03) Appendix 3;
The environmental impacts of any proposals for the wider area or
resulting from mitigation measures proposed.
The issuing of this scoping opinion does not prevent the local planning
authority from requesting further information at a later stage under Regulation
19 of the above Regulations.
Decision date: 6th June 2006
Signed:
Planning Control Manager.
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix A.4
Consultation
Responses:
Warwick District Council
Scoping Opinion
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA AND
SCOPING REPORTS\ES SEPT 2006\02. APPENDICES\APPENDIX
SHEETS.DOC
ESA01
Page 1
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft - For Information Only 12 April 2007
This page is intentionally blank
WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL
SCOPING OPINION
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND & WALES)
REGULATIONS 1999
___________________________________________________
Site :
University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry
Description of Development : University Campus Expansion Masterplan
_________________________________________________________________
The proposed development which straddles the administrative boundaries of Coventry
City Council and Warwick District Council is for the expansion of the University's
academic, arts, social, administrative, and residential facilities, and falls within paragraph
10(b) of Schedule 2 of the above Regulations, and both Planning Authorities have been
requested to adopt a scoping opinion in accordance with Part VI of Schedule 10 of the
Regulations to identify, based on the submitted Environmental Scoping Report, the
content and extent of the information to be provided by the developer in an
Environmental Statement ('ES'), for the proposed application.
Submitted Environmental Report.
The submitted Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) was prepared by Ove Arup and
Partners Ltd (December 2005), and submitted by Turley Associates who intend to submit
an Environmental Statement, to support a proposal for further development of the
University of Warwick Campus in accordance with a fifteen-year masterplan. The
development is anticipated to involve approximately 171,000 sq. m. (g.e.a.) of new
development (89,000 sq. m. within Coventry and 81,900 sq. m. within Warwick) together
with 1,080 new associated parking spaces.
The Environmental Scoping Report provides elementary details of the proposed
development and its location, consultation, construction, planning context, and the
approach to be adopted in the preparation of the ES together with conclusions and
recommendations.
Consultation
In accordance with Regulation 12, the following bodies have been consulted:
• English Nature,
• Environment Agency,
• Highway Agency,
• Warwickshire County Council (Strategic Planning and Local Highway Authority),
• Coal Authority,
• Warwickshire Wildlife Trust,
• Severn Trent Water Ltd.
• Countryside Agency.
• Coventry City Council as Local Highway Authority.
Decision
The local Planning Authority has had regard to the suggested scope of work for the
Environmental Statement as set out in the Applicant's ESR and the nature of the
Regulations 12 consultation responses, and is of the view that in addition to matters set
out in the ESR any ES shall address the following matters:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The alternatives assessed to minimise Green Belt release;
The options assessed to minimise the impacts on the highway network and
proposals to provide satisfactory transport arrangements including proposals
for Green Travel, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport;
The phasing in regard to both 1. & 2. above;
Any impacts on Coventry City Council's draft Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP),
and the Stoneleigh Road corridor between Kenilworth Road and the A46,
must be assessed in accordance with PPG 23, and DEFRA Guidance TG
(03) Appendix 3;
The environmental impacts of any proposals for the wider area or resulting
from mitigation measures proposed.
The issuing of this scoping opinion does not prevent the local Planning Authority from
requesting further information at a later stage under Regulation 19 of the above
Regulations.
Decision date: 06 June 2006
Signed:
John Archer
Head of Planning and Engineering
Appendix A.5
Consultation
Responses:
Environment Agency
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA AND
SCOPING REPORTS\ES SEPT 2006\02. APPENDICES\APPENDIX
SHEETS.DOC
ESA01
Page 1
Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
Draft - For Information Only 12 April 2007
This page is intentionally blank
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix B
Ecological Surveys
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix B.1
Ecological Assessment
This page is intentionally blank
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2005
Report Ref. 1040.017
for
The University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
January 2006
Written:
TEP – The Environment Partnership
Genesis Centre
Birchwood Science Park
Warrington
WA3 7BH
Tel: 01925 844004
Fax: 01925 844002
e-mail: tep@tep.uk.com
Checked:
Approved:
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................2
SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................2
DESKTOP SURVEY ........................................................................................3
PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY ...........................................................................5
ASSESSMENT FOR SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN ..............................8
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................9
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING ..........................................................11
APPENDICES
Appendix One:
Ecological planning and legislative context
Appendix Two:
Desktop survey information
Appendix Three:
Target Notes
DRAWINGS
D1040.006
Phase 1 Habitat Survey 2005
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
1
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
TEP – The Environment Partnership was commissioned by Warwick University to
carry out a baseline ecological survey of Warwick University campus.
1.2
The purpose of this report is to assist the client in the following:
x
x
assessment and description of the valuable ecological components of the site
and area;
identification of further survey requirements.
1.3
The extent of the field survey is shown at Drawing D1040.006. Information was
gathered for the wider area by means of a desktop study.
1.4
To identify potential ecological impacts of development proposals, the ecological
planning and legislative context affecting the site must be assessed in terms of the
following:
x
x
x
x
x
1.5
The following preliminary surveys were therefore carried out:
x
x
x
1.6
protected sites (statutory and non-statutory);
protected species;
UK Biodiversity Action Plan ‘priority’ habitats;
UK Biodiversity Action Plan ‘priority’ species;
species and habitats of local concern.
desktop survey ;
phase 1 habitat survey;
assessment for species of conservation concern.
For the purposes of this report, species of conservation concern are those which
fall into any of the following categories (some of which overlap):
x
x
x
species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or the Habitats
Regulations 1994;
species prioritised in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan;
species prioritised in the Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Biodiversity Action
Plan
1.7
A description of the planning and legislative status of these documents is found at
Appendix One.
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1
The University of Warwick campus is situated south of Coventry between the A45
and the A429. The campus straddles the Coventry/Warwickshire border and the
extent of the survey is illustrated in Drawing D1040.005. The national grid
reference is SP299759.
2.2
University buildings dominate the centre and north of the site, which is bordered to
the north by the town of Canley and to the south by open countryside. There are
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
2
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
extensive areas of amenity grassland on site, together with a network of
hedgerows and small woodland and plantation areas.
3.0
DESKTOP SURVEY
3.1
Information was requested/gathered from the following sources (Table 1):
Table 2: Ecological information and consultations
CONSULTEE/SOURCE
OF INFORMATION
NATURE OF INFORMATION
Warwickshire County Council
Protected species records and designated sites
National Biodiversity Network
Historical protected species records
The Environment Agency
Protected species records
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Identification of national priority bat species
known to occur in the region.
Warwickshire,
Coventry
& Identification of regional priority bat species
Solihull Biodiversity Action Plan
known to occur in the region.
The University of Warwick
Species/habitat records
Magic
Map:
Multi-Agency
Geographic Information for the Statutory and rural designations, citations, natural
Countryside
area boundaries
(www.magic.gov.uk) (2003)
English Nature
Natural Area Profile classification
Countryside Agency
Character Area classification
West Midlands Bird Club
Breeding bird survey data
EcoRecord (referred to Warwick n/a
CC)
Warwickshire Badger Group
No response
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
3.2
No response
Desktop survey information is presented at Appendix Two.
Protected Sites
3.3
There are no statutorily protected sites (SSSI, SPA, Ramsar, SAC) recorded within
the site or within 500m of the site. Tile Hill Wood SSSI lies approximately 2km
from the university campus.
3.4
The Old Brickyard Plantation (see Target Note One, Appendix Three) is designated
as a Potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (pSINC) by Warwickshire
County Council.
3.5
Whitefield Coppice borders Warwick University grounds to the southwest and is
designated as a pSINC by Warwickshire County Council.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
3
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
3.6
Tocil Wood and Brookstray are designated as a Site of Importance for Nature
Conervation (SINC) by Coventry City Council. Although the woodland is outside of
the university boundary, the boundary of the SINC includes the adjacent lakes and
meadow area on university land.
Local Plan/UDP
3.7
The western and southern part of the site lies in Warwickshire and is designated as
‘Greenbelt’ in the Warwick District Local Plan 1996-2011, revised deposit version
May 2005.
3.8
The eastern and northern part of the site lies within Coventry and is mainly
designated as ‘University of Warwick Development Plan Area’ under the Coventry
Development Plan 1996-2011. A small area in the north is also classed as
‘Greenbelt’ under this plan.
Protected Species
3.9
Records of great crested newts within 500m of the site were obtained.
3.10
Water vole records were obtained for Canley Brook which runs along the eastern
boundary of the site.
3.11
Badgers are known to forage in the Tocil Wood area, but no sett records were
obtained.
3.12
Records for common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, whiskered/Brandt’s,
Daubenton’s, noctule, serotine (possible) and brown long-eared bats on or within
500m of the site were obtained.
3.13
The Environment Agency (EA) advised that native white-clawed crayfish
populations were found in 2005 within the Avon catchment and it is possible that
they are present in watercourses on site.
3.14
The EA also reported that it should be assumed that otters are using Canley Brook
as they have recolonised the Avon catchment.
3.15
Appendix Two includes detailed bird records for the area in and around the
university.
3.16
Based on information gathered from the sources listed in Table 1, the following
statutorily protected species were taken into account when the site assessment
was carried out:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
bats (all species)
brown hare (protected March – July)
badger
great crested newt
otter
water vole (protected in place of shelter, i.e. burrows in banks)
white-clawed crayfish
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
4
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
3.17
All breeding birds are protected at the nest. Although a lawful development is
allowed to disturb birds, it is good practice to carry out any works that might affect
nests, e.g. tree felling and mowing/clearing of areas used by ground-nesters,
outside the breeding season (March to August inclusive).
UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) / Local BAP Priority Species
3.18
The following UKBAP priority species may be present on site:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
bats (all species)*
brown hare
great crested newt*
otter*
skylark
song thrush*
water vole*
white-clawed crayfish
*these species are also prioritised in the Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Local
Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP). Other species in the LBAP which may be present
on site include lapwing, snipe, farmland birds and a number of invertebrate species.
UKBAP / Local BAP Priority Habitats
3.19
‘Species Rich Hedgerows’ and ‘Cereal Field Margins’ are UKBAP priority habitats
present on site. Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Local Biodiversity Action Plan
(LBAP) also has habitat action plans for ‘Hedgerows’ and ‘Field Margins’ and
additionally for ‘Rivers & Streams’ and ‘Ponds, Lakes & Reservoirs’.
4.0
PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY
Methods
4.1
The phase 1 habitat survey was carried out by experienced ecologists Peter Gateley
(MIEEM) and David Sweeting (MIEEM) between May and August 2005. Phase 1
habitat survey is a standard method of survey (JNCC 2003) and gives an overview
of key habitats, wildlife corridors and the likely sites for species of conservation
concern.
Results
4.2
The phase 1 habitat survey is illustrated at Drawing D1040.006.
4.3
The following habitats are present on or adjacent to the site:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Amenity grassland
Marshy grassland
Semi-improved neutral grassland
Arable
Broadleaved semi-natural woodland
Broadleaved/mixed plantation woodland
Scattered trees
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
5
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
4.4
Scattered/dense scrub
Species poor hedge / hedge and trees
Species rich hedge / hedge and trees
Tall ruderal herbs
Ephemeral / short perennial
Introduced shrub
Bare ground
Standing water
Running Water
Wet / Dry ditch
Brief descriptions of the key species and relative importance of the habitats are set
out below.
Amenity grassland
4.5
4.6
Large areas of the campus are made up of amenity grassland dominated by
perennial rye-grass (Lolium perenne). These are landscaped areas around buildings
and sports pitches.
Marshy grassland
A small area of marshy grassland exists adjacent to two ponds at the southern end
of the site. Species present include false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius),
Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), docks (Rumex sp.), thistles (Cirsium sp.), creeping
buttercup (Ranunculus repens), great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum) and soft rush
(Juncus effusus).
Species poor semi-improved neutral grassland
4.7
A large area of damp neutral Yorkshire fog-dominated grassland with abundant
hogweed around the edges lies on the eastern side of the site adjacent to Canley
Brook.
4.8
There is a small area of semi-improved neutral grassland adjacent to Canley Brook in
the south east of the survey area. This is dominated by Yorkshire fog and perennial
rye-grass (Lolium perenne) with occasional meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis),
cocks foot (Dactylis glomerata), annual meadow grass (Poa annua), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) and ragwort
(Senacio jacobaea). There is also occasional soft rush (Juncus effusus).
4.9
A strip of former arable land of approximately 100m x 30m has been set aside and
is developing into semi-improved neutral grassland. It is located near to Target
Notes 1 and 3. Thistles and docks are abundant in this area.
4.10
4.11
Arable
Areas of arable land are present in the southern and western half of the site where
oil seed rape (Brassica napus ssp oleifera) is grown.
Broadleaved semi-natural woodland
This habitat, dominated by oak (Quercus robur) together with species such as alder
(Alnus glutinosa), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), willow (Salix sp.) sycamore (Acer
pseudoplatanus) and elder (Sambucus nigra) is present mainly in the southern half
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
6
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
of the site. There are isolated patches in the north where mature hedgerows have
spread and additional planting has been added.
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
Areas of this habitat alongside streams in the south have alder and crack willow
(Salix fragilis) pollards. Hazel (Corylus avellana), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna),
blackthorn (Prunus spinosa), goat willow (Salix caprea) and holly (Ilex aquifolium)
are common as the understorey.
Broadleaved/mixed plantation woodland
Broadleaved plantation areas in the north and west of the site are dominated by
sycamore, willow and poplar species. There is extensive use of non-native varieties
of these species. More recently planted areas of this habitat in the south of the site
make use of a greater diversity of species but non-native varieties are still common.
Some areas of plantation in the south of the site adjacent to sports pitches contain
species of the evergreen trees pine and spruce.
Scattered trees
Scattered trees are common in areas of amenity grassland, particularly in the north
of the site. These are almost entirely broadleaved species and extensive use is
made of non-native varieties.
4.16
Scattered/dense scrub
Small patches of bramble (Rubus fruticosus) are present on site adjacent to hedges
and woodland.
4.17
Hawthorn and willow scrub is present along Canley Brook in the south of the site.
4.18
4.19
4.20
Species poor hedge / hedge with trees
Hawthorn dominated hedgerows are present across the site. These have commonly
been planted with trees in the north of the site, particularly oak, ash and rowan
(Sorbus aucuparia).
Species rich hedge with trees / hedge with trees
Towards the eastern and western edges of the site there are a number of mature,
overgrown hedges with trees which contain more than six woody species and
qualify as species rich. Native woody species present include oak, ash, elder, alder,
hawthorn, hazel, blackthorn, holly, guelder rose (Viburnum opulus), rowan, and
various varieties of willow. Sycamore is also present.
In a number of areas these hedges have developed into broadleaved woodland and
in some areas in the north there has been some additional planting of non-native
species.
Tall ruderal herbs
4.21
Nettle (Urtica dioica) and dock (Rumex obtusifolius) dominate an area adjacent to
Canley Brook and along a bank adjacent to the hedge on the western perimeter of
the site. Other species found in the semi-improved grassland areas are also present
in these areas.
4.22
This habitat is also present as ground cover at the edges of many of the plantation
and woodland areas.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
7
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
Introduced shrub
Introduced shrubs have been planted in many of the ornamental beds adjacent to
buildings.
Bare ground
An area of trees has been cleared within one of the woodland areas close the
southern boundary of the site. Ground staff use this area as a yard to store
machinery and dump grass cuttings and other cut vegetation.
Numerous bare ground areas (paved etc) exist around the buildings on site.
Standing water
There are 20 ponds on site. These include small ornamental ponds surrounded by
introduced shrub, a large man-made lake with very little marginal vegetation, two
man-made lakes with extensive native marginal vegetation and numerous historic
ponds at various stages of succession.
Running water
Streams flow southwards along the east and west perimeters of the site in the
south. These are shaded by hedgerows and woodland within the survey area.
Ditches
4.28
A wet ditch flows south from a pond into one of the streams in the southern half of
the site.
4.29
A recently created dry ditch runs along the northwestern boundary of the large
broadleaved semi-natural woodland (Whitefield Coppice) on the western side of the
site.
5.0
ASSESSMENT FOR SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN
5.1
The site was walked on an initial visit during which the habitats present were
assessed for their potential to support species of conservation concern. Field signs
for species identified on site were also recorded.
5.2
The initial walkover was undertaken on the 23rd and 24th May 2005. Weather was
sunny and warm.
Survey was carried out by experienced ecologist, David
Sweeting (MIEEM).
5.3
The site was found to have 20 waterbodies which could potentially support great
crested newts. The larger of these waterbodies which are connected to Canley
Brook also have the potential to support white-clawed crayfish and water voles, as
does the brook itself.
5.4
All the areas of semi-natural broadleaved woodland identified on Drawing
D1040.006 contain mature trees capable of supporting roosting bats.
The
waterbodies, hedgerows and plantation areas provide additional potential foraging
areas for bats. These features connect across the site and would be ideal for bats
to navigate by.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
8
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
5.5
A badger sett made up of four holes was identified near to the survey boundary at
the southern end of the site.
5.6
Incidental observations of bird species were made during site visits.
included:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
These
blackbird
blue tit
canada geese
coot
collared dove
chaffinch
mallard
moorhen
robin
skylark
snipe
starling
mute swan
wood pigeon
5.7
The majority of these birds were associated with the waterbodies and watercourses
rather than the open terrestrial areas of the site.
5.8
None of the birds listed above are statutorily protected (except when nesting).
5.9
Skylark and starling are Red listed on the RSPB list of Birds of Conservation
Concern (BoCC) in England and snipe is Amber listed.
5.10
Snipe is listed on the Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
6.0
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
The following surveys were undertaken as part of the ecological assessment of
Warwick University in 2005:
x
x
Desktop survey
Extended phase 1 habitat survey
6.2
Limited survey of bats (TEP report ref: 1040.016) and great crested newts (TEP
report ref 1040.015) was also undertaken in connection with the construction of
Warwick University Business School.
6.3
The results of the phase 1 habitat survey are illustrated in Drawing D1040.006.
Protected Sites
6.4
There are no statutorily protected sites (SSSI, SPA, Ramsar, SAC) recorded within
the site or within 500m of the site.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
9
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
6.5
The Old Brickyard Plantation (see Target Note 1, Appendix Three) is designated as a
Potential Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (pSINC) by Warwickshire
County Council.
6.6
Whitefield Coppice borders Warwick University grounds to the southwest and is
designated as a pSINC by Warwickshire County Council.
6.7
Tocil Wood and Brookstray are designated as a Site of Importance for Nature
Conervation (SINC) by Coventry City Council. Although the woodland is outside of
the university boundary, the boundary of the SINC includes the adjacent lakes and
meadow area on university land.
6.8
Species and Habitats
Table 2 lists species present or potentially present on site, their status and whether
further survey is recommended:
Table 2: Survey recommendations for species
Species/habitat
Presence confirmed?
Bats (all
Yes (through Business
species)1,2,3
School surveys).
Birds1 (all species
are protected on
the nest, others
are afforded full
protection)
Brown hare1,2
(protected during
breeding season –
March – July)
Badger1
Species recorded to
date are through
incidental observation
only – none of these
have full protection
No
on site
Further survey recommended?
Yes, targeted surveys of
buildings and trees affected by
development (both winter and
summer surveys recommended)
Yes, targeted breeding bird
surveys of areas to be affected
by development (one visit MarchApril, one visit May-June)
No – species requires rough
pasture of which there is little on
site
Yes, spring 2006 to establish
territories
Great crested1,2,3
Yes (through Business
Yes, full survey of ponds not
newt
School surveys)
confirmed as GCN ponds in 2005
to be undertaken in spring 2006
1,2,3
Otter
No
No, but this species will be
identified during water vole
survey if this is required
1,2,3
Water vole
No
Yes, survey Canley Brook if
works are to affect the banks of
this watercourse or associated
waterbodies
White-clawed
No
Yes, survey Canley Brook if
crayfish1,2,3
works are to affect the banks of
this watercourse or associated
waterbodies
1
2
Note: = statutory protection, = UKBAP priority species, 3 = LBAP species
6.9
Yes
Although a lawful development is allowed to disturb birds, it is good practice to
carry out any works that might affect nests, e.g. tree felling and mowing/clearing of
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
10
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
areas used by ground-nesters, outside the breeding season (March to August
inclusive).
6.10
‘Species Rich Hedgerows’ and ‘Cereal Field Margins’ are UKBAP priority habitats
present on site. Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Local Biodiversity Action Plan
(LBAP) also has habitat action plans for ‘Hedgerows’ and ‘Field Margins’ and
additionally for ‘Rivers & Streams’ and ‘Ponds, Lakes & Reservoirs’.
6.11
It is recommended that species rich hedgerows are protected from development and
that replacement hedgerows are created to compensate for any species poor
hedgerows that are to be lost. The use of native species in planting schemes will
be of most benefit to native wildlife.
6.12
Hedgerows and woodland areas provide a network of wildlife corridors across the
site allowing plant and animal species to distribute between otherwise isolated
habitats. It is important that this network is at least maintained and preferably
enhanced within the future development of the site.
6.13
Detailed method statements designed to protect ecological receptors should be
prepared for any works affecting waterbodies and watercourses on site.
7.0
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Joint Nature Conservancy Committee (2003) Phase 1 Habitat Survey. JNCC.
Peterborough
Stace, C.A (1997) Flora of the British Isles, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
11
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX ONE
ECOLOGICAL PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
ECOLOGICAL PLANNING AND LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
1.0
GENERAL
1.1
This is a brief summary of the ecological planning and legislative context generally
applying to England. It is not a comprehensive view and does not purport to advise
in relation to any specific site, species or habitat. Specific advice is provided by
TEP in the main body of the report.
1.2
Sites, species or habitats may be protected or highlighted by six broad categories of
instrument:
x
x
x
x
x
x
Statutory Instruments
National Planning Policy Guidance
County, District and Unitary Development Plans
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Local Biodiversity Action Plans, locally adopted Wildlife Strategies and the
Natural Area profile for the area
Other lists of species of conservation concern
2.0
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
2.1
Statutory protection is afforded to wildlife sites and to particular species by EU
Directives, various international conventions to which the UK is signatory and
various Acts and Regulations of Parliament, principally the Wildlife and Countryside
Act, 1981 (as amended) (WCA).
Other relevant legislation includes the
Conservation (Habitats &c) Regulations, 1995 (usually known as the Habitats
Regulations). These Regulations translate the EU Habitats Directive into British
Law, by requiring particular protection for ‘European’ species and for ‘European’
sites of nature conservation value.
2.2
Statutory wildlife sites
In the UK there are many designations for giving protection to sites of national or
international importance.
The most commonly-encountered designations are
summarised below:
x
Special Area of Conservation (SAC): An area of land or water of international
(European) conservation importance as designated by European Member States
under the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EC). In the UK, all SACs will
also be designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).
x
Special Protection Area (SPA): A site of international (European) conservation
importance for birdlife as designated by European Member States under the
Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EC). In the UK, all SPAs will also be
designated as SSSIs.
x
Ramsar site: A wetland of recognised international importance designated under
the Ramsar Convention 1971. In the UK, all Ramsar sites will also be
designated as SSSIs.
x
National Nature Reserve (NNR): A nationally important nature reserve
designated by English Nature under the WCA and managed by either English
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Nature or an approved body. NNRs will usually be designated as SSSIs.
2.3
x
Local Nature Reserve (LNR): A nature reserve on public land, established by a
Local Authority under s21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside
Act, 1949. LNRs may or may not be Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
x
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): An area of land or water notified by
English Nature under the WCA or the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act, 1949 as being of special nature conservation interest for its
plant or animal communities, geological or landform features.
Statutorily protected species and their habitats
In most cases relevant to planning applications, protected species are those listed in
Schedule 1, 5 and 8 of the WCA (as amended), in the Protection of Badgers Act,
1992 (PBA) and in the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations, 1994. The
extent of legal protection varies between species, and the protocols for
development which affects such species also varies.
2.4
It is particularly important to obtain site-specific advice before formulating an action
plan when considering development affecting protected species. The following
paragraphs are outlines of legal protection afforded to some of the species most
frequently encountered.
2.5
It must also be remembered that many protected species can range widely, and
their presence outside the proposed development must always be considered.
Many planning applications have failed because inadequate consideration was given
to the terrestrial habitats of amphibians present some distance from the proposed
development.
2.6
European protected species include great crested newts and native species of
British bat. The full list of European species is in the Habitats Regulations, 1994.
The extent of legal protection covers both the species and its habitat. Any
development proposal that would impact on either species or habitat is required to
provide for conservation of the species and its habitat under licence from the
Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
2.7
DEFRA require Local Planning Authorities to consider the impact of the proposed
development on the European species and their habitat, the need for development
and consideration of possible alternative development proposals before determining
planning applications that could affect European protected species.
2.8
DEFRA will also expect detailed surveys to have been carried out before granting
any licences for handling the species or affecting the habitat when development is
proposed.
2.9
The conservation scheme necessary to enable any development project will depend
on the size of the newt population, the locality and the impact of the proposed
development. Usually an extended period of alternative habitat creation, trapping
and movement of the animals is required, followed by a period of site management
and monitoring.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
2.10
Schedule 1 of the WCA lists a number of birds for which it is illegal to disturb or
destroy the birds or nests, except by licence from English Nature. Some Schedule
1 species are relatively common (kingfishers); most are rare.
2.11
The WCA also makes it illegal to disturb the nests of most British birds while at the
nest. Some agricultural vermin species are excluded. There is a legal defence if the
nest-destruction is the incidental result of a lawful action which could not have
reasonably have been avoided. Legal advice may be needed to determine if a
proposed nest destruction is lawful. In some cases it will be, in other cases it may
not be.
2.12
Schedule 5 of the WCA lists animals that are protected. The degree of protection
varies. Water voles receive no protection of the animal, but the habitat is
protected. Site-specific licences are not required for habitat destruction. However,
as the habitat is inevitably a watercourse, Environment Agency consent will be
required for culverting or drainage. EA will usually consult English Nature who will
object unless satisfactory habitat mitigation is provided.
2.13
Reptiles are all protected. The commoner species are protected only from unlawful
killing. In practice this requires a reptile protection scheme before implementing a
planning permission. No specific licence is required. The rarer reptiles require a
protection and conservation scheme, and English Nature may not grant such
licences unless they are assured that protection and conservation is guaranteed.
2.14
Badgers receive protection under the PBA. In terms of development, this means
that any scheme involving the destruction of a recently active sett (even if an
outlier) requires a licence from English Nature. English Nature will require adequate
protection of the animals, which means that alternative provision is needed and
disturbance will not be permitted in the hibernation or early spring period when
badgers are gestating or have dependent young. English Nature will tend to object
to loss of a main sett.
2.15
Schedule 8 of the WCA lists plants that are statutorily protected. In relation to
development, these plants do tend to be very rare and not frequently encountered.
The bluebell is scheduled, but this prohibits commercial bulb picking from the wild
rather than to prohibit development.
2.16
There is also a category of plants that it is an offence to introduce to the wild.
These include Japanese knotweed, which is frequently encountered on brownfield
sites. Care is needed to avoid spreading the species around the site during
earthworks, and to ensure that any removal of infested soils off-site is to a licensed
tip. Giant hogweed is also listed in this category of invasive alien plant species.
3.0
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
3.1
National Planning Guidance is issued in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Notes
(PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). These are issued on a topic basis.
The most relevant is PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005), but
PPG13 Transport (1994) also refers to nature conservation interests being material
in the planning process. The thrust of guidance in PPS9 is aimed at Regional
Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities who must consider nature
conservation impacts in planning policy and decision.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
4.0
COUNTY, DISTRICT AND UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLANS
4.1
District, County and Unitary Development Plans provide protection, both to sites
and to certain species. The degree of protection varies according to different types
of site, or different species. Policies will always be very heavily weighted against
development which might affect statutory wildlife sites (see section 2 above).
4.2
The development plan will allow for the designation and policy protection of nonstatutory wildlife sites, (sometimes generically called second-tier sites, to distinguish
them from statutory sites). These sites go under a variety of names such as. Site
of Biological Importance (SBI), Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC),
Biological Heritage Site (BHS) etc.
Often geological sites are grouped with
ecological sites, for example Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological
Sites (RIGS), Geological Heritage Sites (GHS).
4.3
Non-statutory sites are usually identified by a fairly rigorous system of criteria which
are themselves usually adopted as supplementary planning guidance.
4.4
Adopted development plans often provide protection for ‘Wildlife Corridors’ or
'Greenways', which are identified on plan.
4.5
The extent of protection to non-statutory sites is usually not absolute, but even
where the importance of development is considered to outweigh ecological
interests, a mitigation strategy is usually required as a condition of a planning
consent.
5.0
THE UK BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN
5.1
The publication of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) is in response to Article
6 of the Rio Biodiversity Convention, to develop national strategies for the
conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources.
The UKBAP contains action plans for over 200 ‘UK Priority’ species and 30 ‘UK Key
Habitats’, considered to be of national conservation priority.
5.2
'UK Priority Species' are defined in the 'UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action
Plans' (HMSO, 1998) as either globally threatened or rapidly declining in the UK, i.e.
by more than 50% in the last 25 years. Some of the UK Priority species are
statutorily protected, while others receive partial or no protection.
5.3
The listing of a species or habitat in the UKBAP does not per se provide it with any
statutory or planning policy protection. However, it is likely that many planning
authorities will begin to introduce policies that provide protection to UKBAP species
and habitats. Many non-statutory wildlife sites are already selected by reference to
populations of UKBAP species and habitats.
5.4
UKBAP species and habitats are often cited by objectors to planning applications.
The species most commonly encountered in relation to development are as follows:
x Mammals – water vole *, bats *, brown hare, badgers*
x Birds – skylark, linnet, reed bunting, grey partridge
x Amphibians – great crested newts *
* species marked by asterisk are also statutorily protected.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
6.0
LOCAL BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS AND ECOLOGICAL STRATEGIES
6.1
Many districts, counties or metropolitan areas have adopted nature conservation
strategies that tend to set out general principles of attention to nature conservation.
Most of these date from the early to mid 1990s.
6.2
More recently, counties have prepared Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAP), in
conjunction with partners such as the Wildlife Trust. These LBAPs highlight species
and habitat types which are either of national concern (UKBAP species and habitats)
or are endemic to the county and of local concern. LBAPs will be prepared for
these species and habitats. As with the UKBAP, listing of a habitat type, a site or a
species in a LBAP does not confer any new statutory or planning policy protection.
However, impacts upon sites, habitats or species prioritised in LBAPs may be a
material consideration in a planning application.
6.3
On a broader level, English Nature has mapped the country into a number of
discrete Natural Areas. Each Natural Area has a distinct ecological identity, e.g. the
‘Cheshire Meres and Mosses’ is characterised by waterbodies in peat or boulder
clay. Conservation priorities are set in terms of retaining and enhancing waterbody
and field hedgerow connections. By comparison, the ‘Sefton Coast’ Natural Area
highlights the unique sand dune and mudflat systems, with conservation priorities
being set accordingly.
6.4
Natural Areas have no legislative power, and for many developments, they are
described in too broad a scale to have site-specific value. Nevertheless they give an
indication of which habitats are particularly valued locally.
7.0
OTHER LISTS OF SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN
7.1
In addition to the lists referred to above, there are other lists made of national
abundance of groups of fauna, particularly the less well-documented groups. These
lists do not themselves confer any statutory protection, but may often be used in
Environmental Impact Assessment to establish whether or not a proposed
development will have a significant impact.
7.2
In the case of invertebrates, few species are statutorily protected or listed in the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan, but many are thought to be rare or vulnerable. Such
species are known as Red Data Book (RDB) species and there are various grades of
ecological sensitivity, e.g. Rare/Vulnerable species, Nationally Notable (A),
Nationally Notable (B) and Nationally Scarce. These gradings are based on
frequency of occurrence of species in 10km2 squares across the country e.g.
Nationally Notable species occur in less than 300 10km2 squares in the UK.
7.3
In the case of birds, there are various species of conservation concern (SPoCC),
known informally amongst ornithologists, but not protected or listed in the UKBAP
e.g. the lapwing has undergone substantial decline in numbers, particularly on
farmland.
7.4
Such RDB/SPoCC species are often listed in LBAPs (see Section 6 above).
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX TWO
DESKTOP SURVEY INFORMATION
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX THREE
TARGET NOTES
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Target Note 1
Known as the ‘Old Brickyard Plantation’, this is a Potential Site of Importance for Nature
Conservation (pSINC, Warwickshire County Council).
Broad-leaved woodland with sycamore, oak and ash-dominated canopy and scant
understorey. Bluebell dominates the groundflora, with a range of other typical woodland
species in the mix.
Acer pseudoplatanus (A)
Fraxinus excelsior (A)
Hyacinthoides non-scripta (A)
Quercus robur (A)
Mercurialis perennis (F)
Acer campestre (O)
Anemone nemorosa (O)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
Arum maculatum (O)
Crataegus monogyna (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Heracleum sphondylium (O)
Ranunculus ficaria (O)
Sambucus nigra (O)
Ulmus glabra (O)
Adoxa moschatellina (R)
Ilex aquifolium (R)
Poa nemoralis (R)
Target Note 2
Good specimen of goat willow close to hedge.
Target Note 3
Pond in area of woodland with bramble patches. Merging into the discontinuous soft rush
fringe is an unmanaged flower-rich neutral sward. Species listed are from the pond
margins.
Holcus lanatus (A)
Arrhenatherum elatius (F)
Centaurea nigra (F)
Juncus effusus (F)
Persicaria amphibia (F)
Achillea ptarmica (O)
Leucanthemum vulgare (O)
Lotus pedunculatus (O)
Mentha aquatica (O)
Phalaris arundinacea (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Succisa pratensis (O)
Stachys officinalis (R)
Target Note 4
Lake with open undeveloped vegetation and some surviving oak and hawthorn hedge at
western end.
Target Note 5
Overgrown species-rich hedge and wet ditch with good mix of ground flora.
Crataegus monogyna (D)
Galium aparine (A)
Epilobium hirsutum (F)
Hyacinthoides non-scripta (F)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (F)
Rumex obtusifolius (F)
Sambucus nigra (F)
Silene dioica (F)
Urtica dioica (F)
Alnus glutinosa (O)
Chamerion angustifolium (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Heracleum sphondylium (O)
Ilex aquifolium (O)
Lonicera periclymenum (O)
Prunus spinosa (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Solanum dulcamara (O)
Sorbus aucuparia (O)
Target Note 6
Overgrown species-rich hedge and wet ditch with good mix of ground flora.
Crataegus monogyna (D)
Galium aparine (A)
Heracleum sphondylium (F)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (F)
Sambucus nigra (F)
Urtica dioica (F)
Alnus glutinosa (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Ilex aquifolium (O)
Mercurialis perennis (O)
Prunus spinosa (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Quercus robur (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Salix caprea (O)
Viburnum opulus (O)
Target Note 7
Tall hawthorn stand with large specimens of crack willow and oak on edge.
Crataegus monogyna (D)
Quercus robur (R)
Salix fragilis (R)
Target Note 8
Generally dense neutral grassland sward but more-open areas include small populations of
storksbill and parsley piert.
Aphanes arvensis (R)
Erodium cicutarium (R)
Target Note 9
Waterbody with patches of emergent vegetation dominated by common reed.
Phragmites australis (D)
Typha latifolia (F)
Glyceria maxima (O)
Iris pseudacorus (O)
Juncus effusus (O)
Rumex hydropathalum (O)
Typha angustifolia (O)
Target Note 10
An area of recent native tree planting around a large mature specimen of oak.
Alnus glutinosa (F)
Betula pendula (F)
Prunus avium (F)
Salix caprea (F)
Sorbus aucuparia (F)
Quercus robur (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Target Note 11
Waterbody with barer banks than TN09 and only discontinuous fringe of soft rush and
yellow flag.
Target Note 12
Shaded pond in wooded patch with no aquatic nor marginal flora visible.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Urtica dioica (A)
Acer pseudoplatanus (F)
Quercus robur (F)
Fraxinus excelsior (O)
Target Note 13
Pond shaded by dense canopy but still retaining fringe of soft rush.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Urtica dioica (A)
Chamerion angustifolium (O)
Digitalis purpurea (O)
Juncus effusus (O)
Salix caprea (O)
Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia (O)
Target Note 14
Small woodland area with well-developed understorey but recently disturbed groundflora.
Quercus robur (D)
Crataegus monogyna (F)
Acer pseudoplatanus (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Hyacinthoides non-scripta (O)
Ilex aquifolium (O)
Prunus spinosa (O)
Salix caprea (O)
Target Note 15
Flowing ditch course with hedge and trees.
Alliaria petiolata (O)
Brachypodium sylvaticum (O)
Dryopteris filix-mas (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Elymus caninus (O)
Geum urbanum (O)
Glechoma hederacea (O)
Veronica montana (O)
Target Note 16
Scrub/mature plantation woodland dominated by oak and with alder and pollards of crack
willow along the stream banks. The groundflora is mainly dominated by nettle and
bramble.
Quercus robur (D)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (A)
Urtica dioica (A)
Crataegus monogyna (F)
Alnus glutinosa (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Hyacinthoides non-scripta (O)
Mercurialis perennis (O)
Salix fragilis (O)
Angelica sylvestris (R)
Target Note 17
This strip of woodland merges with TN16 but is narrower and more open in places,
allowing development of very dense bramble patches. Alder and crack willow continue
along the stream-side.
Target Note 18
Area of marshy grassland with tall herb.
Arrhenatherum elatius (A)
Holcus lanatus (A)
Cirsium arvense (F)
Ranunculus repens (F)
Rumex crispus (F)
Cirsium vulgare (O)
Epilobium hirsutum (O)
Rumex obtusifolius (O)
Target Note 19
Waterbodies within a marshy grassland area. There is quite a rich mix of aquatic and
emergent species overall, though the invasive alien Australian swamp stonecrop is also
present and locally abundant.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Crassula helmsii (F)
Juncus effusus (F)
Angelica sylvestris (O)
Carex riparia (O)
Elodea sp. (O)
Iris pseudacorus (O)
Juncus inflexus (O)
Lemna trisulca (O)
Lotus pedunculatus (O)
Lycopus europaeus (O)
Potamogeton natans (O)
Schoenoplectus tabernaemontanii (O)
Sparganium erectum (O)
Typha angustifolia (O)
Veronica beccabunga (O)
Vicia tetrasperma (O)
Target Note 20
An area of tall unmanaged neutral grassland with tall herb and scattered scrub.
Arrhenatherum elatius (D)
Dactylis glomerata (D)
Agrostis stolonifera (O)
Juncus inflexus (O)
Rumex crispus (O)
Crataegus monogyna (R)
Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia (R)
Target Note 21
Dense bed of reed canary-grass surrounded by grey willow scrub.
Phalaris arundinacea (D)
Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia (F)
Impatiens glandulifera (O)
Lycopus europaeus (O)
Myosotis laxa (O)
Persicaria amphibia (O)
Salix fragilis (O)
Salix viminalis (O)
Typha latifolia (O)
Carex pendula (R)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Target Note 22
A gappy hedge on east banks of stream, mainly oak and alder with ash, blackthorn and
willows.
Target Note 23
Swampy area with reed canary-grass, greater reedmace and soft rush and some grey
willow colonisation.
Target Note 24
Strip of neutral grassland with recently planted trees and scrub species. The willows are
planted more densly to the south and there is also a patch of reed sweet-grass.
Holcus lanatus (A)
Lolium perenne (A)
Arrhenatherum elatius (F)
Salix caprea (F)
Salix fragilis (F)
Salix viminalis (F)
Angelica sylvestris (O)
Cirsium arvense (O)
Cirsium vulgare (O)
Deschampsia cespitosa (O)
Epilobium hirsutum (O)
Glyceria maxima (O)
Impatiens glandulifera (O)
Iris pseudacorus (O)
Phalaris arundinacea (O)
Plantago lanceolata (O)
Poa pratensis (O)
Poa trivialis (O)
Torilis japonica (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Target Note 25
Pond with intermittent soft rush fringe and patches of starwort species. On the northern
side is a planting of hawthorn and mixed exotic shrubs.
Target Note 26
Waterbody, created in July 1991, edged with still rather open and patchy vegetation,
mainly a mix of neutral grass herb and tall emergent marginals. Many species are shared
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
with TN24 lake edges. Along the eastern side and on the islands there is a dense planted
mix of alder and willows, with some mature specimens of alder. Also along the eastern
side is a fast-flowing and steeply-banked stream course.
Target Note 27
A quite species-rich hedgerow with much blackthorn and some bracken.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Prunus spinosa (A)
Corylus avellana (F)
Sambucus nigra (F)
Alopecurus pratensis (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Glechoma hederacea (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Holcus lanatus (O)
Ilex aquifolium (O)
Pteridium aquilinum (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Target Note 28
A c9m wide section of hedge and dry ditch with some woodland groundflora and tall herb.
Corylus avellana (A)
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Prunus spinosa (A)
Sambucus nigra (F)
Arum maculatum (O)
Cirsium vulgare (O)
Dryopteris dilatata (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Ligustrum vulgare (O)
Mercurialis perennis (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Target Note 29
The margins of this waterbody have developed a denser and richer vegetation than TN23
area but many species are found in common. There is a broad strip of nettle-dominated
tall ruderal herb vegetation down the east side, with tall alder and willow scrub/woodland
further to the east, beyond a deep ditch course (with some Himalayan balsam). Thre is
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
some low dense plantation along the northern side. Plant species listed are mainly from
the north-western and south-western edges of the waterbody, where the tall emergent
marginals merge into the mown amenity grassland,
Epilobium hirsutum (F)
Filipendula ulmaria (F)
Alnus glutinosa (O)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Calystegia silvatica (O)
Carex pendula (O)
Cirsium arvense (O)
Cynosurus cristatus (O)
Impatiens glandulifera (O)
Iris pseudacorus (O)
Juncus inflexus (O)
Lycopus europaeus (O)
Mentha aquatica (O)
Plantago lanceolata (O)
Ranunculus acris (O)
Rumex acetosa (O)
Rumex conglomeratus (O)
Scrophularia aquatica (O)
Senecio jacobaea (O)
Solanum dulcamara (O)
Sparganium erectum (O)
Trifolium pratense (O)
Typha latifolia (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Fraxinus excelsior (R)
Quercus robur (R)
Salix viminalis (R)
Sanguisorba officinalis (R)
Target Note 30
Broad hedge area on northern edge of pond, widened into an area of scrub by planting and
natural suckering into unmanaged neutral grass/herb.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Prunus spinosa (A)
Arrhenatherum elatius (F)
Sambucus nigra (F)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
Calystegia silvatica (O)
Cirsium arvense (O)
Galium aparine (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Target Note 31
Section of steep watercourse banks north of bridge. There is dense scrub and tall herb on
the western bank and mature woodland (LNR) on the east. Further to the east the LNR
woodland includes some very large specimens of oak and a rich groundflora.
Acer pseudoplatanus (A)
Fraxinus excelsior (A)
Alnus glutinosa (F)
Urtica dioica (F)
Acer campestre (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Galium aparine (O)
Geum urbanum (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Impatiens glandulifera (O)
Prunus domestica (O)
Rosa arvensis (O)
Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia (O)
Sambucus nigra (O)
Cornus sanguinea (R)
Target Note 32
Section of hedge with semi-mature oak and ash.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Prunus spinosa (A)
Sambucus nigra (A)
Corylus avellana (F)
Acer campestre (O)
Fraxinus excelsior (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Target Note 33
A large area of damp neutral Yorkshire fog-dominated grassland with abundant hogweed
around the edges. The watercourse to the east is lined with alders and occasional clumps
of pendulous sedge. There is an area of tree plantation in the north-west.
Holcus lanatus (D)
Arrhenatherum elatius (A)
Alopecurus pratensis (F)
Dactylis glomerata (F)
Filipendula ulmaria (F)
Heracleum sphondylium (F)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Festuca rubra (O)
Rumex acetosa (O)
Stellaria graminea (O)
Valeriana officinalis (O)
Angelica sylvestris (R)
Geranium dissectum (R)
Juncus effusus (R) Understorey
Ranunculus acris (R)
Rumex crispus (R)
Sanguisorba officinalis (R)
Target Note 34
Tall and wide hedge with a parallel dry ditch.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Fraxinus excelsior (F)
Holcus lanatus (F)
Urtica dioica (F)
Acer campestre (O)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Cirsium arvense (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Galium aparine (O)
Mercurialis perennis (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (O)
Sambucus nigra (O)
Target Note 35
Woodland with alder and willow carr on northern edges. Also in the north, there is some
shallow standing water and growths of tall emergent species. The remainder of the wood
is drier with much young ash and sycamore as well as some oak and silver birch. The
north-western edge is a continuation of the TN27A hedgeline. Speckled wood butterfly
noted in this area.
Acer pseudoplatanus (A)
Alnus glutinosa (A)
Fraxinus excelsior (A)
Holcus lanatus (F)
Salix caprea (F)
Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia (F)
Acer campestre (O)
Angelica archangelica (O)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Betula pendula (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Crataegus monogyna (O)
Dryopteris filix-mas (O)
Epilobium hirsutum (O)
Epilobium montanum (O)
Galium aparine (O)
Geum urbanum (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Heracleum sphondylium (O)
Poa trivialis (O)
Prunus spinosa (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (O)
Typha latifolia (O)
Carex pendula (R)
Cirsium vulgare (R)
Ilex aquifolium (R)
Plantago lanceolata (R)
Rosa arvensis (R)
Rumex sanguineus (R)
Solanum dulcamara (R)
Stachys sylvatica (R)
Tamus communis (R)
Target Note 36
A section of out-grown hawthorn-dominated hedge, quite wide in places and linking areas
of recent tree plantation.
Crataegus monogyna (D)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (F)
Acer campestre (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Dactylis glomerata (O)
Elymus caninus (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Mercurialis perennis (O)
Prunus spinosa (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Quercus robur (R)
Tamus communis (R)
Target Note 37
Northern one of a pair of ponds with woodland mainly surrounding the southern one. The
northern pond has a fringe of unmanaged dense grass/herb sward to its edge and some
ornamental planting, including weeping willow and swamp cypress. Ringlet butterfly was
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
observed at the pond edge. The southern pond is more shaded but has more tall emergent
vegetation with reed, lesser pond-sedge and reedmace.
Holcus lanatus (A)
Arrhenatherum elatius (F)
Festuca rubra (F)
Ranunculus repens (F)
Urtica dioica (F)
Achillea millefolium (O)
Alnus glutinosa (O)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
Carex acutiformis (O)
Cirsium arvense (O)
Epilobium hirsutum (O)
Galium palustre (O)
Heracleum sphondylium (O)
Juncus effusus (O)
Prunella vulgaris (O)
Rumex conglomeratus (O)
Rumex obtusifolius (O)
Veronica filiformes (O)
Vicia cracca (O)
Cirsium vulgare (R)
Deschampsia cespitosa (R)
Juncus inflexus (R)
Ranunculus acris (R)
Salix species (R)
Scrophularia aquatica (R)
Sonchus asper (R)
Stachys sylvatica (R)
Stellaria graminea (R)
Taxodium distichum (R)
Tussilago farfara (R)
Typha latifolia (R)
Target Note 38
This southern pond is more shaded but has more tall emergent vegetation with reed, lesser
pond-sedge and reedmace. The woodland canopy is extensive all around this pond.
Alnus glutinosa (D)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (A)
Urtica dioica (F)
Carex acutiformis (O)
Cirsium palustre (O)
Deschampsia cespitosa (O)
Epilobium hirsutum (O)
Filipendula ulmaria (O)
Geranium robertianum (O)
Heracleum sphondylium (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Phragmites australis (O)
Salix species (O)
Typha latifolia (O)
Arum maculatum (R)
Dipsacus fullonum (R)
Target Note 39
An outgrown and species-rich hedge with much additional plantings.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Holcus lanatus (F)
Poa trivialis (F)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (F)
Salix caprea (F)
Acer campestre (O)
Agrostis capillaris (O)
Alliaria petiolata (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Ilex aquifolium (O)
Lolium perenne (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Quercus rubra (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Stachys sylvatica (O)
Torilis japonica (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Cynosurus cristatus (R)
Rosa arvensis (R)
Senecio jacobaea (R)
Stellaria graminea (R)
Target Note 40
Further outgrown hedge with very large oak specimens and recent plantings of silver birch
and ash. There is a broad strip of plantation along this species rich hedge and dry ditch
feature.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Prunus spinosa (A)
Anthriscus sylvestris (F)
Holcus lanatus (F)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (F)
Sambucus nigra (F)
Urtica dioica (F)
Alnus glutinosa (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Betula pendula (O)
Chamerion angustifolium (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Digitalis purpurea (O)
Fraxinus excelsior (O)
Galium aparine (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Ilex aquifolium (O)
Populus nigra (O)
Populus sp. (O)
Prunus avium (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Quercus rubra (O)
Ranunculus repens (O)
Rosa arvensis (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Salix caprea (O)
Lonicera periclymenum (R)
Pinus nigra (R)
Cerastium glomeratum (O)
Lamium purpureum (O)
Spergula arvensis (O)
Tripleurospermum inodorum (O)
Target Note 41
A disturbed area of sward with a range of annual ruderal species evident.
Cerastium glomeratum (O)
Lamium purpureum (O)
Spergula arvensis (O)
Tripleurospermum inodorum (O)
Target Note 42
Oak scrub with hazel and hawthorn understorey.
Target Note 43
A woodland strip along a ditchline, with increasing planting of non-native species to the
north. There are notable large mature specimens of oak and ash. Generally quite species
rich and with some typical woodland groundflora species. Speckled Wood noted.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Corylus avellana (F)
Fraxinus excelsior (F)
Holcus lanatus (F)
Quercus robur (F)
Galium aparine (O)
Hyacinthoides non-scripta (O)
Quercus rubra (O)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Rubus fruticosus agg. (O)
Sambucus nigra (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Viburnum opulus (O)
Carex pendula (R)
Target Note 44
A broad section of umanaged species-rich hedge alongside a ditchline.
Crataegus monogyna (A)
Salix cinerea ssp. oleifolia (A)
Fraxinus excelsior (F)
Holcus lanatus (F)
Alliaria petiolata (O)
Alnus glutinosa (O)
Alopecurus pratensis (O)
Angelica sylvestris (O)
Anthriscus sylvestris (O)
Arrhenatherum elatius (O)
Corylus avellana (O)
Dactylis glomerata (O)
Dryopteris filix-mas (O)
Galium aparine (O)
Glechoma hederacea (O)
Hedera helix (O)
Hyacinthoides non-scripta (O)
Mercurialis perennis (O)
Prunus spinosa (O)
Quercus robur (O)
Rosa canina agg. (O)
Rubus fruticosus agg. (O)
Sambucus nigra (O)
Stachys sylvatica (O)
Urtica dioica (O)
Agrostis capillaris (R)
Betula pendula (R)
Carex pendula (R)
Digitalis purpurea (R)
Filipendula vulgaris (R)
Geranium robertianum (R)
Heracleum sphondylium (R)
Ilex aquifolium (R)
Malus sylvestris (R)
Phragmites australis (R)
Prunus laurocerasus (R)
Rumex sanguineus (R)
Viburnum opulus (R)
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Target Note 45
An ornamental pond with a discontinuous fringe of reedmace and yellow flag, surrounded
by mixed plantation of pines and broad-leaved species.
Target Note 46
A fairly recent plantation of ash, silver birch, oak, Norway maple and sycamore with
suckering English elm.
Target Note 47
An ornamental pond with reedmace, yellow flag and hard rush in patches around the
margins. The adjacent hedge has old specimens of hazel and hawthorn as well as bluebell
and stinking iris below.
Target Note 48
Ornamental pond with plantings of reedmace, yellow flag and galingale.
Target Note 49
Small ornamental pond planted with exotic marginal and aquatic species.
Target Note 50
Old bank colonised by dense young sycamore around several semi-mature oak.
nettle and bramble below but also some bluebell and wild arum in evidence.
Mainly
Target Note 51
An ornamental pond with scattered reedmace.
Target Note 52
Large hollow sheltering a group of mature oaks with an open understorey of hawthorn and
elder. At the lowest point there is colonisation by young ash and sycamore. Groundflora
is generally sparse to absent.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
Target Note 53
Scrub patch dominated by bramble, hawthorn and ash.
Target Note 54
Remnant of old hedge planted with a range of introduced trees and shrubs.
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
DRAWINGS
1010.017 Ecological Assessment, 2005
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix B.2
Amphibian Survey
This page is intentionally blank
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
COVENTRY
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY 2005/2006
(Report Ref: 1040.024)
for
The University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
June 2006
Written:
TEP
Genesis Centre
Birchwood Science Park
Warrington
WA3 7BH
Tel: 01925 844004
Fax: 01925 844002
e-mail: tep@tep.uk.com
www.tep.uk.com
Checked:
Approved:
This page is intentionally blank
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
CONTENTS
1.0
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 2
Site location .............................................................................................................. 2
Description of aquatic habitats ..................................................................................... 2
2.0
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY ..................................................................................... 7
Objectives ................................................................................................................. 7
Strategy .................................................................................................................... 7
Desktop Survey.......................................................................................................... 7
Aquatic habitat assessment ......................................................................................... 7
Field Survey............................................................................................................... 7
Timing ...................................................................................................................... 8
Weather conditions..................................................................................................... 8
Personnel .................................................................................................................. 8
Limitations on Survey ................................................................................................. 8
3.0
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY RESULTS ..................................................................... 11
Estimating population size ......................................................................................... 11
4.0
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................ 13
5.0
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING .......................................................... 14
TABLES
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
Aquatic habitat descriptions:.................................................................................. 2
Limitations to survey: ........................................................................................... 8
Amphibian survey methods and effort:.................................................................... 9
Presence/absence of amphibians .......................................................................... 11
Presence/absence of amphibians .......................................................................... 12
DRAWINGS
Drawing D1040.005
Drawing D1040.007
Amphibian survey results 2005
Amphibian survey results 2006
APPENDICES
Appendix One
Appendix Two
Appendix Three
Legislative Context
Survey Methods
Drawings
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
1
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
INTRODUCTION
TEP was commissioned by the University of Warwick in May 2005 to carry out an
amphibian survey of the University in preparation for an EIA regarding the
University’s ten year expansion proposals.
Site location
The University of Warwick campus is situated south of Coventry between the A45
and the A429. The campus straddles the Coventry/Warwickshire border and the
extent of the survey is illustrated in Drawings D1040.005 and D1040.007.
Description of aquatic habitats
The University campus contains a number of waterbodies including natural ponds,
ornamental water features, streams and a man-made lake. The location of these
are illustrated on drawing D1040.005 and a description and photographic record
can be found in Table 1 below.
Table 1:
Pond
No.
P1
(north)
Aquatic habitat descriptions:
Photograph number
Description
Large linear pond, approx 500m in length.
Margins are mainly shallow and gently sloping
with some areas edged with wooden boards.
The northern end of the pond is separated
from the remainder of the waterbody by an
elm board dam.
Flora of northern end: Reedmace, common
reed, stands of hard and soft rush, Glyceria
maxima, great bird’s foot trefoil, purple
loosestrife, great willow herb and water dock
P1
(south)
Flora of southern end:
Banks fringed by
willow, great willow herb, tussocks of soft
rush, yellow flag iris, banks dominated by red
fescue.
Fauna:
Contains large fish populations
including three-spined sticklebacks and is
home to breeding swans, Canada geese and
greylag geese.
P2
Small lined pond with pumped water-feature
and shrubbery around the perimeter of the
south-eastern bank. Very shallow shelf along
margins getting slightly deeper to the centre.
Flora: Rigid hornwort, bog bean, yellow flag
iris, ornamental water lilies, water dock,
greater bird’s foot trefoil.
Fauna: Contains exotic pond snail.
noted during survey.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
No fish
2
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Pond
No.
P3
Photograph number
Description
Medium sized pond with steep, shaded banks
dominated by crack willow, hawthorn and ash
and a small island with crack willow. The
margins are shallow, but the waterbody
deepens towards the centre.
Flora: Soft rush, blanket weed, duckweed,
bramble. Contains patches of water mint at
margins.
Fauna: No fish were noted during survey.
P4
Small pond with steep-sided banks on the
north-western side dominated by hawthorn,
bramble and willow which cause some
shading to the pond. Margins were shallow.
Flora: Tussocks of soft rush along southeastern bank edge, no emergent vegetation
some blanket weed.
Fauna: No fish were noted during survey.
P5
(south)
The waterbody is divided by a fallen oak tree
with the northern end covered in dense
duckweed and with only a shallow depth,
making it prone to drying out.
The southern end has a patchy covering of
duckweed and is larger and deeper than the
north.
P5
(north)
Flora: The entire waterbody is shaded by the
hedgerow/broadleaved trees and has a heavy
layer of leaf litter. The banks are dominated
by hazel, hawthorn, holly, stinging nettle,
lesser celandine, pignut and cow parsley.
There is a very small stand of Japanese
knotweed on the north-western bank just
outside the ownership of the University.
Fauna: No fish were noted during survey.
P6
Lined ornamental pond with a fountain and
gently sloping banks.
Flora:
Great willow herb, reedmace and
galingale.
Fauna: Carp are present.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
3
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Pond
No.
P7
Photograph number
Description
Medium sized pond with banks dominated by
oak, hawthorn, elder, hazel blackthorn (there
is also hogweed on the bank). Much of the
pond is shaded.
Flora: Algae is present within the waterbody
but there is no emergent vegetation.
Fauna: No fish were noted during survey.
P8
Small pond dominated and shaded by willow,
hazel and hawthorn.
Flora: Banks vegetated with nettle, tussocks
of soft rush, hogweed, dock, bramble, great
willow herb.
Fauna: No fish were recorded during survey.
P9
Small pond that feeds into an adjacent
hedgerow ditch. Banks dominated by ash,
elm, willow, oak and blackthorn. Ground flora
of nettle, dock, bramble, white dead nettle
and great willow herb.
Flora: Pond contains green filamentous algae.
Fauna: No fish were noted during survey.
P10a
Small open pond (connected to 10b by a
short, shallow ditch). Banks are lined with
great willow herb, nettle, thistle, tussocks of
hard rush and creeping buttercup.
Flora: The waterbody is dominated by New
Zealand pigmyweed.
P10b
Large bow shaped pond dominated by willow
and alder. Cow parsley, nettle and creeping
thistle grow on the banks.
Flora: Reedmace, New Zealand pigmyweed,
grey club-rush.
Fauna:
Includes nesting
stickleback and barbel.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
little
grebe,
4
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Pond
No.
P11
Photograph number
Description
Overflow from brook, dries out during summer
dominated by willow.
Flora: Common reed and nettle.
P12
Overflow from brook, dries out during
summer. Dominated by oak, hawthorn field
maple and blackthorn.
Flora: Great willow herb, hogweed, bramble,
cow parsley.
P13
Medium sized, shallow, lined ornamental pond.
Great willow herb, bramble and plantings of
silver birch, bamboo, weeping willow and
hawthorn.
Flora: Clumps of reedmace are growing in the
centre of the waterbody.
Fauna: Waterfowl and numerous carp were
noted utilising the pond.
P14
Large man-made linear pond. Dominated by
willow, alder, silver birch & hazel. The northwest bank is managed as amenity land while
the south-east bank is largely unmanaged.
Flora: Great willow herb, reedmace, hard &
soft rush, hogweed, red clover, red fescue and
Himalayan balsam line the banks.
Fauna: Large populations of waterfowl and
sticklebacks were note on/in the waterbody.
P15
Large man-made linear pond. Dominated by
alder and weeping willow. The north-west
bank is managed as amenity land while the
south-east bank is largely unmanaged.
Flora: Reedmace, tussocks of hard & soft
rush, great willow herb and nettle.
Fauna: Large populations of waterfowl and
sticklebacks were note on/in the waterbody.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
5
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Pond
No.
P16
Photograph number
Description
Consists of two linked ponds. The northern
section is smaller and more open.
The
southern section (see photo) is larger and
deeper. Banks are dominated by alder,
weeping willow, hazel and great willow herb.
Flora: Common reed, hard & soft rush and a
stand of butterbur.
Fauna: Stickleback are present within the
waterbody.
P17
Deep man made lined pond with fountains
along its length. The pond sides are vertical
concrete with a protruding stone edging.
Flora: No emergent vegetation other than
ornamental lily.
Fauna: Large ornamental fish population and
exotic snails present.
P18
Small man made pond with block-paving
banks along one edge, the remaining banks
are dominated by exotic plantings.
Flora:
New
reedmace.
Fauna:
Carp
waterbody.
P19
Zealand
are
pigmyweed
present
within
and
the
Ornamental, lined pond. The bank planting is
ornamental to the south and more natural to
the north. The northern end of the waterbody
is shaded and dominated by ash, hawthorn,
silver birch and bramble.
Flora: No submerged vegetation. Hard rush,
yellow flag iris, reedmace, great willow herb
and figwort.
Fauna: Carp are present within the pond.
P20
Small ornamental eutrophic pond, lined and
immediately surrounded by paving stones.
Waterfall creates significant flow.
Flora: Large amounts of algae in the water
and
some
New
Zealand
pigmyweed.
Ornamental exotic emergent vegetation
Fauna: Water was too turbid to see into it but
a dead ornamental fish was recorded on the
bank.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
6
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
2.0
2.1
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY
Objectives
The objectives of this survey were to:
x
x
x
x
2.2
2.3
Strategy
A combination of survey techniques were used at this site, including bottle
trapping, torch lit surveys, netting, egg searches and terrestrial searches to give a
full picture of amphibian activity and to compensate for limitations with any one
technique.
The survey followed the following strategy:
x
x
x
x
2.4
determine the possible presence of amphibians on the site;
determine the possible presence of the protected great crested newt on site;
identify the distribution of great crested newt habitat (aquatic and/or
terrestrial) on site;
evaluate conservation importance of the site.
Desktop survey to ascertain if there are any historical records;
Initial walkover to assess scope of task, plot survey requirements and conduct
a habitat assessment;
Egg-search and/or torch-lit surveys, bottle-trapping, netting, refuge search of
ponds to confirm presence/absence & breeding;
Calculation of pond-based population class-size estimate where appropriate.
Desktop Survey
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan lists the great crested newt as a priority species
and the Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Biodiversity Action Plan contains a
Species Action Plan (SAP) for great crested newts.
2.5
Warwickshire County Council Museum Field Services held no great crested newt
records for the University area (prior to those supplied by TEP from the 2005
survey).
2.6
The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) held several great crested newt records
for the area, however these were not recent records (1982-1985). The majority of
records are over 1km from the University ground with substantial road and
building barriers between. The exception to this is a record (SP306768 - 1982) in
the vicinity of the crematorium to the north-east of the University, but this record
is still over 500m from the University boundary and is separated from the site by a
housing estate and shopping centre.
2.7
2.8
Aquatic habitat assessment
The general quality and range of the habitat present was assessed for its
ecological value during an initial walkover of the site. The occurrence of habitats
particularly suitable for great crested newts was noted.
Field Survey
The methodologies of the survey were carried out in accordance with the current
“Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines” (English Nature 2001) and are
described further in Appendix Two.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
7
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
2.9
Due to the timing of the commission it was not possible to undertake a full
amphibian survey of the entire site in 2005. Instead all waterbodies within the
University grounds were submitted to a daytime egg search and a limited number
of waterbodies underwent further surveys (torch-lit, bottle trap, refuge search) as
required to permit extension works to the Manchester Business School building.
2.10
In 2006 all waterbodies were re-visited during the day and a 4/6 visit survey (as
per English Nature guidelines) was undertaken of all those waterbodies not fully
surveyed in 2005.
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
Timing
Torch lit surveys, bottle trapping, egg searches and terrestrial searches were
employed during the peak period of breeding activity. English Nature extended the
end of the 2005 peak survey period to late May due to bad weather conditions.
Weather conditions
Weather conditions on the nights of survey were reasonable, rain was only
experienced during one of the torch surveys and this was only light rain with
minimal affect on the survey. Air temperatures never fell beneath 5ºC at midnight
during the survey nights.
Personnel
The standard methods of surveying for great crested newts described above are
licensable activities. All surveys in 2005 were undertaken by David Sweeting
(under EN licence number 20050774) and/or Elizabeth Seal (accredited agent on
EN licence number 20050774). Surveys in 2006 were undertaken by David
Sweeting (EN licence number 20050774), Elizabeth Seal (EN licence number
20052299), Rachel Hayward (EN licence number 20060514), Tim Ross (EN
licence number 20061542) or Ian Tanner (EN licence number 20051582). All are
members of IEEM.
Limitations on Survey
It is rare for any site to be able to be surveyed using all the available techniques to
full effect, as there are often reasons of season, weather, access which restrict
survey intensity. In this case, there were various factors that limited the
effectiveness of survey and these are summarised below in Table 2:
Table 2:
Limitations to survey:
Pond
No.
P1
Limitations
Notes
Turbidity reduced visibility.
P2
P3
P4
Blanketweed reduced visibility in later surveys.
Steep banks & dense vegetation restricted access.
Blossom fallen onto the water’s surface reduced
visibility in parts.
Duckweed covered the much of the pond surface.
Steep banks and dense vegetation restricted
access to parts of the bank.
Visibility in 10a was reduced by aquatic plants.
Water conditions were turbid.
Water conditions were turbid.
Water was slightly turbid.
Access along one bank was not possible.
Water was green and visibility was poor.
The shallow margins had good visibility and
bottle trapping was also used.
Water visibility was good.
Water visibility was good.
Water visibility was good.
P5
P7
P10
P14
P15
P16
P18
P20
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
Bottle trapping and netting was used.
Water visibility was good.
In addition to torch surveys
In addition to torch surveys
In addition to torch surveys
In addition to torch surveys
Water visibility was good.
trapping was used.
netting was used.
netting was used.
netting was used.
8
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
2.15
The survey methods and effort undertaken at each pond within the University in
2005 and/or 2006 are displayed in Table 3 below.
Table 3:
Amphibian survey methods and effort:
Pond
Year of
Survey
Number of survey visits for each technique
TorchEgg
Sweep
Refuge
Lit
Search
Netting
Search
Survey
9
9
6
9
1
-
BottleTraps
P1
2005
2006
P2
2005
2006
9
9
6
1
-
9
-
-
P3
2005
2006
9
9
6
1
-
9
-
-
P4
2005
2006
9
9
3
6
-
9
9
-
P5
2005
2006
9
9
4
3
4
9
9
1**
4***
P6
2005
2006
9
9
3
4
-
9
9
-
P7
2005
2006
9
9
2
6
-
9
9
-
P8
2005
2006
9
9
6
-
9
-
P9
2005
2006
9
9
6
-
9
-
P10a &b
2005
2006
9
9
4
-
9
1****
P11
2005
2006
9
9
1
4
-
9
9
-
P12
2005
2006
9
9
1
4
-
9
9
-
P13
2005
2006
9
9
4
-
9
-
P14
2005
2006
9
9
4
2
9
-
P15
2005
2006
9
9
4
2
9
-
P16
2005
2006
9
9
4
1
9
-
P17
2005
2006
9
9
1
4
-
9
9
-
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
1*
-
9
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Pond
Year of
Survey
Number of survey visits for each technique
TorchEgg
Sweep
Refuge
Lit
Search
Netting
Search
Survey
9
9
9
4
-
BottleTraps
P18
2005
2006
-
P19
2005
2006
9
9
4
-
9
-
P20
2005
2006
9
9
4
-
9
-
* Six groups of five traps (2m spacing) were used to sample the NE section of P1 (=25% of shoreline)
** Four groups of five traps (2m spacing) were used to sample P5 (=50% of shoreline)
*** Two groups of five traps (2m spacing) were used to sample P5 (=25% of shoreline)
****** Four groups of five traps (2m spacing) were used to sample P10a&b (=10% of shoreline)
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
10
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
3.0
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY RESULTS
3.1
A total of 20 ponds were surveyed for great crested newts at this site and detailed
results are presented in Appendix Three. All ponds were surveyed in both 2005
and 2006 and all ponds on site were subject to full amphibian surveys as per
English Nature guidelines in either 2005 or 2005.
3.2
The combined and summarised results of the 2005 and 2006 amphibian surveys
are displayed in Table 4 and Drawings D1040.005 and D1040.007.
Table 4:
Presence/absence of amphibians
Pond
No.
Tc
Identifying Method
Other
Amphibians
Other Species
P1
8
n/a
Tv, Bb, Rt
Waterfowl,
stickleback
Exotic snail
P2
9
Torch, terrestrial search
Tv, Bb, Rt
P3
9
Torch, egg search
Tv, Bb, Rt
P4
9
Torch
Tv, Rt
P5
9
Bottle
Tv, Rt
P6
8
n/a
Tv
P7
9
Egg search, torch
Tv, Bb, Rt
P8
9
Egg search, torch
Tv, Bb
P9
9
Egg search, torch
Tv
Stickleback
?
Egg search in 2005 not
recorded in 2006 despite
extensive survey
Tv, Bb
P10a
Tv, Bb, Rt
P10b
8
n/a
P11
8
n/a
Rt
Waterfowl,
stickleback,
barbel
Daubenton’s bat
P12
8
n/a
-
Fish
P13
8
n/a
Bb, Rt
Waterfowl, carp
P14
8
n/a
Bb, Rt
P15
8
n/a
P16
8
n/a
P17
8
n/a
P18
8
n/a
Bb, Rt
Waterfowl,
stickleback
Waterfowl,
stickleback,
Daubenton’s bat
Waterfowl,
stickleback,
Daubenton’s bat
Ornamental fish,
exotic snails
Carp
P19
8
n/a
Tv
Carp
P20
8
n/a
Bb, Rt
Fish
Bb, Rt
Bb, Rt
-
Waterfowl
Carp
Key: Tc = great crested newt; Tv = smooth newt; Bb = toad; Rt = frog
3.3
Estimating population size
It is useful to make an estimate of the population size, as this can be used to
inform applications for DEFRA licensed conservation schemes. Current guidelines
(English Nature 2001) recommend specific survey methods and effort for
estimating population sizes. The recommended survey methods target only the
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
11
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
adults present in the aquatic habitat during the breeding season. Consequently the
population estimates reflect the size of the adult breeding population only. They
do not reflect total population sizes (including non-breeding adults and immature
newts), which can only be obtained from very detailed surveys and which are
beyond the scope of this exercise.
3.4
The English Nature (2001) guidelines rank great crested newt populations into
three size classes, according to the maximum adult count per pond per night
gained through torch survey or bottle-trapping. Where ponds are close and there
is regular interchange between ponds, counts can be summed across ponds on the
same survey visit.
3.5
Populations are classed as:
x
x
x
3.6
“Small” for maximum counts up to 10;
“Medium” for maximum counts between 11 and 100;
“Large” for maximum counts over 100;
Using the English Nature population size class assessment the great crested newt
populations of individual ponds has been calculated and is displayed in Table 5.
Table 5:
Presence/absence of amphibians
Pond No.
P2
P3
P4
P5
P7
P8
P9
P10
3.7
Size Class Assessment
Small
Small
Small
Small
Small
Medium
Medium
Calculation not possible as only GCN eggs were identified.
Any ponds within 250m of each other can be combined (using the total peak
count for a single night) to calculate the metapopulation size class. Ponds P3,
P4, P8 and P9 are the only such GCN pond cluster (ponds P2, P5 and P10 are all
over 250m from another GCN waterbody). The size class assessment for this
metapopulation for this cluster is “Medium”.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
12
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
4.0
CONCLUSIONS
4.1
All twenty waterbodies within the Warwick University site were surveyed in 2005
and 2006. The presence of great crested newts (GCNs) was confirmed in both
survey years in ponds P2, P3, P4, P5, P7, P8 and P9. Additionally GCN eggs
were recorded in section A of pond P10 in 2005, however no evidence of GCNs
were identified in 2006 despite a four visit survey using egg searching, torching,
bottle trapping and terrestrial searches.
4.2
All GCN ponds were located south and west of Gibbet Hill Road. The absence of
GCN in the ponds north and east of Gibbet Hill Road could be due to a number of
factors. The main road acting as a barrier to dispersal for the newts breeding in
ponds south and west of the road, the relatively high levels of hardstanding
(buildings, roads, car parks) and amenity grassland in this part of the campus and
immediately surrounding many of the ponds and the presence of large fish and
waterfowl populations which can reduce the suitability of a waterbody for GCN.
4.3
Although the surveys have concentrated on the aquatic habitat to determine GCN
presence, it is also important to consider terrestrial habitat. GCNs are known to
range 500m from a waterbody. It is therefore useful to make an evaluation of
terrestrial amphibian habitat quality on site, particularly identifying those habitats
which would be considered as protected under the Habitats Regulations 1994.
4.4
The 500m ranging zone surrounding the confirmed great crested newt ponds is
illustrated in Drawing 1040.007. The habitats present have been surveyed and
discussed in TEP report 1040.017 and the results mapped in Drawing D1040.006.
4.5
Terrestrial habitats are required for feeding, hibernation and dispersal and typically
include grassland, scrub, woodland, wasteland or quarry floors. Habitats of
importance to GCN tend to have high prey availability and/or areas of refuge
(including dense vegetation, accessible voids within the substrate or logs/stones
on the surface).
4.6
GCNs exist in metapopulations that encompass a cluster of ponds. This life
strategy creates more stable populations by reducing the reliance of a population
on a single waterbody. Therefore even if a sub-population is damaged by local
conditions the metapopulation can survive and repopulate the pond when
conditions recover. To this end terrestrial connectivity between ponds is very
important and in addition to those habitats noted above, linear habitats such as
ditch lines and hedgerows can play an important role in preventing fragmentation
and reducing the vulnerability of metapopulations.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
13
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
5.0
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
ENGLISH NATURE (2001) ‘Great crested newt mitigation guidelines’ ENGLISH Nature,
Peterborough
FROGLIFE (2002) Great Crested Newt Conservation Handbook. Froglife, The Herpetological
Conservation Trust and English Nature
FROGLIFE ADVICE SHEET 11 Surveying for (Great Crested) Newt Conservation.
Halesworth
Froglife,
GENT, T. & BRAY, R. (eds) (1994) ‘Conservation and management of great crested newts:
proceedings of a symposium held on 11 January 1994 at Kew Gardens, Richmond, Surrey’
English Nature Science Report No. 20
GRIFFITHS, R.A. & RAPER, S.J. (1994) ‘A review of the current techniques for sampling
amphibian communities’ JNCC Report No. 210
GRIFFITHS, R.A., RAPER, S.J. & BRADY, L. D. (1996) ‘Evaluation of a standard method for
surveying common frogs and newts’ JNCC Report No. 259, JNCC, Peterborough
HAGSTRÖM, T (1980) Egg production of newts (Triturus vulgaris and T.cristatus) in
southwestern Sweden. ASRA Journal 1(3): 516 - 522
GROUPS
OF
BRITAIN
AND
IRELAND
(1998)
Evaluating
local
HERPETOFAUNA
mitigation/translocation programmes: Maintaining Best Practice and lawful standards. HGBI
advisory notes for Amphibian and Reptile Groups (ARGs). HGBI, c/o Froglife, Halesworth.
Unpubl.
JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE (1998) ‘Herpetofauna Workers Manual’ Gent, A. &
Gibson, S. (eds). JNCC, Peterborough.
LATHAM, D M, OLDHAM, R S, STEVENSON, M J, DUFF, R, FRANKLIN, P & HEAD, S M (1996)
Woodland management and the conservation of the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)
Aspects of Applied Biology 44 451 – 459
OLDHAM, R. S., KEEBLE, J., SWAN, M. J. S. & JEFFCOTE, M. (2000) Evaluating the suitability
of habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). The Herpetological Journal 10(4)
143 – 155
SWAM, M. & OLDHAM, R.S.. (1993) Herptile Sites Volume 1: National Amphibian Survey
Final Report, Report No. 38, English Nature, Peterborough.
UK BIODIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP, UK Biodiversity Action Plan
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
14
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
APPENDIX ONE
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
15
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
A1
A1.1
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) and their habitat (aquatic and terrestrial)
are afforded full protection by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Section 9,
Schedule 5). This Act is the domestic implementation of the Convention on the
Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention) and
was amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This national
legislation makes it an offence to:
x
x
x
x
A1.2
Intentionally kill, injure or take a great crested newt [Section 9(1)];
Possess or control any live or dead specimen or anything derived from a great
crested newt [S 9(2)];
Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure
or place used for shelter or protection by a great crested newt [S 9(4)(a)];
Intentionally or recklessly disturb a great crested newt while it is occupying a
structure or place which it uses for that purpose [S 9(4)(b)].
Great crested newts are listed on Annex II and Annex IV of the Conservation of
Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats [and species] Directive).
This is transposed into UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.)
Regulations 1994 (the Habitats Regulations). This international legislation makes
it an offence to:
x
x
x
x
x
Deliberately capture or kill a great crested newt [Regulation 39(1)(a)];
Deliberately disturb a great crested newt [R39(1)(b)];
Deliberately take or destroy the eggs of a great crested newt [R39(1)(c)];
Damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a great crested newt
[R39(1)(d)];
Keep, transport, sell or exchange, or offer for sale or exchange a live or dead
great crested newt or any part derived of a great crested newt [R39(2)].
A1.3
Current consultation by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) proposes an amendment to the Habitats Regulations 1994 for
England which will introduce the additional offence of ‘carrying out an act that will
result in the deterioration of a breeding site or refuge place of a European species’.
A1.4
Both the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitats Regulations 1994
apply to all stages of the protected species; eggs, larvae, juveniles and adults are
all protected.
A1.5
It is important to identify the presence of great crested newt individuals and also
to identify suitable habitat on site in order that legal obligations regarding this
species can be observed.
A1.6
The more common British amphibians - common frog (Rana temporaria), common
toad (Bufo bufo), smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) and palmate newt (Triturus
helveticus) - are not subject to strict legal protection. The two newt species are
protected from being captured for commercial sale, but this legislation is not
relevant to development.
A1.7
If a waterbody supports all five British amphibian species in high numbers, then
there may be a case for its statutory protection as a Site of Special Scientific
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
16
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Interest (SSSI). More usually, such waterbodies may be afforded protection in
local plans as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), or local other
equivalent term for sites of local importance.
A1.8
Due to general declines in most British amphibian species in recent years, many
local authorities require amphibian surveys as a planning condition, or as part of
environmental information submitted as part of a planning application, even where
the presence of great crested newts is ruled out.
A1.9
Where such an amphibian survey indicates the presence of great crested newts in
relation to a development, there is likely to be a need for a scheme for the
conservation of the species under a licence from the Government. There are a
number of detailed procedures, which must be fulfilled before such a licence can
be issued. Implementation of the licensed scheme may require a significant
timescale, which will be dependent upon the weather and season.
A1.10 Where such an amphibian survey rules out the presence of great crested newts,
there may be the need to develop a scheme for the conservation of the
unprotected amphibians as a planning condition, should the development pose a
risk to a locally significant population of amphibians.
Licensing procedures
A1.11 In the case of development works, derogation 1 from the legislation can be granted
under Section 39 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c) Regulations 1994 by
means of a licence from DEFRA for sites in England.
A1.12 Three tests must be satisfied before the licensing authority can issue a licence
under Section 44(2)(e) to permit otherwise prohibited acts:
x
Section 44(2)(e) states that licences may be granted by the licensing authority
“to preserve public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of
overriding public interest including those of the social or economic nature and
beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”
x
Section 44(3)(e) states that a licence may not be granted unless the licensing
authority is satisfied “that there is no satisfactory alternative”.
x
Under Section 44(3)(b) a licence cannot be issued unless the licensing authority
is satisfied that the action proposed “will not be detrimental to the maintenance
of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status
in their natural range”.
A1.13 DEFRA, as the licensing authority, currently consults English Nature for advice on
the third test relating to maintenance of favourable conservation status 2.
1
A ‘derogation’ is an authorised departure from the system of protection
The conservation status of a species is defined in Article 1(i) of the Habitats Directive as favourable when:
population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long term basis as
a viable component of its natural habitats; and the natural range of the species is neither being reduced not is
likely to be reduced the foreseeable future; and there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large
habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis.
2
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
17
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
APPENDIX TWO
SURVEY METHODS
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
18
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
A2
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY METHODS
A2.1
The following is a brief summary of amphibian survey techniques that aim to
exploit the natural habits of amphibians.
A2.2
For surveys carried out in England, the methods and effort of the survey carried
out should be in accordance with the current “Great Crested Newt Mitigation
Guidelines” (English Nature 2001).
A2.3
Survey strategy and effort
A combination of survey techniques should be used where possible, including
bottle trapping, torch lit surveys, egg searches, hand netting and terrestrial
searches to give a full picture of amphibian activity and to compensate for
limitations with any one technique.
A2.4
A standard amphibian survey should conform to the following general strategy:
x Desktop survey to determine historical presence;
x Initial Walkover to assess scope of task and plot survey requirements;
x Field surveys of each pond throughout peak season, using a combination of
techniques and minimum of 4 or 6 visits, depending upon survey objective;
x Calculation of pond-based population estimate;
x Comparison with historic records to establish probable metapopulation
boundaries and influences.
A2.5
According to current guidelines (English Nature 2001), a typical presence absence
survey should therefore involve the following effort;
Method:
3 methods – preferably torch survey, bottle trapping & egg search
Effort:
4 visits in suitable weather
Timing:
mid March – mid June, at least 2 visits mid-April to mid-May
A2.6
A typical survey to estimate population size requires further effort;
Method:
torch survey & bottle trapping only
Effort:
6 visits in suitable weather
Timing:
mid March – mid June, at least 3 visits mid-April to mid-May
A2.7
A2.8
A2.9
Desktop survey
The desktop assessment for the presence of amphibians within a 500m radius of
the site provides information of historical records and other site specific
information such as statutorily protected sites within or near the site and land
designations. Historical records may be available from English Nature, the relevant
Wildlife Trust, the Local Planning Authority, or the County Amphibian Recorder.
Initial walkover
The initial walkover of the site allows the surveyor to assess the scope of the task
during the daylight. This includes number and condition of ponds and should
indicate health and safety implications and predicted limitations to the available
survey methods.
The walkover also provides information about the waterbodies to be surveyed,
such as size, shading, depth, vegetation profile etc., and gives and indication to
the condition and extent of surrounding terrestrial habitat and its suitability for
amphibians.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
19
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Torch lit survey
A2.10 Waterbodies are surveyed by walking the perimeter of a pond after dusk and
searching the water with a powerful torch (Clulite, one million candle power). The
number, species and (where possible) sex and age class of amphibians seen is
recorded.
A2.11 It is not always possible to achieve 100 % coverage of shorelines of all
waterbodies using the torch lit surveys because of access difficulties, for example
dense marginal vegetation or boggy margins. Estimates of the percentage of
shoreline of each waterbody surveyed and other factors affecting torchlit should
be recorded.
A2.12 It is important to measure the turbidity of the water. This can be achieved by
assessing the depth to which a bright white disc is visible – ideally depth to 1
metre minimum should be obtained.
Bottle Trap Survey
A2.13 The bottle trap used is a two litre plastic bottle operated using two techniques:
x secured to the pond bottom by a cane passing through the trap at an angle and
operated with an air bubble;
x submerged with no air bubble and secured to the pond bottom by a cane
passing through the trap.
A2.14 Bottle traps are set at an average spacing of 2 m along accessible shorelines (to
allow estimation of population size). Where significant lengths of shoreline are
inaccessible, or if a pond is very large, bottle trapping can be used in the
accessible areas, using 2 m spacing as a means of standardising survey effort.
A2.15 It is desirable to place traps in differing parts of the water column and to aim for
areas of reasonable aquatic vegetation cover. At each 2 m trapping location traps
are set in microhabitats considered most likely to be used by newts where
possible. Areas of bare pond bottom (including under overhanging vegetation)
suitable for displaying males and aquatic vegetation suitable for egg-laying females
are used if present.
A2.16 Traps are set in the evening and operated overnight, emptying the traps early the
following morning. Newts are particularly at risk on warm sunny days in shallow
water traps. Traps are operated well within the maximum time limits set by
English Nature (2001): up to 17 hours for traps with an air bubble; and for traps
without an air bubble, 12 hours in April and 10 hours in May.
Egg Search
A2.17 Great crested newts lay their eggs singly on the leaves of submerged vegetation
and then the vegetation is folded over the egg to form a protective ‘purse’. The
eggs of great crested newts can be distinguished from those of the two smaller
newt species (smooth (Triturus vulgaris) and palmate newts (T. helveticus)
because they are slightly larger (3 – 4 mm) with a pale lemon coloured yolk. The
smooth and palmate newt eggs are 2 – 3 mm with a white or grey tinged yolk. A
female great crested newt can lay 300 + eggs so detection rates for eggs are
higher than for adults. The presence of eggs confirms the waterbody as a
breeding site. However, it is impossible to obtain any reliable population estimate
on the basis of a newt egg count. Also, it is undesirable for the conservation of
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
20
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
the species to survey for eggs intensively, as the unfolding of vegetation to
confirm type of egg will tend to render the egg more vulnerable to predation or to
being dislodged. Therefore, no attempt should be made to quantify the number of
eggs in a pond; searching must be stopped once an egg is found.
A2.18 Searching for newt eggs is useful between March and July (peak egg laying period
April to June). Not all eggs are viable, so although most eggs will have hatched
by June, non-viable eggs will remain on vegetation longer before decaying or
becoming predated.
A2.19 Aquatic vegetation is searched for newt eggs by walking or wading the shoreline
and looking for the characteristic shape of folded leaves on favoured plants for
ovipositing.
A2.20 Frog spawn is laid in clumps, with each clump representing one breeding female.
Frog spawn clumps tend to have hatched or coalesced with other clumps by late
March, so this technique is only valid earlier in the season.
A2.21 Toad spawn is laid in strings, often deeply submerged, and is difficult to survey
for.
Hand netting
A2.22 The standard method of netting is to use a D-net for 15 minutes per 50 m of
shoreline, or part thereof (NCC 1989). Netting needs to be vigorous in defined 2m
sweeps to stand greatest chance of capturing amphibians. The number of sweeps
and the number and species of amphibian are recorded to give an average netting
result per 2m sweep. Ponds should also be entered and the bottom substrate
netted as that is a favoured daytime haunt of great crested newts.
A2.23 Netting can be quite destructive and certainly causes turbidity, so should be used
after any torch or bottle or egg surveys. It is not generally considered to be an
efficient survey method, so should only be used when other methods described
above have failed to identify the presence of amphibians, or if these other
methods are impractical at a particular waterbody.
A2.24 It is possible to rank amphibian populations into categories of “low”, “good” and
“exceptional” from netting (NCC, 1989) – however it is not appropriate to make
an actual estimate of population.
A2.25 Amphibians may be found in the water at any time of the year, but often it is only
juveniles that will over-winter in the water. Thus this technique is only useful for
adult netting between March to July. Larval stages will be in the water later and
their netting indicates the pond is a breeding pond. However care is needed not to
damage gills.
Terrestrial search
A2.26 All potential and accessible amphibian refugia are located on site, including log
piles, rubble, debris and rubbish. These are all hand searched and subsequently
restored to their original resting place. Areas of scrub and marginal grass
along/under fence and wall lines and areas around the bases of trees and hedge
lines are also hand searched.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
21
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Weather conditions
A2.27 Weather conditions on the nights of survey should have no appreciable rain or
wind affecting survey. Temperatures must be consistently above 5ºC at midnight
or at the end of surveys.
Personnel
A2.28 Torch lit surveying of known great crested newt ponds, catching great crested
newts in bottle traps or hand nets and disturbing great crested newts in their
places of shelter are licensed activities. Torch lit surveys, bottle trapping, netting
surveys and terrestrial searches must be conducted by appropriately licensed
ecologists.
A2.29 Egg searching is not a licensed activity but should be conducted by experienced
ecologists, preferably licensed with appropriate bodies.
Limitations on Survey
A2.30 It is rare for any site to be able to be surveyed using all the available techniques to
full effect, as there are often reasons of season, weather, pond condition or
access which restrict survey intensity. These various factors which may limit the
effectiveness of survey are recorded.
Evaluation of results
A2.31 Interpretation of site descriptions and collation of the quantitative survey data can
be used to evaluate the site in an amphibian context by:
x estimating the population size(s);
x assessing the conservation status of the population;
x assessing terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality.
Estimating population size
A2.32 It is useful to make an estimate of the population size, particularly of great crested
newts, but also for the other species. This estimate can be used to make some
general assumptions about total population size and can be used to inform
applications for DEFRA / NAW licensed conservation schemes.
A2.33 Current guidelines (English Nature, 2001) recommend specific survey methods (i.e.
torch lit survey and bottle trapping) and effort (i.e. six survey visits) for estimating
population sizes. The recommended survey methods target only the adults
present in the aquatic habitat during the breeding season. Consequently the
population estimates reflect the size of the adult breeding population only. They
do not reflect total population sizes (including non-breeding adults and immatures),
which can only be obtained from very detailed mark-recapture surveys and which
are beyond the scope of this kind of pond based survey.
Population estimate using torch lit survey
A2.34 A torch lit survey can detect between 6 % and 23 % of the adult breeding
population (Griffiths & Raper, 1994). Therefore, the number of great crested
newts seen was divided by 0.06 to give the upper limit of population estimate
(assumed only 6 % of the population had been detected) and by 0.23 to give the
lower limit of the population estimate (assumed 23 % of the population had been
detected).
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
22
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
Population estimate using bottle trapping
A2.35 Griffiths and Raper (1994) calculated that bottle trapping can catch between
2
% and 28 % of the population in the pond on any one night in the peak season
when the trapping effort is standardised to one trap per 2 m of shoreline. To
estimate the breeding population in each pond the total number of great crested
newts caught using one trap per 2 m of shoreline was calculated either:
x directly, when there was 100 % trapping coverage of shoreline, or
x by extrapolating the number caught per 2 m shoreline along part of the
shoreline to the whole shoreline. The extrapolation has been used by Oldham
et. al. (2000).
A2.36 The total number of great crested newts caught was then divided by 0.02 to give
the upper limit of population estimate (assuming only 2 % of the population had
been caught using the standardised trapping method) and by 0.28 to give the
lower limit of the population estimate (assuming 28 % of the population had been
caught using the standardised trapping method).
Assessing conservation status
A2.37 The results from the torch lit and bottle trap surveys can also be used to assess
the conservation status of a great crested newt population against national
standards. The number of great crested newts seen per 2m shoreline is calculated
and ranked using the density ranges in the following table (Griffiths, Raper &
Brady, 1996).
Table 1: Criteria for determining the conservation status of newt populations using
standardised methods (Griffiths, Raper & Brady 1996).
Species
Great
crested
newt
smooth &
palmate
newts
Category
Torching
(clear water)
Average
Above average
Good
Excellent
Average
Above average
Good
Excellent
>0.67 <1.88
>1.88<2.78
>2.78<3.79
>3.79
>0.79<2.15
>2.15<3.11
>3.11<4.16
>4.16
Torching
(turbid/dense
vegetation)
>0.32<0.74
>0.74<1.09
>1.09<1.49
>1.49
>0.49<0.95
>0.95<1.28
>1.28<1.65
>1.65
Bottle trapping
Netting
>0.51<0.96
>0.96<1.28
>1.28<1.63
>1.63
>0.64<1.19
>1.19<1.56
>1.56<1.96
>1.96
>0.07<0.23
>0.23<0.34
>0.34<0.46
>0.46
>0.44<1.21
>1.21<1.73
>1.73<2.30
>2.30
Note: numbers cited are those detected per 2m of shoreline surveyed, including both males and females.
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
23
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
APPENDIX THREE
SURVEY RESULTS
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
24
16m+8f
2m
1f
1m + 1
1m+3f
31.05.06
06.06.05
16.06.05
20.06.05
2m+1f+1j
20.06.05
26.05.05
1m
16.06.05
11f+14m+2
3m
06.06.05
23.05.05
1m+1f
31.05.06
0
0
1m +
1f + 1
1f
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1m+1
0
4m+5f
2m+1f
1m+1
0
0
1f
4m+4f
0
0
0
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
3
2
4m+3f+2
0
20.06.05
26.05.05
0
1
0
16.06.05
2m
0
0
06.06.05
23.05.05
0
0
0
31.05.06
6x5
traps
0
26.05.05
0
0
0
23.05.05
Th
Tv
1
Tc
Torchlit Count
Date
Pond
2005 Amphibian Survey Data
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
4
1
T
0
1+
T
0
0
T
2
+
T
2
+
T
Bb
T
0
T
T
Rt
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Fish
Y
0
0
0
0
0
female
laying
0
efts
0
0
0
0
efts
4 efts
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
0
0
0
Tc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
0
Tc
0
Tv
0
Th
Bottle Traps
0
Rt
0
Bb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1f
0
Tv
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Th
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Terrestrial search
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
Dry
sunny
Dry & mild
hot & dry
25
dry, humid, hot
warm, sunny &
light rain
Dry
sunny
hot & dry
dry, humid, hot
warm, sunny &
light rain
Dry
sunny
hot & dry
dry, humid, hot
warm, sunny &
light rain
Weather
conditions
(previous 24
hrs)
0
31.05.06
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
0
0
0
0
0
31.05.05
0
0
23.05.05
Y(a)
Y
Y
0
11
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.05.05
T
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
Tc
10a/b
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
Fish
23.05.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1juv
0
0
Bb
9
1f
06.06.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
23.05.06
0
31.05.06
24.05.05
0
0
20.06.05
26.05.05
0
16.06.05
0
0
06.06.05
23.05.05
0
31.05.06
0
2f
0
0
0
1f
Th
Tv
Torchlit Count
8
7
6
4x5
traps
0
1m+1f
31.05.06
26.05.05
6m+5f+1
26.05.05
5
1m
23.05.05
4
Tc
Date
Pond
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
1f
Tc
3m+1f
Tv
0
Th
Bottle Traps
0
Rt
0
Bb
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Th
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Terrestrial search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
hot & dry
26
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
Dry & mild
hot & dry
warm, sunny &
light showers
hot & dry
dry, humid, hot
warm, sunny &
light rain
Dry
sunny
Dry & mild
hot & dry
dry, humid, hot
hot & dry
dry, humid, hot
warm, sunny &
light rain
Weather
conditions
(previous 24
hrs)
Fish
Tc
23.05.05
23.05.05
23.05.05
23.05.05
23.05.05
23.05.05
23.05.05
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
0
0
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
23.05.05
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
31.05.05
Rt
0
Th
23.05.05
Tv
12
Tc
Torchlit Count
Date
Pond
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
Tc
Tv
Th
Bottle Traps
Rt
Bb
0
0
Tc
0
0
Tv
0
0
Th
0
0
Rt
Terrestrial search
0
0
Bb
27
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
warm, sunny &
light rain
hot & dry
warm, sunny &
light rain
Weather
conditions
(previous 24
hrs)
Fish
Tc
1m + 1
07.05.06
3m + 1f
0
4m + 2f
26.05.06
01.06.06
06.06.06
1f
0
0
0
N
0
0
Y
0
0
18.05.06
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
1f
0
1m
1m
2f
1m
0
0
0
0
1
0
12.05.06
07.05.06
0
2m + 1f
23.05.06
24.04.06
4m + 4f
16.05.06
12.05.06
3m + 2f
24.04.06
1f
0
Y
0
1m + 2f
0
0
16.05.06
3m +
2f
0
0
4m + 3f
0
12.05.06
16.05.06
12.05.06
0
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
5
4
3
2
0
0
Bb
16.05.06
Rt
0
Th
12.05.06
Tv
1
Tc
Torchlit Count
Date
Pond
2006 Amphibian Survey Data
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
0
Tv/h
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
Bb
0
Tc
0
Tv
0
Th
Bottle Traps
T
Rt
0
Bb
0
Tc
0
Tv
0
Th
0
Rt
Hand Netting
0
Bb
28
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
Air13c, dry
Dry, light wind
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
14c, clear, slight
breeze
17c, clear, slight
breeze
9c, clear, breezy
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
Air13c, dry
Dry, light wind
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
Weather
conditions
0
07.05.06
12.05.06
1f
24.04.06
0
2f
0
2m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
06.06.06
2f
0
N
0
0
0
01.06.06
1f
0
1f
0
N
26.05.06
2f
1
0
2m + 1f
1
N
0
23.05.06
0
0
N
0
0
1m
0
0
Y
0
0
0
0
16.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
07.05.06
0
0
Y
0
12.05.06
0
24.04.06
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
N
0
26.05.06
0
0
0
N
Tc
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
Fish
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
18.05.06
1f
07.05.06
2m
0
0
0
0
Rt
0
0
24.04.06
0
0
0
0
Th
12.05.06
0
0
0
24.05.06
30.03.06
0
0
22.05.06
0
Tv
0
Tc
Torchlit Count
19.05.06
Date
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
8
7
6
Pond
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
T
T
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
0
0
0
0
Tv
0
1f
Tc
0
0
0
Th
Bottle Traps
T
T
T
Rt
0
0
0
Bb
Tc
Tv
Th
Rt
Hand Netting
Bb
29
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
Air13c, dry
Dry, light wind
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
14c, clear, slight
breeze
17c, clear, slight
breeze
9c, clear, breezy
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
Air13c, dry
Dry, light wind
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
Dry, light wind
11c, dry, breezy
9c, some cloud
and wind
10c, some cloud
and wind
10c, showery,
breezy
Weather
conditions
5m + 4f
06.06.06
30.03.06
0
0
0
0
0
S
0
0
4
0
0
Y
Y
Y
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
24.05.06
0
0
0
0
Y
23.05.06
1m
1
0
0
0
Y
18.05.06
0
0
0
0
1m
0
N
0
0
0
0
16.05.06
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
12.05.06
07.05.06
7m + 8f
0
N
0
06.06.06
0
0
N
7m + 2f
0
0
01.06.06
0
0
11m + 3f
0
N
26.05.06
3m +
2f
7m +
2f
5m +
2f
8m +
6f
0
2f
0
0
23.05.06
0
N
0
Y
0
Tc
0
3m
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
Fish
8m + 2f
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
Bb
16.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
0
1m
0
0
2m +
2f
0
0
0
0
0
Th
1f
1m +
2f
3m +
3f
0
Tv
Torchlit Count
12.05.06
4m +2f
0
01.06.06
07.05.06
6m + 4f
26.05.06
3m + 5f
1f
23.05.06
24.04.06
1m
Tc
16.05.06
Date
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
11
10a/b
9
Pond
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
0
Tc
0
Tv
0
Th
Bottle Traps
0
Rt
T
Bb
Tc
Tv
Th
Rt
Hand Netting
Bb
30
11c, dry, breezy
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
9c, clear and
breezy
10c, showery,
breezy
Air13c, dry
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
14c, clear, slight
breeze
17c, clear, slight
breeze
9c, clear, breezy
16c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
Air13c, dry
Dry, light wind
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
14c, clear, slight
breeze
17c, clear, slight
breeze
9c, clear, breezy
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
Weather
conditions
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
0
Y
N
18.05.06
0
17
0
0
0
0
Y
0
0
0
0
0
16.05.06
0
0
0
Y
0
0
0
0
13.05.06
07.05.06
30.03.06
0
0
0
0
Y
26.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
18.05.06
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
2
N
0
0
1
0
16.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
07.05.06
0
0
N
13.05.06
0
30.03.06
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
18.05.06
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
1
N
0
0
3
0
16.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
07.05.06
0
0
N
13.05.06
0
30.03.06
0
0
0
Tc
0
1
N
Fish
18.05.06
0
0
Bb
0
0
0
Rt
0
0
Th
16.05.06
0
Tv
0
0
Tc
Torchlit Count
13.05.06
07.05.06
Date
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
14
13
12
Pond
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
0
S
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
Tc
Tv
Th
Bottle Traps
Rt
Bb
0
Tc
0
Tv
0
Th
0
Rt
Hand Netting
0
Bb
31
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
Air13c, dry
Weather
conditions
0
24.04.06
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Y
0
0
0
0
N
0
26.05.06
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
0
0
0
0
18.05.06
0
0
0
Y
0
0
07.05.06
0
0
0
13.05.06
0
30.03.06
0
0
0
0
Y
25.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
18.05.06
0
2
Y
0
0
0
1
93
Y
0
0
12
0
0
16.05.06
0
0
0
Y
0
0
07.05.06
0
0
0
13.05.06
0
30.03.06
0
0
0
0
25.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
Tc
18.05.06
Y
Y
Y
Y
Fish
0
0
0
86
0
Bb
0
0
1
0
0
Rt
16.05.06
0
0
0
0
Th
0
0
0
0
0
Tv
Torchlit Count
13.05.06
07.05.06
0
0
Tc
30.03.06
25.05.06
Date
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
17
16
15
Pond
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
Tc
Tv
Th
Bottle Traps
Rt
Bb
0
0
0
0
Tc
0
0
0
0
Tv
0
0
0
0
Th
0
0
0
0
Rt
Hand Netting
0
0
T
0
Bb
32
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, clear, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
14c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, clear, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
Dry, light wind
11c, dry, breezy
16c, clear, slight
breeze
Weather
conditions
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Y
0
0
0
0
Y
0
26.05.06
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
22
Y
0
0
2
0
18.05.06
0
0
0
0
0
07.05.06
0
0
Y
13.05.06
0
30.03.06
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
26.05.06
0
0
Y
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
0
0
0
18.05.06
2m
0
0
0
0
07.05.06
0
0
Y
13.05.06
0
30.03.06
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
20
19
0
0
0
0
0
Y
0
Tc
26.05.06
0
0
Y
Fish
0
0
1
2
Bb
0
0
14
Rt
18.05.06
0
0
Th
0
0
07.05.06
0
Tv
Torchlit Count
13.05.06
0
30.03.06
18
Tc
Date
Pond
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tv/h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rt
Egg-search
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bb
Tc
Tv
Th
Bottle Traps
Rt
Bb
Tc
Tv
Th
Rt
Hand Netting
Bb
33
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
18c, light breeze,
dry, no cloud
10c, heavy cloud,
light rain
16c, cloudy, slight
breeze
Air13c, dry
11c, dry, breezy
Weather
conditions
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
APPENDIX FOUR
DRAWINGS
1040.024 Amphibian Survey 2005/2006
34
Appendix B.3
Bat Survey
This page is intentionally blank
WARWICK UNIVERSITY
COVENTRY
BAT SURVEY 2006
(Report Ref: 1040.028)
for
The University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
August 2006
Written:
TEP
Genesis Centre
Birchwood Science Park
Warrington
WA3 7BH
Tel: 01925 844004
Fax: 01925 844002
e-mail: tep@tep.uk.com
t
k
Checked:
Approved:
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Site location ................................................................................................ 1
2.0
SURVEY METHODS...................................................................................... 1
Desktop survey ............................................................................................ 1
Field survey ................................................................................................. 2
4.0
DESKTOP SURVEY....................................................................................... 4
Bat records.................................................................................................. 4
5.0
BUILDING SURVEY....................................................................................... 5
6.0
TREE SURVEY ........................................................................................... 11
7.0
DAWN SURVEYS ....................................................................................... 11
8.0
ACTIVITY SURVEYS................................................................................... 12
9.0
CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 12
11.0
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING......................................................... 12
TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Ecological information and consultations
Pre-existing bat records
Building survey results
APPENDICES
Appendix One: Legislation
Appendix Two: Bat ecology and survey methods
DRAWINGS
1040.033
1040.034
D1040.011
Bat survey results - Westwood campus
Bat survey results - Gibbet Hill campus
Bat survey results - whole site activity surveys
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
TEP was commissioned by the University of Warwick in May 2005 to carry out a
Phase 1 Habitat survey in preparation for an EIA regarding the University’s ten
year expansion proposals. An initial appraisal and preliminary research identified
the need for a bat survey.
1.2
All species of UK bat and their places of shelter (roosts) are fully protected under
national and European legislation. Further information relating to the protection
afforded bats and their conservation status in the region is provided in Appendix
A1.
1.3
The purpose of this survey is therefore to provide the following data to inform the
EIA for the University’s expansion plans:
Identify known/historic bat roosts and/or bat observations;
Identify locations of roosts;
Identify areas of bat foraging and commuting.
1.4
Site location
The University of Warwick campus is situated south of Coventry between the A45
and the A429. The campus straddles the Coventry/Warwickshire county border.
2.0
SURVEY METHODS
2.1
The survey followed the following strategy:
2.2
Desktop survey to ascertain if there are any historical records of bats;
Initial Walkover to assess scope of task, plot survey requirements and conduct a habitat
assessment;
Ground assessment of individual trees;
Internal and external inspections of building chosen for demolition;
Dawn activity survey to detect swarming bats before they enter a roost;
Dusk activity survey to determine foraging habitat and commuting corridors.
Desktop survey
As part of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey undertaken in 2005, a detailed
desktop survey was carried out and information regarding historic species records,
protected sites, land allocation and relevant policies was requested/gathered from
the sources listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1:
Ecological information and consultations
CONSULTEE / SOURCE
OF INFORMATION
Warwickshire County Council
National Biodiversity Network
The Environment Agency
UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull
Biodiversity Action Plan
The University of Warwick
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
NATURE OF INFORMATION
SUPPLIED BY CONSULTEE
Protected species records and designated sites
Historical protected species records
Protected species records
Identification of national priority bat species known
to occur in the region.
Identification of regional priority bat species known
to occur in the region.
Species/habitat records
1
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
CONSULTEE / SOURCE
OF INFORMATION
Magic
Map:
Multi-Agency
Geographic Information for the
Countryside www.magic.gov.uk
English Nature
Countryside Agency
West Midlands Bird Club
EcoRecord (referred to Warwick CC)
Warwickshire Badger Group
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
2.3
2.4
NATURE OF INFORMATION
SUPPLIED BY CONSULTEE
Statutory and rural designations, citations, natural
area boundaries
Natural Area Profile classification
Character Area classification
Breeding bird survey data
n/a
No response
No response
Field survey
The methodologies and effort of the field surveys were carried out in accordance
with the current guidelines (e.g. English Nature 2004; JNCC 1999).
Building survey
The Warwick University site contains a large number and great variety of buildings
within its boundaries. The majority of these buildings will be unaffected by
development proposals. Those buildings with the potential to be demolished under
the expansion plans were subject to daytime inspections to assess them for the
potential to support roosting bats. These surveys were supported by targeted
dusk swarming surveys.
2.5
Building inspections were undertaken by Mike Freeman, English Nature (EN)
licensed bat ecologist and Chair of Cheshire Bat Group, and Elizabeth Seal AIEEM.
2.6
Buildings were inspected externally from the ground for field signs of bats such as
droppings, insect remains, smear marks etc, as described in Appendix A2.
Emphasis was given to identifying those areas where bats might roost including
loft spaces, cellars, internal gables, ridge beams, water tanks, around windows,
shafts, ducting, cladding, etc and binoculars were used when required. The
survey was conducted with summer, autumn and winter use by bats in mind.
2.7
2.8
2.9
Tree survey
It is the general intention under the expansion proposals, to retain existing trees on
site. However, it is possible that trees adjacent to potential areas of demolition
works and along Gibbet Hill Road may be impacted upon as a result of the
proposals and therefore trees in these areas were assessed for bat roost potential
by Mike Freeman EN licensed bat consultant and Chair of Cheshire Bat Group,
assisted by Elizabeth Seal (AIEEM).
This assessment of the trees potential to support roosting bats was carried out by
viewing each tree from the ground, using binoculars where appropriate, looking for
the field signs and habitat features as indicated in Appendix A2.
Dusk swarming survey
To compensate for limitations of daytime building inspections, dusk surveys were
undertaken. Swarming behaviour of bats prior to returning to the roost can
increase the likelihood of detecting a roost. Those buildings judged to either to
have potential to support roosting bats or with inaccessible roof voids were
subject to dusk surveys where surveyors recorded observations made using
tuneable heterodyne bat detectors.
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
2
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
2.10
2.11
Evening activity survey
A night time survey was conducted by pairs of surveyors using tuneable
heterodyne bat detectors. The site was comprehensively surveyed by means of
five transects in the months of June or July 2006. Bat contacts were noted
according to the species (where identifiable), the time, whether seen or heard,
social calling or foraging and flight direction (where seen).
Timing
The building inspection and tree assessment were conducted during daylight hours
on the 17th July 2006. The evening activity and dusk swarming surveys were
conducted on the 1st/2nd June and 17th/18th July 2006.
Limitations to survey
2.12
2.13
2.14
Building survey
Bat droppings are the most obvious clue of bat occupation when carrying out
inspections of building exteriors. However, bats feed solely on insects and their
droppings quickly turn to powder. As such these signs are highly susceptible to
weather conditions and are easily washed away in rain. Consequently the absence
of droppings should be treated with caution.
The majority of the buildings surveyed were flat roofed, without roof voids and
without cellars. However, four buildings had pitched roofs but none of these had
accessible loft voids (one was a high suspended ceiling, one was a residential
dwelling that could not be accessed, two were flat roof buildings with a modern
pitched roof capping with no access point). To overcome the limitations of these
internal access issues, dusk surveys were carried out.
Tree survey
The survey was conducted when deciduous trees were in full foliage. This
increased the tendency of dense foliage to “hide” potential roost sites from view.
2.15
As previously discussed at paragraphs the identification of tree roosts is
particularly difficult. Field signs of bats in trees may not be apparent when
viewing cavities from the ground using binoculars. Where cavities are obscured, a
closer inspection can only be achieved through using sophisticated climbing
equipment and/or sensitive detecting equipment such as an endoscope, which can
look much deeper into cavities than use of torches.
2.16
This limitation reduces the likelihood of directly confirming the presence of an
active tree roost. However, the survey methods also assess the trees for their
potential to support bat roosts and recommendations are provided based upon this
assessment. This precautionary approach provides a robust interpretation of the
risk that bats may use the site for roosting.
2.17
Activity surveys
Bat activity will vary depending on species, habitat and timing (hour/month). To
reduce the affects of any such variables transects were planned to cross all types
of habitat within the site, surveyors worked in pairs with detectors tuned to
different frequencies, transects were carried out in June and in July and where
areas were subject to repeat surveys routes were reversed to reduce the affects of
time on activity patterns.
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
3
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
4.0
DESKTOP SURVEY
4.1
Full details of the desktop survey are presented in TEP report 1040.017 Warwick
University - Ecological Assessment. A summary of bat records is presented in
Table 2 below:
Table 2:
Pre-existing bat records
Species
4.2
4.3
Location
Year
Source
Notes
Common Pipistrelle
SP295745
1995
WBDW
Pipistrelle sp
SP297755
1994
WBRC
Whiskered
SP298759
1984
WBRC
Daubenton's
SP300755
1995
WBDW
Noctule
SP301755
1995
WBDW
Daubenton's
SP302755
1994
WBRC
Brown Long-eared
SP304355
1998
WBRC
Soprano Pipistrelle
SP304755
1997
WBRC
Common Pipistrelle
SP304755
1998
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Daubenton's
SP304755
1998
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Whiskered/Brandt's
SP304755
1995
WBDW
Tocil Wood
Whiskered
SP304755
1998
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Noctule
SP304755
1998
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Noctule
SP302754
1998
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Tocil Wood
Tocil Wood
Daubenton's
SP303754
?
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Natterer's
SP303754
?
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Whiskered/Brandt's
SP303754
?
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Pipistrelle sp
SP303754
?
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Daubenton's
SP303754
?
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Soprano Pipistrelle
SP303754
?
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Noctule
SP303755
1994
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Whiskered/Brandt's
SP303755
1994
WBRC
Tocil Wood
Pipistrelle sp
SP308758
1994
WBRC
Bat records
The presence of bats is a material consideration when a local planning authority is
considering a development proposal which, if carried out, would be likely to result
in disturbance or harm to the species or its habitat (PPS9).
In addition to the data provided by Warwickshire Biological Records Centre the
University of Warwick held data (collected by Paul Elliot) from surveys of the Tocil
Wood area in 1994.
These survey recorded pipistrelle bats as abundant
throughout but particularly over lakes and along hedgerows, noctule roosting in
the north-east of the main wood, Daubenton's common over water and
surrounding areas, whiskered/Brandt’s abundant above cycle track and clearings,
Brown long-eared recorded high in the canopy of the wood, Natterer's recorded
along the south-east side of wood and in one or two clearings and a possible
observation of a serotine (but this is not a definite sighting as the bat would be at
the northern end of it's usual range).
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
4
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Single storey
Mostly two-storey
with suspended
ceilings
Some parts single
storey
Small areas of
tight-fitting wooden
cladding
Single storey (part
double height)
building
Glass-fronted
building
Structure
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Print Services
Avon
Dining & Social
Building
Building survey results
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Felt covered flat roof
Wooden weather boarding around the
top of the building
Louvered vents
Originally flat roofed with modern
pitched roof capping – no access
Concrete interlinking tiles on two
storey areas
Flat concrete roof covered with
roofing felt on single storey areas
Louvers
Wide wooden soffits
Mono-pitch felt covered roof on
main building, pitched roof with
concrete interlinking tiles on single
story room to back
Gaps behind facia boards
Wooden sarking
Louvers
No roof voids
Roof
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
No bats were
observed entering
the building during
the dusk survey
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
MEDIUM
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
Bat Roost
Potential
Photographic Record
5
The results of the building inspection are presented Table 3 below and the locations of the buildings are illustrated in Drawing
1040.033 at the end of this report:
5.1
Table 3:
BUILDING SURVEY
5.0
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Double height,
single storey
building
Some areas steel
framed with brick
infill
Suspended ceiling
with large void in
pitched section of
building
Wooden cladding in
parts
Three storey
Metal frame with
brick infill
The long elevations
are largely covered
by windows and
tight fitting panels
Part single part two
storey
Ventilation gaps in
mortar above
windows
Small area of
wooden cladding
Structure
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Lifelong Learning
Science Education
Open College
Network
Building
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Felt roof partly pitched and partly flat
Wooden soffits and bargeboards
Flat felt covered roof
Gaps in soffits
Pitched roof, tiled on twos storey
sections and felt covered on single
storey sections
UPVC and wooden soffits and
bargeboards
Roof
No bats were
observed entering
the building during
the dusk survey
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
MEDIUM
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
No bats were
observed entering
the building during
the dusk survey
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
MEDIUM
Bat Roost
Potential
Photographic Record
6
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
L-shaped building
with two different
structures:
Part A - single
storey
Part B – two storey
Suspended ceilings
Some ventilation
gaps in mortar
above windows
Single storey
Steel frame with
windows and
panels
Single storey
Brick frame and
wooden cladding
Structure
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Institute of
Education
Music
Bungalows
Building
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Part A – felt covered flat roof
Small wooden clad units on top of
roof
Tall, flat roof boiler room with
louvers
Part B – originally flat roofed with
modern pitched roof capping – no
access
Concrete interlocking roof tiles
Wooden soffits and bargeboards
Felt covered, multi mono-pitch roof
with some flat roofed areas
No roof voids
Felt covered flat roof
Wooden soffits and bargeboards
Roof
No bats were
observed entering
the building during
the dusk survey
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
MEDIUM
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
Bat Roost
Potential
Photographic Record
7
ƒ
Post Room
ƒ
Nursery x2
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
ƒ
Garages at rear of
post room
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Single storey,
prefabricated
buildings with areas
of wooden cladding
Single storey brick
building
Single storey, brick
building
Open flu holes in
brickwork
Suspended ceiling
Three single storey,
glass greenhouses
Structure
Greenhouses x3
Building
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Flat, felt covered roofs
Felt covered and corrugated metal
constructed flat roofs
Wooden weather boarding, badly
damaged in parts
Flat felt covered roof
Wooden weather boards
Glass pitched roof no void
Roof
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
LOW
Bat Roost
Potential
NO PICTURE
Photographic Record
8
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Modern single story
building
Brick and metal
structure with
panels on top half
of walls
Louvers
Double height,
single storey
building
Brick and concrete
structure
Metal cladding on
some areas of wall
Single storey
Brick and glass
building
Suspended ceilings
Structure
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Laundry
Furniture Store
SAP Training
Building
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Flat roof
Metal soffits
No roof void
Arched roof
Felt covered with lead capping
Raised skylight windows along centre
of roof
No roof void
Two mono-pitch roofs
Felt covered on the pitched sides and
wooden clad and glass construction
on the vertical sides
Roof
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
Bat Roost
Potential
Photographic Record
9
Flat, felt covered roof
Gaps under weather boarding
No roof void
No bats were
observed entering
the building during
the dusk survey
No evidence of
roosting bats was
found
LOW
Photographic Record
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
10
No buildings had cellars and most buildings were flat roofed and without loft voids. Four buildings had pitched roofs or areas of
pitched roofs: two of these were flat roof buildings that had a pitched roof cap added at a later date (there was no access into
these areas), one had a suspended ceiling but no structural loft void (the height and design of the suspended ceiling prevented
inspection via ladder) the final building had a shallow loft void (the 1st floor was used as a residential accommodation and access
was not granted).
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Bat Roost
Potential
5.3
Single and two
storey buildings
Hanging tiles on
ground floor levels
– tight fitting and in
good condition
Roof
Inspection of the building exterior revealed no evidence of roosting bats, but some potential roost entrances were observed in the
forms of a few gaps in barge and soffit boards. Most areas of cladding, hanging tiles and visible roofing tiles appeared tight fitting
and in a good state of repair. The post room building had a few ground level gaps in the brick work that could offer bat access into
the cavity wall.
ƒ
ƒ
Structure
5.2
Estates Office
Building
WARWICK UNIVERSITY, COVENTRY
6.0
TREE SURVEY
6.1
The ground based tree survey concentrated on three areas of the campus: the
Westwood campus in the north of the site, the area alongside Gibbet Hill Road
where it runs through the centre of the campus (excluding the trees within the Old
Brickyard Plantation as these will not be affected by development proposals) and
the Gibbet Hill campus in the south of the site.
6.2
No bat roosts were identified during the tree survey, however, the ground based
survey serves to assess the potential for trees to support roosting bats by
identifying those features in trees that bats have been shown to utilise for
roosting.
6.3
The trees within the Westwood campus surrounding those buildings earmarked for
potential redevelopment did not contain those features associated with bat roosts.
6.4
Gibbet Hill Road (between the roundabout in the south of the site by the sports
pitches and the roundabout in the north of the site by the security lodge) is lined
by low-level manicured hedges dotted with mature trees, plus a small area of
scattered broadleaved trees surrounding the car park opposite the Old Brickyard
Plantation.
6.5
Many trees within the hedge line were mature with those features associated
roosting bats including, dense ivy cover, splits/cracks, small areas of deadwood
and cavities. The majority of mature trees within the hedges on Gibbet Hill Road
are considered to have medium to high potential to support roosting bats.
6.6
There were only limited trees surrounding those buildings within the Gibbet Hill
campus that were earmarked for potential redevelopment. These trees did not
contain those features associated with bat roosts.
7.0
DAWN SURVEYS
7.1
Four buildings on the Westwood campus in the north of the site were subject to
dawn surveys as they had been identified during the daytime building inspections
as having the potential to support roosting bats, but it had not been possible to
access the loft voids of these buildings. The buildings surveyed were Avon, Open
College Network, Lifelong Learning and Institute of Education. The locations of
these buildings are illustrated in drawing 1040.033 at the end of this report.
7.2
No bats were seen to enter any of these buildings during the dawn survey.
7.3
In the Gibbet Hill campus the Estates offices were earmarked for potential
redevelopment. These buildings had areas of walls (limited to ground level only)
covered in hanging tiles and were therefore subject to a dusk survey. The location
of these buildings are illustrated in drawing 1040.034 at the end of this report
7.4
No bats were seen to enter any of the Estates office buildings.
7.5
A single pipistrelle bat was seen to enter a gap in the mortar above a second floor
window on the eastern elevation of the Medical School building. However this
building will not be affected by the expansion proposals.
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
11
8.0
ACTIVITY SURVEYS
8.1
The evening activity transects recorded foraging and commuting activity of
common pipistrelle, noctule and Myotis bats. In the main, bat activity was
associated with linear and aquatic habitat features. This is in part a reflection of
the transect routes and in part a reflection of bat behaviour.
8.2
Pipistrelles were recorded across the site, although there was a general absence or
reduction in activity within the centre of the built-up area of the campus,
immediately north-east of Gibbet Hill Road.
8.3
Main areas of noctule activity were in the south-west of the site within the
Warwickshire County Council boundaries.
8.4
Myotis activity was prevalent along the Tocil Ponds in the south-east of the site
but these species was also recorded along the large linear pond near Heronbank
halls of residence.
9.0
CONCLUSIONS
9.1
The site as a whole is widely used for foraging and commuting by a variety of bat
species including pipistrelle, noctule and Myotis bats. Records searches have
shown other species also utilise the site and it is highly likely that, given the type
and variety of habitats within the campus, bats also use the site for roosting.
9.2
Aquatic habitats and linear features such as hedgerows and woodland edges were
important habitats for bats commuting and foraging across the site.
9.3
The tree surveys concentrated on those areas where trees had the potential to be
impacted on by expansion proposals. Of those areas, the habitat along either side
of Gibbet Hill Road was found to contain several trees with the potential to
support roosting bats and these should therefore be retained where ever possible.
If this is not possible they should be subject to aerial inspections and specific
advice given on the basis of their findings.
9.4
The building surveys concentrated on those structures earmarked for potential
redevelopment. No evidence of roosting bats was identified in any of these
buildings and they were generally judged to have low to medium potential to
support roosting bats.
9.5
One pipistrelle bat was observed entering the Medical School building within the
Gibbet Hill campus, but this building will not be affected by the expansion
proposals.
11.0
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
HUTSON, A. M. (1993) ‘Action plan for conservation of bats in the United Kingdom’ The
Bat Conservation Trust, London
JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE (1999) ‘Bat workers manual’ (eds: Mitchell-Jones,
A. J. & McLeish, A. P.) JNCC, Peterborough
ENGLISH NATURE
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
(2004)
‘Bat
mitigation
guidelines’
English
Nature,
Peterborough
12
APPENDIX A1
Legislative context
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Appendix A1
A1
A1.1
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
Statutory protection
All British species of bat are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended). They are also included in Schedule 2 the
Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994, which are the domestic
implementation of the EC Habitats Directive. This legislation makes it illegal to:
Intentionally kill, injure or capture (take) bats;
Intentionally or recklessly disturb bats;
Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts.
A1.2
In this sense a bat roost has been interpreted to mean any structure or place
which is used for shelter or protection whether or not bats are present at the time.
A1.3
In the case of development works, exemption from the protection afforded for
bats under Section 39 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c) Regulations
1994 can be granted by means of a licence from the Department of the
Environmental Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Three tests must be satisfied before
Defra can issue a licence under Section 44(2)(e) to permit otherwise prohibited
acts:
(i)
Section 44(2)(e) states that licences may be granted by Defra “to preserve public health or
public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of the
social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment”.
(ii) Section 44(3)(e) states that a licence may not be granted unless Defra is satisfied “that there is
no satisfactory alternative”.
(iii) Under Section 44(3)(b) a licence cannot be issued unless Defra is satisfied that the action
proposed “will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species
concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range”.
A1.4
A1.5
Defra currently continues to consult English Nature for advice on the third test
relating to maintenance of favourable conservation status.
National planning policy
Relevant statements in the recently adopted Planning Policy Statement 9:
Geological and Biological Conservation (2005) include:
1.(vi) The aim of planning decisions should be to prevent harm to biodiversity or geological
conservation interests. Where granting planning permission may result in significant harm to
those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development
cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In
the absence of any such alternative sites, planning authorities should ensure that, before
planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place. Where a
planning decision would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests
which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensation
measures should be sought. If that significant cannot prevented, adequately mitigated against
or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
13.
The re-use of previously developed land for new development makes a major contribution to
sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped land that
needs to be used. However, where such sites have significant biodiversity or geological
interest of recognised local importance, local planning authorities, together with developers,
should aim to retain this interest or incorporate it into any development of the site.
14.
Development proposals provide many opportunities for building in beneficial biodiversity or
geological features as part of good design. When considering proposals, local planning
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Appendix A1
authorities should maximise such opportunities in and around developments, using planning
obligations where appropriate.
16.
A1.6
Planning authorities should ensure that these species [requiring conservation action as species
of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England] are protected from the
adverse effects of development, where appropriate, by using planning conditions or
obligations. Planning authorities should refuse planning permission where harm to the species
or their habitats would result unless the need for, and benefits of, the development clearly
outweigh that harm.
ODPM Circular 06/2005 and DEFRA Circular 01/2005 states at Part IV. A. 98:
“The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority
is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would likely result in the harm of
a protected species or its habitat. Local authorities should consult English Nature before
granting planning permission.
They should consider attaching appropriate planning
conditions or entering into planning obligations under which the developer would take
appropriate steps to ensure the long term protection of the species. They should also
advise developers that they must comply with any statutory species’ protection provisions
affecting the site concerned. …”
National and local conservation status
A1.7
UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Priority Bat Species
The UKBAP lists a number of bat species as Priority Species:
A1.8
Barbastelle bat
Bechstein’s bat
Greater mouse-eared bat
Pipistrelle bat
Greater horseshoe bat
Lesser horseshoe bat
Bat species of local concern
Local Biodiversity Action Plans list key local species and habitats considered to be
rare or declining in the area. Some may be of national concern, while others may
only be locally worrying. Some are statutorily protected, although the great
majority are not.
A1.9
The Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull BAP (WCSBAP) includes a joint Species
Action Plan (SAP) for all species of bat that are found in the region. Which are
two pipistrelle species (common and soprano), serotine, Daubenton’s, whiskered,
Brandt’s, noctule, brown long-eared, Natterer’s Leisler’s, lesser horseshoe,
barbastelle bat and possibly Bechstein’s and Nathusius’s pipistrelle bat species.
Of these species, the pipistrelles, lesser horseshoe, Bechstein’s and barbastelle are
UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species.
A1.10
Objectives of the WCSBAP bat SAP include maintaining and enhancing/increasing
bat roosting, feeding and commuting habitat.
A1.11
While local BAP documents have no legal status, the local authority and EN will
expect account to be taken of these species in the overall layout and landscape
strategy for the development.
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Appendix A1
APPENDIX A2
British bat ecology and survey methods
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Appendix A2
A2
BRITISH BAT ECOLOGY AND SURVEY METHODS
A2.1
Bats in Britain
A2.1.1 There are 16 species of bat occurring in Britain, one of which is possibly now
extinct. These species all belong to one of two families – horseshoe bats or
vesper (evening) bats.
A2.1.2 As recently as the 1950’s bats in Britain were numerous to the point that colonies
of thousands of bats could be seen.
extremely rare.
Today, colonies of such numbers are
A2.1.3 The greater horseshoe bat has declined by 99% in Britain, and other species have
suffered similar declines.
A2.1.4 Bats are highly specialised animals, being the only mammal with the ability of true
flight. They are nocturnal and, in Britain, they are all insectivorous. Bats have
evolved to use a specialised echolocation system by which to navigate and catch
insects, even in complete darkness.
A2.1.5 Bats need a variety of roosts throughout the year in which to breed, hibernate and
give birth.
A2.1.6 Six different categories of bat roost have been described (Hutson, 1993):
Spring gathering roosts
Maternity roosts
Mating roosts
Night roosts and feeding roosts
Prehibernal roosts
Hibernation roosts
A2.1.7 It is uncommon for bats to use the same roost throughout the year as they require
different conditions for breeding and hibernating.
Some bats can fly long
distances between suitable sites, which can be remotely located. There are three
main types of roost:
Buildings: most important in the summer, but some are used throughout the year.
Caves / mines / underground structures: most important for winter hibernation because
they give stable, cold conditions.
Trees: used throughout the year.
A2.1.8 Each species of bat prefers its own type of roost. Some almost always use one
type of roost, while others switch between roosts during the year. Once a roosting
site is established, bats are quite faithful to it and return regularly.
A2.2
Bats in trees
A2.2.1 Trees (especially native ones such as Oak, Beech, Ash and Scots Pine) and
hedgerows play host to swarms of insects, which forms the primary prey item for
UK bats.
A2.2.2 Trees also provide bats with a place to roost or rest, give birth, raise young, form
groups and hibernate in natural holes, crevices and sheltered places.
features are traditionally associated with mature trees.
Such
A2.2.3 The availability of suitable holes may limit the number of these species.
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Appendix A2
A2.2.4 Identification of tree roosts is an area with a poor record of success. Typical sites
may be old woodpecker holes, cavities and cracks in trees, crevices behind
peeling-off bark, woodpiles and behind ivy or dense epicormic growth.
A2.2.5 Over a period in time bats will use a number of trees to optimise roosting
conditions. External disturbances, an internal build up of parasites or distance
from feeding area can influence the choice of tree.
A2.2.6 Bats also use trees, lines of trees and hedges to navigate at night.
Loss or
damage to such features affects the ability of bats to commute safely and
economically between roosts and feeding sites. A gap in a hedge as little as 10
metres may force some bats to seek an alternative route or to change roosts.
A2.2.7 Bats in tree roosts may offer little or no evidence of their occupation, especially
when in hibernation. Signs to look for include:
Obvious holes, cavities and splits
Dark staining on the tree below a hole
Staining around a hole caused by the natural oils in bats’ fur
A maze of tiny scratch marks around the hole made by bats’ claws
Droppings below a hole – they look similar to those for rodents, but crumble to a
powder of insect fragments
Noise (squeaking or chittering) coming from a hole, especially on a hot day or at dusk
On closer inspection a hole may contain droppings or smell of bats
A2.2.8 All UK bat species are dependent to some extent on trees.
This dependency
varies with species, season, roosting behaviour and foraging behaviour. Some bat
species, such as noctule (Nyctalus noctula), Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii)
and barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus) rely almost exclusively on trees for roost
sites throughout the year. A number of other species may use tree roosts for only
a part of the year, including pipistrelles (Pipistrellus spp.) and brown long-eared
bats (Plecotus auritus).
A2.3
Bats in buildings
A2.3.1 Buildings also provide bats with a variety of places in which they can roost e.g.:
External hanging tiles or weather boarding
Cavity spaces
Cracks in bricks/mortar
At top of solid walls
In eaves, behind fascia and barge boarding
Beneath underfelt, tiles or slates
Around timber joints, gable end or around chimneybreast.
A2.3.2 The most common time of year in which bats utilise buildings is between May and
August, when the pregnant females gather in maternity roosts to give birth and
raise their young.
A2.3.3 Females and young often remain in a favoured roost for the duration of summer or
move about using several roosts. Most summer colonies will have dispersed by
the autumn, though brown long-eared bats often appear early in the year (early
April) and leave later (October or later). These bats will also occasionally roost in
a single building throughout the entire year.
A2.3.4 Buildings may also be used as temporary or “transitional roosts” by small numbers
of adult and immature bats of both sexes, particularly in spring and autumn.
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Appendix A2
A2.3.5 Many outbuildings are attractive to bats for temporary night time roosts or as
sheltered feeding perches. The latter are generally indicated by the presence of a
lot of insect remains, particularly of moths or large beetles and some droppings.
A2.3.6 Cool, undisturbed, humid places are important as hibernation sites. Most species
will tuck themselves into small crevices e.g. between bricks/stonework, and can
easily pass the winter there unnoticed.
A2.3.7 Bats are usually concealed in crevices, behind roofing felt, in cavity walls, in old
timber joints or under ridge tiles and are only occasionally seen out in the open in
lofts. Consequently, the key identification feature is the presence of droppings.
Sometimes only a small scattering of droppings may be obvious, on other
occasions the accumulation of droppings into piles beneath ridge-boards and
around chimneys or gable ends is also typical of bats.
A2.3.8 Bats are sometimes drawn to open water tanks in lofts in search of a drink. They
fall into the tank, can’t get out and eventually drown. Dead bats are often found
in these ‘open’ tanks in roof spaces where bats habituate.
A2.3.9 Characteristic odour will also provide evidence to the presence of bats. A polished
or clean surface near a place where light enters may also indicate habitual usage
by bats. Bats may sometimes be heard “chittering”, but this is usually in warm
summer weather or when they are about to leave the roost to forage at dusk.
A2.3.10 The species most commonly occurring in buildings (usually modern houses) are
two pipistrelle species (Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P.pygmaeus), the former is the
most common species local to the site, the latter generally less so.
A2.3.11 These highly gregarious small bats use roofs for breeding during the summer and,
in general, the bats disperse during the autumn. The most likely place to find
droppings in the roof void are at the gable end wall and along the eaves. In some
cases, the bats may roost beneath ridge tiles, on top of the ridge beam or under
insulation close to the eaves.
A2.3.12 The brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) is the second most common species
in Britain but is the one most likely to be encountered in roof voids. It may
occasionally be seen clinging on to timbers near the apex of the roof. Like the
pipistrelle, highest numbers may be seen on hot days between June and
September when breeding colonies may be present. During the autumn and in
cool weather, bats remain concealed in crevices or hollow walls but may appear
on mild days or if disturbed.
A2.3.13 Brown long-eared bats tend to fly around in the open roof void and hang from the
ridge during the night, so droppings are usually found scattered over the floor or
concentrated in piles beneath favoured roosting areas, typically beneath the ridge
beam. In hipped roofs, piles of droppings may also be found in the junction
between two hips.
A2.3.14 A number of other species are more frequently recorded roosting in buildings than
other types of roost site. These include Brandt’s bat (Myotis brandtii), whiskered
bat (Myotis mystacinus), Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri), Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus
leisleri), serotine (Eptesicus serotinus) and the two horseshoe species (Rhinolophus
ferrumequinum and R.hipposideros).
Some of these species are relatively
widespread while others are restricted and/or rare.
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Appendix A2
DRAWINGS
1040.028 Bat Survey 2006
Drawings
Revision
Description
Amended by
Date
Genesis Centre
Birchwood Science Park
Warrington
WA3 7BH
Tel: 01925 844004
Fax: 01925 844002
e-mail: tep@tep.uk.com
KEY:
Project
Buildings surveyed during day
Buildings subject to dawn survey
Bat foraging and commuting activity
Warwick University
Title
Bat Survey - Gibbet Hill campus
Single pipistrelle bat seen entering gap in
mortar above 2nd floor window on east
elevation during the dawn survey
1040.034
N/A
LS
Aug 06
LS
FBH
Revision
Description
Amended by
Date
Genesis Centre
Birchwood Science Park
Warrington
WA3 7BH
Tel: 01925 844004
Fax: 01925 844002
e-mail: tep@tep.uk.com
KEY:
Project
Warwick University
Buildings surveyed during day
Buildings subject to dawn survey
Bat foraging and commuting activity
Title
Bat Survey – Westwood campus
No bats were seen to entering any of the buildings
during the dawn survey
1040.033
N/A
LS
Aug 06
LS
Drawings
FBH
Appendix B.4
Badger Survey
This page is intentionally blank
Owing to confidentiality issues the Badger Survey Report will be submitted
under separate cover
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix B.5
Breeding Bird Survey
This page is intentionally blank
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;
%18'064;
$4''&+0)$+4&5748';
4GRQTV4GH 6'2
)GPGUKU%GPVTG
$KTEJYQQF5EKGPEG2CTM
9CTTKPIVQP
9#$*
6GN
(CZ
GOCKNVGR"VGRWMEQO
YYYVGRWMEQO
HQT
6JG7PKXGTUKV[QH9CTYKEM
%QXGPVT[
%8#.
,WN[
9TKVVGP
%JGEMGF
#RRTQXGF
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
%106'065
+0641&7%6+10 5748';564#6'); &'5-6125748'; 5+6'&'5%4+26+10#0&*#$+6#6#55'55/'06 $4''&+0)$+4&5748';/'6*1&5 $4''&+0)$+4&5748';4'57.65 5+6''8#.7#6+10 4'('4'0%'5#0&(746*'44'#&+0)
6#$.'5
6CDNG
$KTFUNKUVGFD[VJG7-$KQFKXGTUKV[#EVKQP2NCPCURTKQTKV[URGEKGU
6CDNG
$KTFURGEKGU4GEQTFGFKP
#22'0&+%'5
#RRGPFKZ1PG
$TKVKUJ6TWUVHQT1TPKVJQNQI[$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[/GVJQFQNQI[
#RRGPFKZ6YQ
5VCVWVQT[CPF2NCPPKPI%QPVGZV
#RRGPFKZ6JTGG
&GUMVQRUWTXG[HKPFKPIU
&4#9+0)5
& 2JCUGJCDKVCVUWTXG[
& $TGGFKPI$KTFUWTXG[ŌUVXKUKV
& $TGGFKPI$KTFUWTXG[ŌPFXKUKV
&
7- CPF 9CTYKEMUJKTG %QXGPVT[ 5QNKJWNN$#2 URGEKGU CPF $KTFU QH
%QPUGTXCVKQP%QPEGTP
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
+0641&7%6+10
6'2YCUEQOOKUUKQPGFD[VJG7PKXGTUKV[QH9CTYKEMKP/C[VQECTT[QWVC2JCUG
*CDKVCV UWTXG[ KP RTGRCTCVKQP HQT CP '+# TGICTFKPI VJG 7PKXGTUKV[ŏU VGP [GCT GZRCPUKQP
RTQRQUCNU#PKPKVKCNCRRTCKUCNCPFRTGNKOKPCT[TGUGCTEJKFGPVKHKGFVJGPGGFHQTCDTGGFKPI
DKTFUWTXG[
5KVGNQECVKQP
6JG 7PKXGTUKV[QH9CTYKEM ECORWU KUUKVWCVGF UQWVJQH %QXGPVT[ DGVYGGPVJG# CPF
VJG#6JGECORWUUVTCFFNGUVJG%QXGPVT[9CTYKEMUJKTGEQWPV[DQTFGT
5748';564#6');
#TCPIGQHUWTXG[VGEJPKSWGUYGTGWUGFCVVJKUUKVGKPENWFKPIVTCPUGEVOCRRKPICPFURQV
EJGEMU 6JGUG FKHHGTGPV VGEJPKSWGU YGTG GORNQ[GF KP CP CVVGORV VQ IKXG C
EQORTGJGPUKXGRKEVWTGQHDKTFCEVKXKV[CPFVQEQORGPUCVGHQTVJGNKOKVCVKQPUQHKPFKXKFWCN
VGEJPKSWGU
6JGUWTXG[HQNNQYGFVJGHQNNQYKPIUVTCVGI[
•
•
•
•
&GUMVQRUWTXG[ TGRQTVGFKP6'24GRQTVTGH'EQNQIKECN#UUGUUOGPV +PKVKCN YCNMQXGT VQ CUUGUU UEQRG QH VCUM CPF VJG UWTXG[ VTCPUGEV CPF RQKPV EQWPV
TGSWKTGOGPVU
6YQTGRGCVUWTXG[XKUKVUFWTKPIVJGDTGGFKPIUGCUQPQH#RTKNVQ,WPGKPENWUKXG
#PCN[UKU QH UWTXG[ TGUWNVU VQ KFGPVKH[ MG[ CTGCU QH CEVKXKV[ FKUVTKDWVKQP CPF
EQPUGTXCVKQPUVCVWUQHURGEKGURTGUGPV
&'5-6125748';
(WNN FGVCKNU QH VJG FGUMVQR UWTXG[ CTG IKXGP KP 6'2 4GRQTV TGH 'EQNQIKECN
#UUGUUOGPV
2TQVGEVGFUKVGU
6JGTG CTG PQ UVCVWVQTKN[ RTQVGEVGF UKVGU 555+ 52# 4COUCT 5#% TGEQTFGF YKVJKP VJG
UKVG QT YKVJKP O QH VJG UKVG 6KNG *KNN 9QQF 555+ NKGU CRRTQZKOCVGN[ MO HTQO VJG
WPKXGTUKV[ECORWU
6JG 1NF $TKEM[CTF 2NCPVCVKQP KU FGUKIPCVGF CU C 2QVGPVKCN 5KVG QH +ORQTVCPEG HQT 0CVWTG
%QPUGTXCVKQP R5+0% D[9CTYKEMUJKTG%QWPV[%QWPEKN
9JKVGHKGNF %QRRKEG DQTFGTU 9CTYKEM 7PKXGTUKV[ ITQWPFU VQ VJG UQWVJYGUV CPF KU
FGUKIPCVGFCUCR5+0%D[9CTYKEMUJKTG%QWPV[%QWPEKN
6QEKN 9QQF CPF $TQQMUVTC[ CTG FGUKIPCVGF CU C 5KVG QH +ORQTVCPEG HQT 0CVWTG
%QPUGTXCVKQP 5+0% D[%QXGPVT[%KV[%QWPEKN#NVJQWIJVJGYQQFNCPFKUQWVUKFGQHVJG
WPKXGTUKV[DQWPFCT[VJGDQWPFCT[QHVJG5+0%KPENWFGUVJGCFLCEGPVNCMGUCPFOGCFQY
CTGCQPWPKXGTUKV[NCPF
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
4GEQTFUHQT5EJGFWNGURGEKGU
6JGRTGUGPEGQH5EJGFWNGDKTFURGEKGUKUCOCVGTKCNEQPUKFGTCVKQPYJGPCNQECNRNCPPKPI
CWVJQTKV[KUEQPUKFGTKPICFGXGNQROGPVRTQRQUCNYJKEJKHECTTKGFQWVYQWNFDGNKMGN[VQ
TGUWNVKPFKUVWTDCPEGQTJCTOVQVJGURGEKGUQTKVUJCDKVCV 225 #RRGPFKZ6JTGGKPENWFGUFGVCKNGFDKTFTGEQTFUHQTVJGCTGCKPCPFCTQWPFVJG7PKXGTUKV[
7-$KQFKXGTUKV[#EVKQP2NCP 7-$#2 RTKQTKV[URGEKGU
6CDNG DGNQY RTGUGPVU VJQUG DKTFU NKUVGF CU RTKQTKV[ URGEKGU D[ VJG 7-$#2 YJQUG
PCVWTCNTCPIGKPENWFGUVJKUUKVG
6CDNG$KTFUNKUVGFD[VJG7-$KQFKXGTUKV[#EVKQP2NCPCURTKQTKV[URGEKGU
%QOOQP0COG
$WNNHKPEJ
%QTPDWPVKPI
)TG[RCTVTKFIG
.KPPGV
4GGFDWPVKPI
5M[NCTM
5QPIVJTWUJ
.CVKP0COG
2[TTJWNCR[TTJWNC
/KNKCTKCECNCPFTC
2GTFKZRGTFKZ
%CTFWGNKUECPPCDKPC
'ODGTK\CUEJQGPKENWU
#NCWFCCTXGPUKU
6WTFWURJKNQOGNQU
$KTFURGEKGUQHNQECNEQPUGTXCVKQPEQPEGTP
6JG 9CTYKEMUJKTG %QXGPVT[ 5QNKJWNN .QECN $KQFKXGTUKV[ #EVKQP 2NCP .$#2 EQPVCKPU
5RGEKGU #EVKQP 2NCPU 5#2U HQT C PWODGT QH DKTF URGEKGU KPENWFKPI DCTP QYN UQPI
VJTWUJ NCRYKPI CPF UPKRG CU YGNN CU C IGPGTCN 5#2 HQT HCTONCPF DKTFU KPENWFKPI VTGG
URCTTQYEQTPDWPVKPIUM[NCTMCPFITG[RCTVTKFIG 5+6'&'5%4+26+10#0&*#$+6#6#55'55/'06
6JG7PKXGTUKV[QH9CTYKEMECORWUKUUKVWCVGFUQWVJQH%QXGPVT[DGVYGGPVJG#CPF
VJG # 6JG ECORWU UVTCFFNGU VJG %QXGPVT[9CTYKEMUJKTG DQTFGT CPF C OCR QH VJG
ECORWUKURTGUGPVGFKP&TCYKPI&6JGPCVKQPCNITKFTGHGTGPEGHQTVJGEGPVTG
RQKPVQHVJGUKVGKU52
7PKXGTUKV[DWKNFKPIUFQOKPCVGVJGEGPVTGCPFPQTVJQHVJGUKVGYJKEJKUDQTFGTGFVQVJG
PQTVJD[VJGVQYPQH%CPNG[CPFVQVJGUQWVJD[QRGPEQWPVT[UKFG6JGTGCTGGZVGPUKXG
CTGCU QH COGPKV[ ITCUUNCPF QP UKVG VQIGVJGT YKVJ C PGVYQTM QH JGFIGTQYU CPF UOCNN
YQQFNCPFCPFRNCPVCVKQPCTGCU
&GUETKRVKQPQHJCDKVCVU
6JGUKVGYCUYCNMGFFWTKPIVJG2JCUG*CDKVCVUWTXG[RTKQTVQVJGHKTUVDKTFUWTXG[XKUKV
VQ CUUGUU VJG IGPGTCN EJCTCEVGT QH VJG UKVG CPF VQ KFGPVKH[ VJG OQUV UWKVCDNG VTCPUGEV
TQWVG U CPF URQV EJGEM NQECVKQPU KP QTFGT VQ ICKP C EQORTGJGPUKXG RKEVWTG QH DKTF
CEVKXKV[
6JGIGPGTCNSWCNKV[CPFTCPIGQHVJGJCDKVCVRTGUGPVYCUCUUGUUGFHQTKVUGEQNQIKECNXCNWG
FWTKPI VJG 2JCUG *CDKVCV UWTXG[ UGG 6'2 4GRQTV TGH Ō 'EQNQIKECN
#UUGUUOGPV $TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
6JG HQNNQYKPI IGPGTCN JCDKVCVU YGTG HQWPF QP UKVG CPF HWNN FGVCKNU ECP DG HQWPF KP 6'2
TGRQTV4GH
#OGPKV[ITCUUNCPF
/CTUJ[ITCUUNCPF
5GOKKORTQXGFPGWVTCNITCUUNCPF
#TCDNG
$TQCFNGCXGFUGOKPCVWTCNYQQFNCPF
$TQCFNGCXGFOKZGFRNCPVCVKQPYQQFNCPF
5ECVVGTGFVTGGU
5ECVVGTGFFGPUGUETWD
5RGEKGURQQTJGFIGJGFIGCPFVTGGU
5RGEKGUTKEJJGFIGJGFIGCPFVTGGU
6CNNTWFGTCNJGTDU
'RJGOGTCNUJQTVRGTGPPKCN
+PVTQFWEGFUJTWD
$CTGITQWPF
5VCPFKPIYCVGT
4WPPKPIYCVGT
9GVFT[FKVEJ
$4''&+0)$+4&5748';/'6*1&5
6JG DTGGFKPI DKTF UWTXG[ VGEJPKSWG GORNQ[GF NQQUGN[ HQNNQYGF VJG $TKVKUJ 6TWUV HQT
1TPKVJQNQI[ U $TGGFKPI $KTF 5WTXG[ $$5 OGVJQFU FGVCKNGF KP #RRGPFKZ 1PG 6JKU
OGVJQFKUDCUGFQPVYQXKUKVUVQCUKVGCPGCTN[XKUKV GCTN[#RTKNVQOKF/C[ CPFCNCVG
XKUKV OKF /C[ VQ GPF QH ,WPG 6JG $TKVKUJ 6TWUV HQT 1TPKVJQNQI[ UWTXG[ QRGTCVGU
VTCPUGEVUYKVJCHKZGFFKUVCPEGQHOCRCTV5RGEKGUPQVGFFWTKPIVJGGZGEWVKQPQH
VJG VTCPUGEV YGTG OCRRGF CEEQTFKPI VQ UVCPFCTF $61 URGEKGU EQFGU CPF GORNQ[GF VJG
U[ODQNU WUGF HQT VJG $61 %QOOQP $KTF %GPUWU %$% VQ FGPQVG CEVKXKV[ UGZ CPF CIG
YJGTGCRRTQRTKCVG
#NVJQWIJ VJG VTCPUGEV YCU VJG RTKOCT[ UWTXG[ OGVJQF GORNQ[GF C PWODGT QH RQKPV
EQWPVUYGTGCNUQRGTHQTOGFFWTKPIVJGGZGEWVKQPQHVJGVTCPUGEV U 6JGUGRQKPVEQWPVU
YGTG GORNQ[GF VQ KPETGCUG VJG CEEWTCE[ QH KFGPVKHKECVKQP JCDKVCV WUG URGEKGU NKUV CPF
RTGUGPEG QH PGUVU RCTVKEWNCTN[ KP FGPUG CPF EQORNKECVGF JCDKVCVU CTGCU YJGTG NKPG QH
UKIJVKUKPJKDKVGF GIYQQFNCPFGZECXCVGFUKVGU CPFYJGPCODKGPVPQKUGFGRTGUUGUDKTF
UQPI GIPGZVVQOQVQTYC[UYQTMGFKPFWUVTKCNOKPGTCNUKVGUGVE 6JGUWTXG[EQPEGPVTCVGFQPVJGJCDKVCVUYKVJVJGITGCVGUVRQVGPVKCNHQTDKTFUCPFVJQUG
CTGCU NKMGN[ VQ DG CHHGEVGF D[ FGXGNQROGPV 6JG TQWVGU QH VJG UWTXG[ VTCPUGEVU CTG
KNNWUVTCVGFKP&TCYKPI&&CPF&
6JGUKVGYCUXKUKVGFQPVJGVJ#RTKNHQTVJGGCTN[XKUKVCPFQPVJGTF,WN[HQT
VJG NCVG XKUKV $QVJ XKUKVU EQOOGPEGF DGVYGGP CPF JTU KP CEEQTFCPEG YKVJ
VJG$61OGVJQF9GCVJGTFWTKPIVJGUWTXG[UYCUFT[CPFUWPP[QPVJGGCTN[XKUKVCPF
FT[YKVJNKIJVYKPFUQPVJGNCVGXKUKV
'ZRGTKGPEGF QTPKVJQNQIKUV 6KO 4QUU %'PX /+''/ ECTTKGF QWV DQVJ UWTXG[ XKUKVU 5KPEG
JGJCUWPFGTVCMGPPWOGTQWU$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[UVQIGVJGTYKVJQVJGT9KPVGTKPI
CPFIGPGTCNDKTFUWTXG[U
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
.KOKVCVKQPUQHVTCPUGEVUWTXG[U
6JGRGTHGEVOGVJQFHQTEQWPVKPIDKTFUFQGUPQVGZKUV $KDD[GVCN #DUQNWVG VJG
GZCEV PWODGT EQWPVU CTG QHVGP XGT[ FKHHKEWNV VQ QDVCKP CPF HQT OCP[ RWTRQUGU CTG PQV
TGCNN[PGGFGF*QYGXGTVJKUPGGFPQVRTGXGPVVJGGZVTCEVKQPQHWUGHWNTGUWNVUHTQOCYGNN
RTGRCTGF UVWF[ 6JG MG[ VQ C IQQF UVWF[ NKGU KP TGEQIPKUKPI YJCV MKPFU QH FCVC CTG
TGSWKTGFCPFCP[YGCMPGUUGUKPJGTGPVKPVJGOGVJQFU
6JGOCKPCUUWORVKQPQHNKPGVTCPUGEVUWTXG[UKUVJCVDKTFFGVGEVCDKNKV[TGOCKPUEQPUVCPV
+P TGCNKV[ FGVGEVCDKNKV[ YKNN CNOQUV CNYC[U KPHNWGPEG FGPUKV[ GUVKOCVGU DGVYGGP URGEKGU
CPFDGVYGGPJCDKVCVUGIKHCURGEKGUKURCTVKEWNCTN[FKHHKEWNVVQFGVGEVKPQPGJCDKVCVVJG
FCVCOC[YTQPIN[UWIIGUVKVKUWPEQOOQPKPVJCVJCDKVCVEQORCTGFYKVJQVJGTU
6TCPUGEVU CTG UWUEGRVKDNG VQ DKCU ECWUGF D[ DKTF OQXGOGPV KPVTQFWEKPI VJG TKUM QH
FQWDNGEQWPVKPI CPF JGPEG QXGTGUVKOCVKPI DKTF PWODGTU *QYGXGT KP VJKU TGURGEV
VTCPUGEVU EQORCTG HCXQWTCDN[ YKVJ RQKPV EQWPVU 6JG UWTXG[ OGVJQF EJQUGP XCTKGU
CEEQTFKPIVQVJGJCDKVCVV[RGDGKPIUWTXG[GFVJWUVTCPUGEVUCTGCOQTGGHHKEKGPVOGVJQF
QHFCVCEQNNGEVKQPKPNCTIGQRGPCTGCUVJCPRQKPVEQWPVUYJKEJCTGOQTGUWKVCDNGKPFGPUG
JCDKVCVU UWEJ CU OCVWTG YQQFU YJGTG KV OC[ DG FKHHKEWNV VQ FGVGEV DKTFU OQXKPI #U
FKUEWUUGF CDQXG RQKPV EQWPVU YGTG GORNQ[GF CV VJKU UKVG KP EQODKPCVKQP YKVJ VJG
VTCPUGEVU KP QTFGT VQ KPETGCUG VJG CEEWTCE[ QH VJG UKVG CUUGUUOGPV KP VGTOU QH KVU
KORQTVCPEGHQTDKTFU
$4''&+0)$+4&5748';4'57.65
4CYFCVCCPFGZCEVURGEKGUNQECVKQPUHQTVJGVYQDTGGFKPIDKTFUWTXG[XKUKVUWPFGTVCMGP
KPECPDGHQWPFCV&TCYKPIU&CPF&
6CDNGNKUVUVJGDKTFURGEKGUTGEQTFGFFWTKPIGCEJXKUKVCPFVJGKTNGXGNQHRTQVGEVKQP
6CDNG$KTFURGEKGUTGEQTFGFKP
5RGEKGU
$NCEMDKTF
$NCEMECR
$NCEMJGCFGFIWNN
$NWGVKV
%CPCFCIQQUG
%CTTKQPETQY
%JCHHKPEJ
%JKHHEJCHH
%QCNVKV
%QQV
&WPPQEM
(GTCNRKIGQP
)QNFETGUV
)QNFHKPEJ
)TGCVGTURQVVGFYQQFRGEMGT
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
2TGUGPVKP
'CTN[XKUKV .CVGXKUKV
$TGGFKPIQP
UKVG!
5VCVWU
2T
2U
2T
%
2T
2T
2U
2T
2T
2T
2U
2T
2T
2U
#
#
#
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
5RGEKGU
)TGGPHKPEJ
)TGGPYQQFRGEMGT
)TGCVVKV
)TG[JGTQP
)TG[NCIIQQUG
)TG[RCTVTKFIG
*QWUGOCTVKP
,C[
.KVVNGITGDG
.QPIVCKNGFVKV
/CIRKG
/CNNCTF
/KUVNG6JTWUJ
/QQTJGP
/WVGUYCP
0WVJCVEJ
2JGCUCPV
2KGFYCIVCKN
4GGFDWPVKPI
4QDKP
2TGUGPVKP
'CTN[XKUKV .CVGXKUKV
5GFIGYCTDNGT
5M[NCTM
5QPIVJTWUJ
5RCTTQYJCYM
5VCTNKPI
5YCNNQY
5YKHV
6TGGETGGRGT
9JKVGVJTQCV
9KNNQYYCTDNGT
9QQFRKIGQP
9TGP
;GNNQYJCOOGT
$TGGFKPIQP
UKVG!
5VCVWU
2T
#
#
249
#
#
24
2T
2T
2U
2T
2U
2U
2T
2U
2U
2T
2T
2T
249
249
4
#
#
4
2T
2U
2T
2U
2U
2U
2U
2T
%
2T
2T
%
2U
%
%
2T
2U
2T
2T
2T
0QVG27-$#22TKQTKV[5RGEKGU99CTYKEMUJKTG%QXGPVT[CPF5QNKJWNN.$#2URGEKGU4
7-4GFNKUVURGEKGU#7-#ODGTNKUVURGEKGUHQT#ODGT4GFNKUVECVGIQTKGUTGHGTVQ#RRGPFKZ
2T2TQDCDNGDTGGFGT 6JGGXKFGPEGCEEWOWNCVGFFWTKPIUWTXG[KPFKECVGUVJCVVJGDKTFURGEKGUKU
DTGGFKPIQPUKVG 2U 2QUUKDNG DTGGFGT 6JG GXKFGPEG CEEWOWNCVGF FWTKPI UWTXG[ KPFKECVGU VJCV VJG DKTF URGEKGU
EQWNF DG DTGGFKPI QP UKVG DWV VJCV GXKFGPEG KU NGUU EQPENWUKXG VJCP VJCV QDVCKPGF HQT RTQDCDNG
DTGGFGTU %%QPHKTOGFDTGGFGT #PCEVKXGPGUVYCUQDUGTXGFQTGSWKXCNGPVGXKFGPEG DKTFUYGTGQPN[
QDUGTXGFGKVJGTQPVJGUKVGDQWPFCT[QTLWUVQWVUKFGUKVGDQWPFCT[
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
# VQVCN QH FKHHGTGPV URGEKGU YGTG FGVGEVGF FWTKPI VJG EQWTUG QH VJG $TGGFKPI $KTF 5WTXG[ URGEKGU YGTG TGEQTFGF FWTKPI VJG GCTN[ XKUKV CPF URGEKGUYGTGTGEQTFGFFWTKPIVJGNCVGXKUKV
0QPG QH VJG DKTFU NKUVGF CDQXG CTG UVCVWVQTKN[ RTQVGEVGF JQYGXGT C PWODGT QH
URGEKGU CTG NKUVGF CU RTKQTKV[ URGEKGU QP VJG 7- $#2 CPFQT VJG 9CTYKEMUJKTG
%QXGPVT[CPF5QNKJWNN.$#2
6JGHQNNQYKPIFKUEWUUKQPHQEWUGUQPDKTFUKFGPVKHKGFFWTKPIVJGUWTXG[CUNKMGN[VQDG
DTGGFKPIQPUKVGCPFYJKEJHCNNKPVQVJGHQNNQYKPIECVGIQTKGU
•
•
5M[NCTM
6JGUM[NCTM #NCWFCCTXGPUKU KUQPVJG7-TGFNKUVQH$Q%%DGECWUGKVJCUUWHHGTGF
C FGENKPG QH ITGCVGT VJCP KP KVU DTGGFKPI RQRWNCVKQP QT TCPIG KP VJG RCUV [GCTU+VKUCNUQC7-$#2RTKQTKV[URGEKGUCPFC9CTYKEMUJKTG%QXGPVT[CPF5QNKJWNN
9%5 .QECN$#2URGEKGU
5M[NCTMU HCXQWT JCDKVCVU QH QRGP HCTONCPF KPENWFKPI EGTGCNU CPF ITCUUNCPF 6JG[
CTGITQWPFPGUVKPIDKTFUOCMKPIWUGQHETQRUVWDDNGCPFITCUU5M[NCTMUHGGFQPC
TCPIG QH KPUGEVU UGGFU CPF UJQQVU 6JG [QWPI CTG HGF CNOQUV GZENWUKXGN[ QP
KPUGEVUWPVKNVJG[HNGFIG
7-$#2VCTIGVUKPENWFG
•
•
•
•
4GFNKUVGFQT7-$#2DKTFURGEKGU
#ODGTNKUVGFDKTFURGEKGUKFGPVKHKGFCURTQDCDNGDTGGFGTUFWTKPIUWTXG[
/CKPVCKPVJG$$5RQRWNCVKQPKPFGZHQTUM[NCTMUCVQTCDQXGVJGNGXGN
/CKPVCKP VJG PWODGT QH YKPVGTKPI UM[NCTMU CV QT CDQXG NGXGN CU
FGVGTOKPGFD[VJG,0%%$61UWTXG[
/CKPVCKPVJGTCPIGQHUM[NCTMUCUOGCUWTGFD[VJGHTGSWGPE[QHQEEWRCVKQPKP
$$5USWCTGUCVQTCDQXGVJGNGXGN
4GXGTUG VJG RQRWNCVKQP FGENKPG QP NQYNCPF HCTONCPFCPF QVJGT JCDKVCVU YJGTG
HQWPFVQDGFGENKPKPICUOGCUWTGFD[$$5KPFKEGU
&GENKPG KP UM[NCTM PWODGTU CPF TCPIG JCU DGGP CVVTKDWVGF VQ KPVGPUKHKECVKQP QH
HCTOKPI RTCEVKEGU 6JG EJCPIG HTQO URTKPIUQYP VQ CWVWOPUQYP ETQRU ECWUGU C
NQUUQHUWKVCDNGPGUVKPIUKVGUFWGVQVJGVCNNGTITQYVJQHEGTGCNUCPFITCUUCVPGUVKPI
VKOG.QUUQHPGUVUKUCNUQCVVTKDWVGFVQVJGKPETGCUKPIN[OQTGEQOOQPGCTN[EWVVKPI
HQTUKNCIGTCVJGTVJCPNCVGTJC[OCMKPITGFWEGFETQRFKXGTUKV[CPFKPETGCUGFWUGQH
RGUVKEKFGU 4GEGPV TGUGCTEJ &QPCNF CPF 8KEMGT[ JCU KPFKECVGF VJG TGNCVKXG
KORQTVCPEG QH FKHHGTGPV CITKEWNVWTCN TGIKOGU VQ UM[NCTMU +ORTQXGF ITCUU KU OWEJ
RQQTGT KP VGTOU QH ECTT[KPI ECRCEKV[ VGTTKVQTKGU RGT JC VJCP EGTGCNU VGTTKVQTKGURGTJC QTUGVCUKFG VGTTKVQTKGURGTJC 9KVJKPVJGUWTXG[CTGCCVVJG7PKXGTUKV[QH9CTYKEMVJGTGCTGCTGCUQHUGVCUKFGQT
EGTGCNETQRUYJKEJJCXGVJGRQVGPVKCNVQDGIQQFHQTUM[NCTMU
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
# VQVCN QH UM[NCTMU YGTG TGEQTFGF QP UKVG FWTKPI VJG GCTN[ $TGGFKPI $KTF 5WTXG[
XKUKVCPFFWTKPIVJGNCVG$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[XKUKV
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
+VKURTQDCDN[TGCNKUVKEVQCUUWOGVJCVCDQWVHQWTRCKTUDTGFQPUKVGKP6JKUKU
C HCKTN[ V[RKECN RQRWNCVKQP FGPUKV[ HQT VJG UK\G QH VJG UKVG 5M[NCTM DTGGFKPI UKVGU
CRRGCTVQDGGXGPN[URTGCFCETQUUQRGPITCUUNCPFCPFCTCDNGNCPFYKVJKPVJGUKVG
5QPI6JTWUJ
6JG UQPI VJTWUJ 6WTFWU RJKNQOGNQU KU C 7-$#2 RTKQTKV[ URGEKGU +V KU RTQVGEVGF
WPFGT #RRGPFKZ + QH VJG '% 9KNF $KTFU &KTGEVKXG CPF KU QP VJG 7- 4GF NKUV QH VJG
$Q%%DGECWUGQHKVUFGENKPGQHQTOQTGKPDTGGFKPIRQRWNCVKQPUQTTCPIG+VKU
CNUQC9%5.QECN$#2URGEKGU
+V KU C EQOOQP CPF YKFGURTGCF URGEKGU VJCV KU FGENKPKPI VJTQWIJQWV VJG 7- +P
'WTQRG KV KU C RCTVKCN OKITCPV NCTIG PWODGTU QH EQPVKPGPVCN DTGGFGTU QXGTYKPVGT KP
VJG7-CPFOCP[DKTFUVJCVDTGFKPVJG7-YKPVGTHWTVJGTUQWVJKP'WTQRG0WODGTU
JCXGFGENKPGFUKPEGVJGOKFUYKVJCPGUVKOCVGFTGFWEVKQPQHKPHCTONCPF
CPFKPYQQFNCPFJCDKVCVU
4GEGPVTGUGCTEJWPFGTVCMGPD[VJG452$KPFKECVGUVJCVVJGDKIIGUVUKPINGECWUGQH
UQPIVJTWUJFGENKPGCRRGCTUVQDGVJGNQUUQHHCXQWTGFHGGFKPIJCDKVCVUUWEJCUYGV
FKVEJGU YQQFNCPFU CPF FCOR ITC\GF ITCUUNCPF 5QPI VJTWUJGU NKMG VQ HQTCIG QP
UQHV FCOR ITQWPF YJGTG VJGKT HCXQWTGF RTG[ UWEJ CU UPCKNU CTG CDWPFCPV 6JG
FGUVTWEVKQP QHJGFIGU FKVEJGU CPFYQQFNCPFU CPF VJG FTCKPCIGQH HQTOGTN[ FCOR
OCTIKPCN HCTONCPF FWG VQ CITKEWNVWTCN KPVGPUKHKECVKQP JCU OGCPV VJCV UQPI VJTWUJGU
JCXG DGGP HKPFKPI KV KPETGCUKPIN[ FKHHKEWNV VQ HKPF HQQF RCTVKEWNCTN[ NCVGT KP VJG
UWOOGTYJGPVJGEQWPVT[UKFGKUCVKVUFTKGUV7PFGTVJGUGEKTEWOUVCPEGUVJTWUJGU
IKXGWRPGUVKPIJCNHYC[VJTQWIJVJGUWOOGTCNOQUVEGTVCKPN[FWGVQVJGTGDGKPIC
NCEMQHRTKPEKRCNHQQFU
6JGUQPIVJTWUJKUCNUQNKUVGFYKVJKPVJG452$HKXG[GCTUVTCVGI[(WVWTG&KTGEVKQPU
++ 6JKU KPKVKCVKXG RTKQTKVKUGU [GV HWTVJGT YKVJKP VJG 4GF CPF #ODGT NKUVU 6JG
URGEKGURTKQTKVKGUUGVYKVJKP(WVWTG&KTGEVKQPU++ (&++ VCMGVJG$KTFUQH%QPUGTXCVKQP
%QPEGTPETKVGTKCQHINQDCNVJTGCVCPFRQRWNCVKQPFGENKPGCNKVVNGHWTVJGTCPFEQPUKFGT
QVJGTOQTGRTCIOCVKEPQPDKQNQIKECNETKVGTKCUWEJCUVJGRTQURGEVQH452$CEVKQP
OCMKPICFKHHGTGPEGNKPMUVQKORQTVCPVGEQNQIKECNRTQEGUUGUVJGTGCFKPGUUQHQVJGTU
VQEJCORKQPVJGECWUGHQTCRCTVKEWNCTURGEKGU
7-$#2VCTIGVUKPENWFG
•
•
/CKPVCKP VJG TCPIG CPF RQRWNCVKQP NGXGNU QH UQPI VJTWUJ CPF YJGTG RQUUKDNG
TGUVQTGVJGOVQVJCVQHVJGGUVKOCVG
+FGPVKH[ CPF KORNGOGPV RTKQTKV[ TGUGCTEJ KP QTFGT VQ HQTOWNCVG HWVWTG
EQPUGTXCVKQPCEVKQP
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
#V VJG 9CTYKEM 7PKXGTUKV[ UKVG VJG PWODGTU CTG HCKTN[ NQY KG VYQ KPFKXKFWCNU QP
VJGHKTUVUWTXG[XKUKVCPFQPGQPVJGUGEQPFCNNQDUGTXGFDKTFUDGKPIGKVJGTQPVJG
UKVG DQWPFCT[ QT QWVUKFG VJG UKVG +V KU PQV ENGCT YJGVJGT QT PQV UQPI VJTWUJ KU
DTGGFKPIQPVJG9CTYKEM7PKXGTUKV[UKVGKVUGNH
+VKUGUVKOCVGFVJCVVJGTGCTGRCKTUQHUQPIVJTWUJGUDTGGFKPIGKVJGTYKVJKPVJGUKVG
QTKPENQUGRTQZKOKV[VQKVYJKEJKUNQYEQPUKFGTKPIVJGUK\GQHVJGUKVG
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
4GGFDWPVKPI
6JG TGGF DWPVKPI KU C 7-$#2 RTKQTKV[ URGEKGU CPF CRRGCTU QP VJG 7- 4GF NKUV QH
$Q%%#FGENKPGKPPWODGTUJCUQEEWTTGFKPTGEGPV[GCTU+P$TKVCKP$61EGPUWU
TGUWNVU UJQY C TGNCVKXGN[ JKIJ RQRWNCVKQP NGXGN HTQO VJG NCVG U VQ VJG OKF
UHQNNQYGFD[CFGETGCUGQHOQTGVJCPVQCPGYOQTGUVCDNGNQYGTNGXGN
FWTKPIVJGGCTN[U
6JGFGENKPGQHVJGTGGFDWPVKPIJCUQEEWTTGFCVVJGUCOGVKOGCUFGETGCUGUKPVJG
PWODGTU CPFQT TCPIG QH C UWKVG QH QVJGT HCTONCPF DKTFU OCP[ QH YJKEJ UJCTG KVU
FKGVQHEGTGCNITCUUCPFYKNFHNQYGTUGGFUCPFCNUQHGGFVJGKT[QWPIQPKPUGEVU+V
KU VJGTGHQTG NKMGN[ VJCV KVU FGENKPG QP HCTONCPF OC[ DG NCTIGN[ FWG VQ EJCPIGU KP
CITKEWNVWTCN RTCEVKEGRCTVKEWNCTN[ VJG KPETGCUGFWUG QHRGUVKEKFGU CPF HGTVKNKUGTU VJG
UYKVEJHTQOURTKPIUQYPVQCWVWOPUQYPETQRUCPFVJGEQPUGSWGPVNQUUQHYKPVGT
UVWDDNG HKGNFU VJG OQTG KPVGPUKXG WUG QH ITCUUNCPF CPF VJG IGPGTCN TGFWEVKQP KP
JCDKVCV FKXGTUKV[ QP HCTONCPF FWG VQ VJG NQUU QH OKZGF HCTOKPI CPF KPETGCUGF
URGEKCNKUCVKQP
&GVGTKQTCVKQP QH YGV JCDKVCVU OC[ JCXG JCF C UGTKQWU GHHGEV QP RQRWNCVKQPU $61
EGPUWUFCVCUWIIGUVVJCVPWODGTUKPYGVNCPFJCDKVCVUJCXGFGENKPGF.QUUQHUOCNN
RQPFUWPU[ORCVJGVKETKXGTGPIKPGGTKPICPFVJGGPETQCEJOGPVQHUETWDCPFECTTCTG
CNN NKMGN[ VQ JCXG JCF CFXGTUG GHHGEVU QP DQVJ VJG DTGGFKPI CPF YKPVGTKPI
RQRWNCVKQPU 6JG OCKP RGTKQF QH TGEGPV NCPF FTCKPCIG YCU YJGP DQVJ
CTVGTKCN YCVGTEQWTUGU CPF HKGNF FTCKPU YGTG OQFKHKGF QP C NCTIG UECNG NGCFKPI VQ C
NQUU KP DQVJ VJG SWCPVKV[ CPF SWCNKV[ QH VJG TGGF DWPVKPI U EJCTCEVGTKUVKE YGVNCPF
JCDKVCVU
4GGFDWPVKPIUCTGUWHHGTKPIHTQONQYGTUWTXKXCNKPVJGKTHKTUV[GCTQHNKHG6JKUOC[
DG FWG VQ NCEM QH HQQF KP YKPVGT FWG VQ VJG NQUU QH YKPVGT UVWDDNG VJTQWIJ VJG
UQYKPIQHEGTGCNUKPVJGCWVWOP
7-$#2VCTIGVUKPENWFG
• +PVJGNQPIVGTOVQUGGCUWUVCKPGFTGEQXGT[KPPWODGTUUQVJCVVJG$$5KPFGZ
KUCVNGCUVJKIJGTVJCPNGXGNUKPDQVJYGVNCPFCPFHCTONCPFJCDKVCVU
D[
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
0Q TGGF DWPVKPIU YGTG TGEQTFGF FWTKPI VJG GCTN[ XKUKV CPF QPN[ QPG TGGF DWPVKPI
YCUTGEQTFGFFWTKPIVJGNCVG$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[XKUKV
+VKUNKMGN[VJCVCRQRWNCVKQPQHCTQWPFRCKTKURTGUGPVQPVJGCRRNKECVKQPUKVG6JKU
KUCXGT[NQYRQRWNCVKQPFGPUKV[HQTVJGUK\GQHVJGUKVG
5VCTNKPI
6JGUVCTNKPI 5VWTPWUXWNICTKU KUCTGUKFGPVDTGGFGTYJKEJJCUUWHHGTGFCFTCOCVKE
FGENKPGKPKVUDTGGFKPIRQRWNCVKQPKPVJGNCUV[GCTU+VKUTGENCUUKHKGFHTQOVJG7-
CODGTNKUV $&/R VQVJG7-TGFNKUV $&R DGECWUGQHCTCRKF FGENKPGKPVJG
DTGGFKPIRQRWNCVKQPQXGTVJGRCUV[GCTU
5VCTNKPIUHGGFNCTIGN[QPKPUGEVUCPFHTWKVCPFPGUVKPJQNGUCPFECXKVKGUYKVJKPVTGGU
CPFCNUQKPJQNGUKPDWKNFKPIUKPENWFKPIQEEWRKGFDWKNFKPIUCPFPGUVDQZGU6JG[PGUV
KPUOCNNEQNQPKGUCPFFQPQVFGHGPFCRTQRGTVGTTKVQT[
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
5VCTNKPIUCTGRTG[GFWRQPD[CNCTIGPWODGTQHRTGFCVQTUDWVOQUVQHVJGOFQPQV
JCXG CP KORCEV QP VJG RQRWNCVKQP 6JG OQUV UKIPKHKECPV RTGFCVQT KU VJG FQOGUVKE
ECVYJKEJKPETGCUGULWXGPKNGUVCTNKPIOQTVCNKV[EQPUKFGTCDN[
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
#VVJG9CTYKEM7PKXGTUKV[UKVGVJGPWODGTUCTGNQYKGQPN[HQWTKPFKXKFWCNUDGKPI
TGEQTFGFQPVJGGCTN[XKUKVCPFQPGKPFKXKFWCNDGKPITGEQTFGFQPVJGNCVGXKUKV
1P VJG GCTN[ XKUKV CNN UVCTNKPIU YGTG QDUGTXGF HQTCIKPI QP VJG UKVG PGCT VJG 1NF
$TKEM[CTF 2NCPVCVKQP R5+0% CPF KV KU RQUUKDNG VJCV VJGUG DKTFU CTG PGUVKPI KP VTGGU
YKVJKPVJGRNCPVCVKQP
+V KU NKMGN[ VJCV C RQRWNCVKQP QH CTQWPF RCKTU KURTGUGPVYKVJKP VJG UKVG 6JKU KU C
HCKTN[NQYRQRWNCVKQPFGPUKV[HQTVJGUK\GQHVJGUKVG
)TG[RCTVTKFIG
6JG ITG[ RCTVTKFIG 2GTFKZ RGTFKZ KU QP VJG 7- 4GF NKUV QH $Q%% DGECWUG KV JCU
UWHHGTGF C FGENKPG QH ITGCVGT VJCP KP KVU DTGGFKPI RQRWNCVKQP QT TCPIG KP VJG
RCUV[GCTU+VKUCNUQC7-$#2RTKQTKV[URGEKGUCPFC9%5.QECN$#2URGEKGU
6JG FGENKPG QH VJKU URGEKGU JCU DGGP EQPPGEVGF VQ VJG GHHGEVU QH CITKEWNVWTCN
KPVGPUKHKECVKQP URGEKHKECNN[ JGTDKEKFGU QP VJG HQQF RNCPVU QH [QWPI EJKEMU KPUGEV
RTG[ &GURKVG [GCTU QH TGUGCTEJ CPF VJG CRRNKECVKQP QH C )QXGTPOGPV $KQFKXGTUKV[
#EVKQP2NCPVJGEQPVKPWKPIFGENKPGUJQYPD[PCVKQPYKFGDKTFUWTXG[UKG%QOOQP
$KTF %GPUWU %$% CPF VJG $TGGFKPI $KTF 5WTXG[ $$5 UWIIGUVU VJCV GHHQTVU VQ
DQQUVVJGRQRWNCVKQPJCXGPQV[GVDGGPUWEEGUUHWN
6JKUURGEKGUVGPFUVQPGUVKPUJQTVITCUUYKVJNQPIGTITCUUCPFJGFIGTQYUPGCTD[
/KZGF EGTGCN CPF RCUVWTG HKGNFU YKVJ VJKEM JGFIGU CPF YKFG HKGNF OCTIKPU CTG CNN
IQQFCTGCUHQTVJGO+PVJGYKPVGTDKTFUWUGWPEWNVKXCVGFCTGCUCPFUVWDDNGHKGNFU
HQTHQTCIKPICPFTQQUVKPI
7-$#2VCTIGVUKPENWFG
• 'PUWTGVJGRQRWNCVKQPKUCDQXGRCKTUD[
• /CKPVCKPVJGEWTTGPVTCPIGQHVJKUURGEKGU
• 'PJCPEG VJG EWTTGPV IGQITCRJKECN TCPIG QH VJKU URGEKGU YJGTG DKQNQIKECNN[
HGCUKDNG
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
1PG ITG[ RCTVTKFIG YCU TGEQTFGF FWTKPI DQVJ VJG GCTN[ UWTXG[ XKUKV CPF VJG NCVG
UWTXG[XKUKV&WTKPIDQVJUWTXG[XKUKVUVJGITG[RCTVTKFIGUYGTGKPVJGUCOGRNCEGU
QPVJGHCTUKFGQH9JKVGHKGNF%QRRKEGKPVJGUQWVJYGUVQHVJGUKVG
+VKUWPNKMGN[VJCVITG[RCTVTKFIGDTGFYKVJKPVJG9CTYKEM7PKXGTUKV[UKVGKP
;GNNQYJCOOGT
6JG[GNNQYJCOOGT 'ODGTK\CEKVTKPGNNC KUQPVJG7-4GFNKUVQHVJG$Q%%DGECWUG
QHKVUFGENKPGQHQTOQTGKPDTGGFKPIRQRWNCVKQPUQTTCPIG
6JKUURGEKGUHCXQWTUQRGPEQWPVT[VJCVKUHCTONCPFYKVJJGFIGTQYUCPFDWUJGUCU
YGNN CU JGCVJU EQOOQPU CPF CTGCU QH UETWDNCPF 9KPVGTKPI ITQWPFU KPENWFG
HCTONCPFGURGEKCNN[UVWDDNGHKGNFUCPFYKPVGTETQRHKGNFU
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
#VVJG9CTYKEM7PKXGTUKV[UKVGVJGPWODGTUQH[GNNQYJCOOGTUCTGNQYKGQPN[
KPFKXKFWCN DGKPI TGEQTFGF QP VJG GCTN[ XKUKV CPF VYQ KPFKXKFWCNU DGKPI TGEQTFGF QP
VJG NCVG XKUKV 1P DQVJ XKUKVU C UKPING [GNNQYJCOOGT YCU QDUGTXGF UKPIKPI HTQO
JGFIGTQYUVQVJGUQWVJQHRQPFUWIIGUVKPIVJCVCVNGCUVQPGRCKTYCUDTGGFKPIKP
VJKUCTGC
&WPPQEM
6JG FWPPQEM 2TWPGNNC OQFWNCTKU KU EWTTGPVN[ QP VJG 7- #ODGT NKUV $&/R 9+ DGECWUG QH VJG KORQTVCPEG QH VJG 7- YKPVGTKPI RQRWNCVKQP CPF C OQFGTCVG FGENKPGKPRQRWNCVKQPQXGTVJGRCUV[GCTU
6JKU URGEKGU TGSWKTGU CTGCU YKVJ VJKEM XGIGVCVKQP KPENWFKPI VJKEMGVU DTCODNGU
JGFIGUYQQFNCPFGFIGUCPFYKNNTGCFKN[WUGOCPOCFGJCDKVCVUNKMGRCTMUICTFGPU
CPF EJWTEJ[CTFU 9KPVGTKPI ITQWPFU CTG UKOKNCT VQ DTGGFKPI JCDKVCVU HQT VJKU
URGEKGU
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
6JTGG DKTFU YGTG TGEQTFGF FWTKPI VJG GCTN[ XKUKV CPF DKTFU YGTG TGEQTFGF FWTKPI
VJGNCVGXKUKV
+V KU NKMGN[ VJCV C RQRWNCVKQP QH CTQWPF RCKTU CTG RTGUGPV QP QT CTQWPF VJG
CRRNKECVKQPUKVG6JKUKUCTGNCVKXGN[NQYRQRWNCVKQPFGPUKV[HQTVJGUK\GQHVJGUKVG
/WVGUYCP
6JGOWVGUYCP %[IPWUQNQT KUCTGUKFGPVURGEKGUKPVJG7-+VKUEWTTGPVN[QPVJG
7- #ODGT NKUV $&/R 9+ DGECWUG CV NGCUV QH VJG 'WTQRGCP DTGGFKPI
RQRWNCVKQP KURTGUGPV KP VJG 7- *QYGXGT VJG RQRWNCVKQP KP VJG 7-JCU KPETGCUGF
TGEGPVN[RGTJCRUFWGVQDGVVGTRTQVGEVKQPQHVJKUURGEKGU
6JG OWVG UYCP KU EQOOQP VJTQWIJQWV OQUV QH $TKVCKP QVJGT VJCP PQTVJ 5EQVNCPF
OKF9CNGUCPFVJGOQQTUQHUQWVJYGUV'PINCPF6JG[DTGGFKPNCMGUYKVJUJCNNQY
CTGCUHQTHGGFKPICPFCNUQUNQYHNQYKPITKXGTUECPCNUPGCTD[HKGNFUCPFDGUKFGUCNV
CPF DTCEMKUJ YCVGT /WVG UYCPU YKPVGT KP UKOKNCT JCDKVCVU CU YGNN CU UJGNVGTGF
EQCUVUCPFGUVWCTKGU
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
#VVJG9CTYKEM7PKXGTUKV[UKVGQPGRCKTQHDKTFUYCUQDUGTXGFPGUVKPICVVJGPQTVJ
GPFQHRQPFFWTKPIVJGGCTN[UWTXG[XKUKV0QOWVGUYCPUYGTGQDUGTXGFFWTKPI
VJGNCVGUWTXG[XKUKV
+VKUNKMGN[VJCVVJGRCKTQHOWVGUYCPUQDUGTXGFPGUVKPIQP2QPFFWTKPIVJGGCTN[
XKUKV YCU VJG QPN[ RCKT VQ DTGGF QP UKVG FWTKPI 6JKU KU C HCKTN[ V[RKECN
RQRWNCVKQPFGPUKV[HQTVJGUK\GQHVJGUKVG
)QNFETGUV
6JGIQNFETGUV 4GIWNWUTGIWNWU KUCTGUKFGPVDKTFKPVJG7-CNVJQWIJCFFKVKQPCNDKTFU
OKITCVGKPVQVJGEQWPVT[KPVJGCWVWOP+VKUEWTTGPVN[QPVJG7-#ODGTNKUV $&/R DGECWUGQHCOQFGTCVG FGENKPGKPRQRWNCVKQPQXGTVJGRCUV[GCTU
6JGIQNFETGUVKUCYKFGURTGCFURGEKGUENQUGN[CUUQEKCVGFYKVJEQPKHGTQWUHQTGUV+P
VJG7-KVQEEWTUYKFGN[GZEGRVKPVTGGNGUUCTGCUUWEJCUQPVJG(GPUCPFKPPQTVJGTP
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
5EQVNCPF+PCWVWOPNCTIGPWODGTUQHOKITCPVUCTTKXGCPFECPDGHQWPFKPEQCUVCN
DWUJGURCTVKEWNCTN[QPVJGGCUVCPFUQWVJEQCUVU
2QRWNCVKQPUK\GYKVJKPVJGFGXGNQROGPVUKVG
1PGDKTFYCU TGEQTFGF FWTKPI VJG GCTN[ XKUKVCPFDKTFU YGTG TGEQTFGFFWTKPI VJG
NCVGXKUKV
+V KU NKMGN[ VJCV C RQRWNCVKQP QH CTQWPF RCKTU CTG RTGUGPV QP QT CTQWPF VJG
CRRNKECVKQPUKVG6JKUKUCTGNCVKXGN[NQYRQRWNCVKQPFGPUKV[HQTVJGUK\GQHVJGUKVG
5+6''8#.7#6+10
6JGOCKPVJTWUVQHVJGCPCN[UKUHQEWUUGFQPURGEKGUQHEQPUGTXCVKQPKPVGTGUV6JKU
KPENWFGU 7-$#2 CPF 4GF NKUV URGEKGU CPF NQECNN[ UKIPKHKECPV URGEKGU 1XGT VJG
EQWTUG QH VJG DTGGFKPI DKTF UWTXG[ XKUKVU KP C VQVCN QH DKTF URGEKGU JCXG
DGGPTGEQTFGFCVVJG9CTYKEM7PKXGTUKV[UKVG6JGUGKPENWFG4GFNKUVGFURGEKGU
QH YJKEJ CTG CNUQ NKUVGF CU 7- $KQFKXGTUKV[ #EVKQP 2NCP 7-$#2 2TKQTKV[ URGEKGU
CPF#ODGTNKUVGFURGEKGU TGHGTDCEMVQ6CDNG 5GXGP QH VJGUG URGEKGU QH $KTFU QH %QPUGTXCVKQP %QPEGTP $Q%% JCXG DGGP
KFGPVKHKGF CU RTQDCDNG DTGGFGTU KG DKTFU YJKEJ CTG DTGGFKPI QP UKVG DWV PQ CEVWCN
PGUVUYGTGHQWPFQPVJGUKVGCPFCPQVJGTURGEKGUYCUCEQPHKTOGFDTGGFGTOWVG
UYCP
2NCPPKPI 2QNKE[ 5VCVGOGPV 225 UGVU QWV VJG )QXGTPOGPVŏU PCVKQPCN RQNKE[ QP
RTQVGEVKQPQHDKQFKXGTUKV[CPFIGQNQIKECNEQPUGTXCVKQPVJTQWIJVJGRNCPPKPIU[UVGO
.KUVU QH JCDKVCVU CPF URGEKGU QH RTKPEKRCN KORQTVCPEG HQT VJG EQPUGTXCVKQP QH
DKQNQIKECN FKXGTUKV[ KP 'PINCPF CTG RWDNKUJGF D[ VJG 5GETGVCT[ QH 5VCVG HQT
'PXKTQPOGPV (QQF CPF 4WTCN #HHCKTU KP TGURQPUG VQ 5GEVKQP QH VJG
%QWPVT[UKFG CPF 4KIJVU 1H 9C[ #EV 6JGUG URGEKGU KPENWFG COQPI QVJGTU
UM[NCTMTGGFDWPVKPIITG[RCTVTKFIGCPFUQPIVJTWUJ
225UVCVGUVJCVRNCPPKPICWVJQTKVKGUUJQWNFTGHWUGRGTOKUUKQPYJGTGJCTOVQVJGUG
URGEKGU QT VJGKT JCDKVCVU YQWNF TGUWNV WPNGUU VJG PGGF HQT CPF DGPGHKVU QH VJG
FGXGNQROGPVENGCTN[QWVYGKIJVJGJCTO
6JGUKVGFQGUPQVCRRGCTVQDGQHPCVKQPCNQTTGIKQPCNKORQTVCPEGHQTDTGGFKPIDKTFU
CNVJQWIJVJGUKVGKUQHNQECNKORQTVCPEGHQTDKTFUQPCEEQWPVQHVJGFKXGTUKV[QHDKTF
URGEKGURTGUGPVQPVJGUKVG
(WTVJGTOQTGVJGUKVGKUURGEKHKECNN[QHUQOGKPVGTGUVHQTDTGGFKPIOWVGUYCPUCPFC
TCPIG QH RTQDCDNG DTGGFGTU IGPGTCNN[ EQPUKFGTGF VQ JCXG FGENKPGF PCVKQPCNN[
KPENWFKPIUM[NCTMCPFVQCNGUUGTGZVGPVTGGFDWPVKPIFWPPQEMCPFIQNFETGUV+VKU
TGEQOOGPFGFVJCVVJCVVJGUGURGEKGUCTGURGEKHKECNN[VCTIGVGFVQDGDGPGHKEKCTKGUQH
CP[OKVKICVKQPRTQRQUCNUHQTDKTFU
6JTGGQHVJGURGEKGUTGEQTFGFQPUKVGCTGNKUVGFQPVJG9CTYKEMUJKTG%QXGPVT[CPF
5QNKJWNN.QECN$KQFKXGTUKV[#EVKQP2NCP6JGUGCTGITG[RCTVTKFIGUM[NCTMCPFUQPI
VJTWUJ
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
0CVKQPCNFGENKPGU KP UQOG QHVJGURGEKGU TGEQTFGFFWTKPI VJGDTGGFKPI DKTF UWTXG[
KPENWFKPIUM[NCTMTGGFDWPVKPICPFUQPIVJTWUJJCXGDGGPCVVTKDWVGFVQCITKEWNVWTCN
KPVGPUKHKECVKQP RCTVKEWNCTN[ VJG UYKVEJ HTQO URTKPIUQYP EGTGCNU VQ CWVWOPUQYP
CNVJQWIJVJGURGEKHKEECWUGUXCT[HTQOURGEKGUVQURGEKGU
#RRTQZKOCVGN[ QH VJG 9CTYKEM 7PKXGTUKV[ UKVG UWTXG[GF KP KU EWTTGPVN[
UWDLGEVVQKPVGPUKXGCITKEWNVWTGOCPCIGOGPV+PCFFKVKQPVQVJKUKVRQUUGUUGUUQOG
QVJGTJCDKVCVUYJKEJCTGDGPGHKEKCNVQVJGDKTFUNKUVGFCDQXG6JGJCDKVCVUQHXCNWG
CTG
•
•
•
•
•
/CVWTGVTGGUCPFUETWDRTQXKFKPIIQQFPGUVKPICPFHGGFKPIJCDKVCVU
5ETWDRTQXKFKPIIQQFPGUVKPICPFHGGFKPIJCDKVCVU
0GWVTCNITCUUNCPFCNUQRTQXKFKPICIQQFUQWTEGQHKPUGEVUCPFUGGFUHQTHGGFKPI
2QPFUYKVJYGNNFGXGNQRGFOCTIKPCNURTQXKFGHGGFKPICPFPGUVKPICTGCU
6CNN TWFGTCN JGTDU RTQXKFKPI C IQQF UQWTEG QH KPUGEVU HQT HGGFKPI EJKEMU KP VJG
DTGGFKPIUGCUQP
4'('4'0%'5#0&(746*'44'#&+0)
$+$$; % , $+4)'55 0 & *+.. & # /7561' 5 * $KTF %GPUWU
6GEJPKSWGUPFGF#ECFGOKE2TGUU.QPFQP
&10#.& 2 ( 8+%-'4; , # 6JG KORQTVCPEG QH EGTGCN HKGNFU VQDTGGFKPI
DKTFU CPF YKPVGTKPI UM[NCTM KP VJG 7- +P ő'EQNQI[ CPF EQPUGTXCVKQP QH .QYNCPF
(CTONCPF $KTFUΠGFU #GDKUEJGT GV CN $TKVKUJ 1TPKVJQNQIKUVU 7PKQP 6TKPI
*GTVHQTFUJKTG
'0).+5* 0#674' )TGGP 4QQHU VJGKT GZKUVKPI UVCVWU CPF RQVGPVKCN HQT
EQPUGTXKPIDKQFKXGTUKV[KPWTDCPCTGCUŌ'PINKUJ0CVWTG4GUGCTEJ4GRQTV0Q
)4')14;4&'#610/#01$.'&)41$+0510,#2#45105/$#-'4*#756+0)
#0&*+.610)/ 6*'56#6'1(6*'7- 5$+4&5452$$61996#0&
,0%%5#0&;
/#4%*#06,**7&5104%#46'452#0&9*+66+0)6102 2QRWNCVKQP
VTGPFUKP$TKVKUJ$TGGFKPI$KTFU$TKVKUJ6TWUVHQT1TPKVJQNQI[6TKPI*GTVHQTFUJKTG
474#. &'8'.12/'06 5'48+%' '08+410/'06#. 56'9#4&5*+2 Ō .11-#(6'4;174
.#0&#0&$'4'9#4&'&
67%-'4 )/ *'#6* /( $KTFUKP'WTQRG6JGKT%QPUGTXCVKQP5VCVWU$KTFNKHG
+PVGTPCVKQPCN%CODTKFIG
7-$+1&+8'45+6;2#460'45*+27-$KQFKXGTUKV[#EVKQP2NCP
9#49+%-5*+4'%18'064;51.+*7..$KQFKXGTUKV[#EVKQP2NCP
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
#22'0&+:10'
$4''&+0)$+4&5748';/'6*1&1.1); $61
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
Breeding Bird Survey Instructions
Thank you for volunteering to take part in the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), a scheme designed to keep
track of breeding bird populations in the UK. The survey is designed to be a quick, simple and, most
importantly, an enjoyable birdwatching exercise. Plots are 1x1-kilometre (km) squares of the National
Grid. Observers make just three visits to specially selected squares, the first to record habitat types and
to set up a suitable survey route, and the second and third to record birds that are seen or heard while
walking along the route.
These instructions can be used by both the BBS Online user (volunteers who will be entering their
data via the Web) and the paper form user.
Main aims
The main aims of the BBS are:
1. To provide information on year-to-year, and longer term, changes in population levels for a wide range
of breeding birds across a variety of habitats throughout the UK. Knowing to what extent bird
populations are increasing or decreasing is fundamental to bird conservation. Monitoring birds has the
added advantage that they act as valuable indicators to the health of the countryside.
2. To promote a greater understanding of the population biology of birds and in particular to focus on
factors responsible for declines. The BBS is a key component of the BTO's Integrated Population
Monitoring Programme.
3. To promote bird conservation through the involvement of large numbers of volunteers in survey work
in the UK.
Paper forms to receive
Once you have contacting your Regional Organiser and have been allocated a randomly selected 1-km
grid square, you should receive the following paper forms in the post (one set of forms for each square
you have agreed to cover):
1 x Breeding Bird Survey Instructions booklet (yellow)
2 x Field Recording Sheets (white)
2 x Count Summary Sheets (white) - paper form users only
1 x Habitat Recording Form (green)
1 x Mammal Count Summary Sheet (pink)
1 x copy of a previously completed Habitat Recording Sheet, containing a sketch drawing of your transect
route
We recommend that both the BBS Online and paper form user take the Field Recording Sheets, Habitat
Recording Form and Mammal Count Summary Sheet out in the field to record their sightings on. Only the
paper form user needs to transfer their bird count records from the Field Recording Sheet to the Count
Summary Sheet. The BBS Online user enters their bird count data from the Field Recording Sheet
directly on to BBS Online.
Organisation
The BBS is organised through the BTO's network of voluntary Regional Organisers (ROs), most of which
are also BTO Regional Representatives. The UK is divided up into 124 BTO regions, defined primarily by
10km grid squares. Each BTO region has an RO assigned to it, and it is their responsibility to allocate you
a BBS square and to issue and collect in completed forms. All completed forms should be sent direct to
the RO. The RO will also be able to deal with any questions you have about BBS methodology and land
access issues. For answers to Frequently Asked Questions, please refer to our FAQ web page. If your
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
BTO region does not have an RO, the National Organiser Mike Raven, will act as your RO and all
completed forms should be sent to him at BTO HQ in Thetford. The National Organiser and other BTO
staff from the Census Unit will be happy to deal with any questions you have regarding the survey.
Which square should you survey?
Either your RO or National Organiser will have provided you with the Ordnance Survey (OS) grid
reference of the 1-km square we would like you to survey. Grid references are in standard OS format (i.e.
two letters for the 100-km square, two numbers representing the 'easting' and two numbers representing
the 'northing'). Please check carefully the reference of the square you have been allocated. Squares have
been chosen according to a formal sampling strategy to cover all habitats and regions. Comprehensive
coverage is vital to the survey design. Please make every effort to cover the square that is assigned to
you. We will not be able to use data collected from additional or substituted squares.
In cases where survey work proves impossible in a large part of the square you have been allocated, e.g.
because it is physically impossible to visit or access permissions are not granted, please report this to
your RO immediately so that a replacement square can be provided. It is very important not to reject
squares on the grounds that they appear uninteresting - squares containing few species are just as
valuable as squares with many species. For squares containing a large area of water, estimate how many
of the 10 ideal transect sections are located on dry land (above Mean High Water). If this is less than 4
(i.e. less than 800m of transect) regard the square as 'uncoverable' and report it to Census Unit via your
RO.
For all users:
1. Do not record birds you see or hear before or after your transect-line (i.e. behind your first 200m
section or in front of your last 200m section).
2. Record all birds to the sides of your transect-line.
3. Record all birds from your transect-line that are beyond your 1km square (i.e. in adjacent 1-km
squares) that are to the sides of your transect-line.
4. Record habitat details each year. If you are only able to fill in the first two columns on the habitat form,
this is still extremely useful.
For paper form users only:
5. Ensure that only the number of birds recorded is written in each box on the count summary forms.
Additional information such as "+" or "many" complicates the forms and should be avoided.
6. Birds can be listed in any order on the Count Summary Sheet.
7. Please put your forms in the following order on completion - from top to bottom: habitat, summary 1,
summary 2, mammal, field 1, field 2. This will help speed up the processing of forms.
Finding and marking a route
If the square has been surveyed before, your RO should provide you with a sketch map of the counting
route (the transect line) taken by the previous BBS observer. This route must be followed to ensure
consistency of recording on that square (i.e. if a different route is taken, different birds will probably be
recorded). If the route has to be changed because you can no longer get access to it, please consult your
RO and return the completed Habitat Recording Form, with a sketch map of the new route on it. If, and
only if the square has never been covered before (your RO will tell you this), will you need to create your
own transect route across it.
The transect line through the square should ideally consist of two parallel lines, north-south or east-west,
each 1-km long. Please ensure that the route followed is the same as in previous years. Transect
lines should be 500 metres (m) apart and 250m in from the edge of the square. Each transect line should
be divided into 5 equal sections of 200m in length, making a total of ten (2x5), numbered 1 to 10. It is
important to note the starting points of each transect section either by using permanent landmarks (trees,
hedges, boulders, houses etc) or by using temporary markers (coloured tape or cord etc).
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
Figure 1 - Transect route
In practice, your transect lines are likely to deviate from the 'ideal' because of problems with access, or
barriers such as roads, rivers, and canals: possible solutions are given below. Once you have decided
upon a route, it is of the greatest importance that the same route is followed year after year. In cases
where the transect lines deviate considerably from the 'ideal', at no point should the two lines be closer
together than 200m. Minor intrusions into adjacent squares are perfectly acceptable and may
provide the only practical way to carry out the survey. Please record the exact route taken in the
box provided on the green habitat form.
Figure 2 - Examples of transect route
a. NO0861 (Tayside): mostly open fields, but there are limited places to cross stone walls.
b. SP9808 (Herts): mostly urban; access restricted to roads and paths; only two places to cross the
obstructions.
c. SU8291 (Bucks): footpaths mimicking ideal pattern but running west to east avoids the problem caused
by M40.
d. TV5496 (E Sussex): part of the square contains sea, however five 200m sections are on land and can
be covered north to south.
Note:
if less than four 200m sections lie on land, the square must be treated as uncoverable.
1. March – April: Reconnaissance visit to set up or check census route and record habitat
2. Early April - mid-May: Complete 'early' transect count
3. Mid-May - late June: Complete 'late' transect count
4. July - August
BBS Online user: Please ensure that you have entered all your data onto BBS Online.
Paper form user: Return completed forms to your RO or directly to the BTO Census Unit if you have no
acting organiser.
NB: The fieldwork should begin and end later in more northerly parts of the UK
When to visit
The main part of the breeding season, roughly between 1st April and 30th June, in the lowlands of
southern Britain, should be divided into two counting periods (early season visit = April to mid-May; late
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
season visit = mid-May to late June) and one visit should be made in each half. Visits should be at least
4 weeks apart. The first should coincide with the main activity period of the resident breeding birds in an
area, while the second should take place after the arrival of the latest migrant breeding birds. Where local
conditions dictate, for example, at higher altitudes or further north, visits should be shifted later in the
season, but the final transect count should be completed by mid-July. From late-June, counts will almost
certainly include a much greater proportion of unidentified young birds, and most species will have
reduced or stopped singing.
Counts should be made during the morning, beginning ideally between 6am and 7am, and no later
than 9am. Please try to keep the starting times similar within a breeding season and across years,
preferably to within half-an-hour. Please also try to keep the visit dates similar across the years. Counts
will be more productive earlier in the day, with birds generally becoming quiet and inactive from late
morning until mid afternoon (11am to 3pm). Starting times can be shifted to begin later in more remote
and less accessible areas. If survey times extend beyond midday please use the 24-hour clock.
Weather
Please do not attempt to census birds in conditions of heavy rain, poor visibility or strong wind. Birds
generally become inactive and quiet in windy and wet conditions, although activity often increases
considerably after rain showers and therefore showery weather is generally okay to conduct a survey in.
Bird activity also becomes quieter earlier in the day if there have been several previous days of fine
weather, so an earlier start is therefore advisable. Please record weather conditions in the boxes provided
on the forms that describe cloud cover, rain, wind speed, and visibility. Choose one number (1-3) from
each of the four headings below and enter these in the box provided on the Field Recording Sheets. If the
weather conditions change halfway through your survey, then record the mid-point; e.g. if cloud cover = 1
at the start of your survey visit and 3 at the end, then record 2.
Cloud cover
0-33%= 1
33-66%= 2
66-100%= 3
Rain
None= 1
Drizzle= 2
Showers= 3
Wind
Calm= 1
Light= 2
Breezy= 3
Visibility
Good= 1
Moderate= 2
Poor= 3
Recording birds
Please record all the birds you see or hear as you walk along the two linear transects. Birds should be
noted in the appropriate distance category, measured at right angles to the transect line. Do not record
birds that are behind you as you begin a census or beyond the end of the transect.
From your chosen starting point, begin to walk the first half of your transect route at a slow and
methodical pace. We recommend that you pause briefly to listen for bird songs and scan for birds flying
overhead. Please remember to note the starting and finishing times of each transect (using a 24-hour
clock, e.g. 0630, six-thirty in the morning, 1300, one o'clock in the afternoon). As a guide an average visit
should last around an hour and a half. Record all the birds you see and hear on the Field Recording
Sheets in the appropriate transect sections 1-10 and in the appropriate distance category (see below).
Birds should be recorded in one of the following four categories when they were first noted:
1. within 25 metres either side of the line;
2. between 25 and 100 metres either side of the line;
3. more than 100 metres either side of the line, including birds outside the 1-km square boundary;
or
F. birds in flight only (at any distance).
The transect is divided into 200m sections for convenience; please don't worry about birds at the
boundary of two sections: record them in the one that seems more appropriate, but not in both. At the end
of the first half (section 5) of the transect, record the time and break from recording while you make your
way to the start of the second half of the transect route. Commence recording again through sections 610. Try not to record the same individual bird twice. So for example, a Mistle Thrush that can be heard
singing from several transect stretches should be recorded once, where it was first detected.
We would strongly encourage observers to use the standard BTO species codes (see Appendix 1).
Please familiarise yourself with the most likely codes before you go into the field. If a species is not listed
in Appendix 1 please give the full common name. There is no need to record the activity or sex of the
birds you encounter, although you may wish to do so. Please distinguish juvenile birds recorded from
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
adults in those species where this is possible (e.g. B.juv, juvenile Blackbird), because counts of juveniles
should not be entered onto BBS Online or the Count Summary Sheets. Please also note any feral
species on transects.
Please note that distances are measured perpendicular to the transect line (i.e. at right angles to the line).
A bird seen 200m ahead of the observer but close to the transect line should be recorded in category 1.
We recommend that observers measure out distance categories (25m and 100m) using a combination of
a tape measure and pacing to familiarise themselves with these before fieldwork begins. Category F,
Birds in flight, relates to those flying over. Draw an arrow through the species' two-letter code to indicate
that it is in flight. If a bird is seen to take off or land it should be recorded in the appropriate distance
category (1-3) at that position. N.B. Skylarks in display flight and hovering Kestrels should be
recorded in the relevant distance category. Please record swifts, swallows and martins in the flight
category, unless they are seen to land or fly into a nest site, such as a barn or the eve of a roof.
If you have difficulty distinguishing adult and young birds, simply estimate to the best of your ability how
many adults were present. We appreciate that mixed-aged flocks of crows or Starlings, for example, will
present problems later in the season and ask that you observe and record with great care. Colonial
nesters should be entered in the box provided at the end of the summary form (paper form users only).
Count Summary Sheets
Paper form users only:
Please complete the Count Summary Sheets (one for each Field Recording Sheet) as soon as possible
after each field visit and preferably on the same day. The form summarises the information so that it can
be analysed. Simply transfer the number of individual birds (excluding juveniles) that were recorded in
each section of the transect, 1-10, on each visit, in each distance band. Print the two-letter species codes
in the appropriate boxes (and remember to add a full stop for single letter codes e.g. B. = Blackbird).
You may find it helpful to cross through species registrations on the field recording sheet as you transfer
this information to the summaries (see page 5). This reduces the chance of duplicating or missing
records. Each volunteer is assigned an observer code (Obs. code) by BTO Census Unit when we
receive the completed forms - please leave this box blank.
Juvenile birds
Juvenile birds can be recorded on the Field Recording Sheets, but must NOT be entered onto BBS
Online or the Count Summary Sheets. If you have difficulty distinguishing adult and young birds simply
estimate, to the best of your ability, how many adults were present. We appreciate that mixed-aged flocks
of crows or Starlings, for example, will present problems later in the season and ask that you observe and
record with great care. Colonial nesters should be entered separately on BBS Online or in the box
provided at the end of the Count Summary Sheet (paper form users only).
Colonial nesting birds
Birds nesting in dense colonies within the square (Rook, Sand Martin and gulls) will not be adequately
censused using the standard method, and we ask observers to count or estimate the number of nests in
the whole 1-km square. Colony counts should be conducted separately from the transects, and only for
those species listed above. Please do not exclude counts of adult birds seen at these colonies during
your normal line-transect counts (i.e. record the number of adults seen during your two line-transect
counts as well as the number of active nests counted on your separate colony counts).
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
Example of completed field recording sheet
Please do not write in the shaded boxes.
Obs. code
____
PLEASE USE BLOCK CAPITALS
Observer
name
Mr /Mrs/Ms M. RAVEN
1-km square reference (eg SK0212)
Address
BTO
The Nunnery
Thetford
Tel. No:
Email:
TL9079
County code (eg GBSY)
GBNK
Visit date (DD:MM:YY) (eg 08:05:03)
Early or late season visit
(E/L)
03:06:03
Weather (1,2 or
3)
L
Cloud Rain
3
1
Wind
2
First half
Start time (HH:MM)
06:45
Finish time
07:19
Second half
Start time (HH:MM)
07:30
Finish time
08:01
Example of field recording sheet
Recording birds in the field
Visibility
1
Transferring counts to BBS Online
or Count Summary Sheet
Example of Count Summary Sheet
Two-letter species code
and species name
B.
BLACKBIRD
Distance
Category
Number of birds recorded on each transect section
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
6
3
5
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
F
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
Habitat recording
Habitat recording is an essential part of the BBS because it allows changes in bird numbers to be
related to changes in habitat available to them. Habitat forms must be completed each year using the
coding scheme that is common to a range of BTO projects. This is shown on the back of the green form
and can also be seen in Appendix 2. The habitat recording system can be used without specialist
knowledge. We advise that habitat details are recorded on your reconnaissance visit or following a count.
Please do not record birds and habitat at the same time.
Habitat should be recorded separately for each of the 10 transect sections. Please record what you feel to
be the most appropriate codes for each section (i.e. the area within a box 200m long by 50m wide).
Codes allow you to describe both the predominant habitat, termed the First habitat on the form, and the
secondary habitat, termed the Second habitat on the form. In many cases, two habitats will have equal
importance and the order they are entered does not matter. For each habitat, choose one habitat code
from each of levels 1 and 2, and up to two codes from levels 3 and 4. Please complete as much detail as
you feel able: the first two levels are most important.
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
The example below describes an area of arable farmland. Transect 1 comprises tilled land with a
hedgerow without trees, an active farmyard, with autumn cereal growing. There is no secondary habitat
and so this is left blank. Transect section 2 is a similar area containing woodland. The first habitat codes
are the same and the second codes are for woodland i.e. coniferous, young plantation with low
disturbance, moderate shrub layer and sparse field layer. Note that the Shrub layer comprises woody
plants less than 5m tall and the Field layer comprises herbaceous, non-woody plants. If there is no
appropriate code in levels 3 or 4 please put a dash ('-') in that column.
Example of completed habitat form
Transect
Section
First habitat
Second habitat
Levels:
Levels:
1
2
3
4
1
E
4
2
6
7
2
E
4
2
-
6
1
2
3
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A
2
5
-
-
-
Please note that for squares covered for the first time, we ask for the habitat actually covered and the
habitat of the ideal (straight) transects. After the first year, observers can use the more simple form as
shown above, recording only the actual habitat details. 'Ideal' transects can be either North to South or
East to West, depending on your chosen route. If major habitat changes occur on your square through
the course of the survey, these changes should be recorded in the box provided. Please enter the
transect number and the new codes. Examples of major habitat change include ploughing of set-aside,
introduction or removal of animal stock and tree felling.
Recording mammals
Mammal Species Codes
The 19 most commonly recorded mammal species are printed on the front of the pink Mammal Count
Summary Sheet. The BTO's two-digit mammal species code is shown with the name of the mammal.
Please list any additional species not listed on the form in the blank rows underneath "61 Feral/Domestic
Cat". Please see Appendix 3 for a full list of mammal species codes.
Known to be present
In addition to mammals seen and counted during the two bird count visits, observers may find other
evidence of mammals during these and additional visits to the square. In the ‘Known to be present in
square’ column, indicate the method/s by which the mammal species was recorded, using one or more of
the following letters:
C Live animals seen and counted by yourself during the early or late visit
D Dead animals (including road kills) recorded during any visit this season*
F Field signs recorded during any visit this season* (tracks, droppings, mole-hills, hair)
L From local knowledge during this season* (e.g. from gamekeepers, landowners, etc.)
S Live animals seen by yourself on additional visit/s to the square this season*
* this season denotes the period from January to July of this calendar year. Field signs must be current,
including active setts, dreys and fox dens. For instance, with badger setts, only use the F (field signs)
code if there are signs of recent activity, e.g. a clear sett entrance and spoil heap, presence of footprints,
snuffle holes and latrines.
Numbers counted on transect (visual records only)
The columns headed "Numbers counted on transect (visual records only) / Early and late" are for entering
counts of live mammals seen as you carry out your two line transect counts – not for dead animals (D),
field signs (F), local knowledge (L), or live animals seen by yourself on additional visits (S). There
is no need to make special visits to count mammals and they are not recorded in distance bands. For
each species, total the number counted from all ten 200m transect sections for each visit and enter these
in the appropriate boxes. If you come across groups of mammals, please make your best estimate of their
numbers. An estimate of the numbers of a particular species (no matter how rough), is more useful than
recording ‘too many’ etc.
Visits made to your square
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
Please tick one of the three boxes indicating the number of visits made to your square during this season
(January to July). If you have only visited your square during the three BBS visits (one habitat & two
counts) then tick the first box (BBS visits only); if you have made up to three extra visits tick the second
box (1-3 extra visits) and if you have made more than three extra visits tick the third box (4 or more extra
visits). If you have only managed one or two visits to your square during the season also tick the first box
(BBS visits only).
You might find it useful to use the white Field Recording Sheets to record your mammal sightings, writing
the species name in full and the numbers counted (as you do using two-letter species codes for birds).
Counts of mammals should then be transferred from the Field Recording Sheets onto the Mammal Count
Summary Sheet.
If you have surveyed your square for mammals, but did not see any species during your two transect
counts or additional visits, then enter "N" in the "saw no evidence of mammals" box. If you made no
attempt to record mammals on your square please enter "X" in this box.
Please return the completed Mammal Count Summary Sheet to your Regional Organiser or enter the
data on BBS Online.
Return of data
BBS Online user:
We recommend that you enter your BBS records onto BBS Online soon after you have completed your
survey visits. All data should be entered by the end of August and late entries seriously delay the
production of BBS results the following year. The only form that must be returned to your RO is your
green Habitat Recording Sheet, if the transect route has been changed.
Paper form user:
Please return all completed forms to your RO by the end of August - earlier if possible. Forms for
each square should include: one green Habitat Recording Form, two Field Recording Sheets, two Count
Summary Sheets and the Mammal Count Summary Form. Please note that once we have received your
completed forms from your Regional Organiser, you will receive an acknowledgement letter from BTO
HQ.
Appendix 1. Species Codes
Appendix 2. Habitat Coding System
Appendix 3. Mammal Species Codes
Fieldworkers should not put themselves in a position that could place them, or others, in danger.
The Trust does not take any responsibility or liability for any actions and subsequent
consequences from the activities of fieldworkers.
Please ensure that you have obtained the relevant permission to enter private land over which
your transect lines cross.
Many thanks for helping with this important project and enjoy your censusing!
If you have any queries about BBS please contact either your BTO Regional Organiser or
The Census Unit, BTO, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU,
Tel: 01842 750050, Fax: 01842 750030, Email: bbs@bto.org
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
#22'0&+:691
56#67614;2416'%6+10#0&2.#00+0)%106':6
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
#22'0&+:69156#67614;2416'%6+10#0&2.#00+0)%106':6
5VCVWVQT[NGIKUNCVKQP
6JG9KNFNKHGCPF%QWPVT[UKFG#EV 9%# CUCOGPFGFD[VJG%QWPVT[UKFGCPF
4KIJVUQH9C[#EV %419 KUVJGRTKPEKRCNNGIKUNCVKQPCHHQTFKPIRTQVGEVKQPVQ
7-YKNFDKTFU6JGUGUVCVWVQT[KPUVTWOGPVUUWRGTUGFGVJG2TQVGEVKQPQH$KTFU#EVU
CPFVJG%QPUGTXCVKQPQH9KNF%TGCVWTGUCPF9KNF2NCPVU#EV
6JG9%#CPF%419OCMGKVCPQHHGPEG KPCFFKVKQPVQRQUUGUUKQPEQPVTQNCPFUCNG
QHHGPEGU VQ
•
•
•
MKNNKPLWTGQTVCMGCP[YKNFDKTF
VCMGFCOCIGQTFGUVTQ[CP[PGUVVJGPGUVQHCP[YKNFDKTFVJCVKUGKVJGTKPWUG
QTDGKPIDWKNV
VCMGQTFGUVTQ[YKNFDKTFGIIUQHCP[URGEKGU
6JG9%#CNUQNC[UFQYPURGEKCNRGPCNVKGUKPTGURGEVQHCP[QHVJGURGEKGUQHDKTF
NKUVGFKP5EJGFWNGQHVJGCEV7PFGTVJGCEVKPTGURGEVQHVJG5EJGFWNGURGEKGU
KVKUCNUQCPQHHGPEGVQ
•
•
&KUVWTDCP[YKNFDKTFNKUVGFQP5EJGFWNGYJKNGKVKUPGUVDWKNFKPIQTPGCTC
PGUVEQPVCKPKPIGIIUQT[QWPI
&KUVWTDVJG[QWPIQHUWEJCDKTF
+PVJKUUGPUGCYKNFDKTFKUFGHKPGFCUDGKPICP[DKTFQVJGTVJCPCICOGDKTFVJCVKU
TGUKFGPV KP QT C XKUKVQT VQ )TGCV $TKVCKP KP C YKNF UVCVG )COG DKTFU CTG RTQVGEVGF
UGRCTCVGN[ D[ VJG )COG #EVU VJCV CHHQTFU VJGO HWNN RTQVGEVKQP FWTKPI VJG ENQUGF
UGCUQP
+PCFFKVKQPVQUVCVWVQT[RTQVGEVKQPUQOGURGEKGUJCXGDGGPENCUUKHKGFCEEQTFKPIVQ
VJGKT EQPUGTXCVKQP UVCVWU KPENWFKPI VJGKT RQUKVKQP QP VJG 7- QT NQECN $KQFKXGTUKV[
#EVKQP 2NCPU $#2 CPF VJG TGF CPF CODGT NKUVU QH$KTFU QH %QPUGTXCVKQP %QPEGTP
$Q%% KPVJG7- )TGIQT[GVCN 7-$KQFKXGTUKV[#EVKQP2NCPRTKQTKV[URGEKGU
6JG RWDNKECVKQP QH VJG 7-$#2 KU KP TGURQPUG VQ #TVKENG QH VJG 4KQ $KQFKXGTUKV[
%QPXGPVKQP VQ FGXGNQR PCVKQPCN UVTCVGIKGU HQT VJG EQPUGTXCVKQP QH DKQNQIKECN
FKXGTUKV[ CPF VJG UWUVCKPCDNG WUG QH DKQNQIKECN TGUQWTEGU 6JG 7-$#2 EQPVCKPU
CEVKQPRNCPUHQTQXGT7-RTKQTKV[URGEKGUCPF7-MG[JCDKVCVUEQPUKFGTGFVQ
DGQHPCVKQPCNEQPUGTXCVKQPRTKQTKV[
7-RTKQTKV[URGEKGUCTGFGHKPGFKPVJG7-$KQFKXGTUKV[)TQWR6TCPEJG#EVKQP2NCPU
CUGKVJGTINQDCNN[VJTGCVGPGFQTTCRKFN[FGENKPKPIKPVJG7- KGD[OQTGVJCP
KPVJGNCUV[GCTU 5QOG QH VJG 7- RTKQTKV[ URGEKGU CTG UVCVWVQTKN[ RTQVGEVGF YJKNG QVJGTU TGEGKXG
RCTVKCN QT PQ RTQVGEVKQP 6JG UVCVWU QH 7- RTKQTKV[ URGEKGU FQGU PQV EQPHGT CP[
CFFKVKQPCN UVCVWVQT[QTRNCPPKPIRTQVGEVKQP 6JG %419 KPVTQFWEGU C FWV[QP NQECN
CWVJQTKVKGUVQJCXGTGICTFVQ7-$#2RTKQTKV[URGEKGUKPVJGKTRQNKEKGU
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
$KTFURGEKGUQHNQECNEQPUGTXCVKQPEQPEGTP
6JG 9CTYKEMUJKTG %QXGPVT[ 5QNKJWNN $KQFKXGTUKV[ #EVKQP 2NCP .$#2 NKUVU MG[
NQECNURGEKGUCPFJCDKVCVUEQPUKFGTGFVQDGTCTGQTFGENKPKPIKPVJGCTGC5QOGOC[
DG QH PCVKQPCN EQPEGTP YJKNG QVJGTU OC[ QPN[ DG QH EQPEGTP KP VJG NQECN CTGC
5QOGCTGUVCVWVQTKN[RTQVGEVGFCNVJQWIJVJGITGCVOCLQTKV[CTGPQV
9JKNG NQECN $#2 FQEWOGPVU JCXG PQ NGICN UVCVWU VJG NQECN CWVJQTKV[ CPF 'PINKUJ
0CVWTG YKNN GZRGEV CEEQWPV VQ DG VCMGP QH VJGUG URGEKGU KP VJG QXGTCNN NC[QWV CPF
NCPFUECRGUVTCVGI[HQTVJGFGXGNQROGPV
7-$KTFUQH%QPUGTXCVKQP%QPEGTP
4GFCPF#ODGTNKUVUQH$KTFUQH%QPUGTXCVKQP%QPEGTP $Q%% KPVJG7-CTGUGVQWV
KP )KDDQPU GV CN 6JGUG NKUVU CTG EQORKNGF D[ VJG 4Q[CN 5QEKGV[ HQT VJG
2TQVGEVKQPQH$KTFUQPVJGDCUKUQHVJGHQNNQYKPIETKVGTKC VJGCDDTGXKCVKQPUCTGVJQUG
IKXGPKP)KDDQPUGVCN 7-TGFNKUV$Q%%
+7%0
*&
$&R
$&T
)NQDCNN[6JTGCVGPGF $KTF.KHG+PVGTPCVKQPCN *KUVQTKECNRQRWNCVKQPFGENKPGKPVJG7-DGVYGGPCPF
4CRKFN[ FGENKPKPI URGEKGU FGENKPG KP RQRWNCVKQP KP 7- QXGT VJG NCUV [GCTU
4CRKFN[EQPVTCEVKPIURGEKGU FGENKPGKPTCPIGKP7-QXGTVJGNCUV[GCTU
7-CODGTNKUV$Q%%
*&TGE
*KUVQTKECN RQRWNCVKQP FGENKPG FWTKPI DWV TGEQXGTKPI RQRWNCVKQP UK\G
JCUOQTGVJCPFQWDNGFQXGTNCUV[GCTU
$&/R
/QFGTCVGN[FGENKPKPIURGEKGUFGENKPGFD[ŌKPVJG7-KPPWODGTUKPVJG
NCUV[GCTU
$&/T
/QFGTCVGN[EQPVTCEVKPIURGEKGUFGENKPGFD[ŌKPVJG7-KPTCPIGKPVJG
NCUV[GCTU
9&/R
/QFGTCVGN[ Ō FGENKPGKPVJG7-PQPDTGGFKPIRQRWNCVKQPKPVJGNCUV
[GCTU
52'%QT 5RGEKGUQHWPHCXQWTCDNGEQPUGTXCVKQPUVCVWUKP'WTQRG
$4
4CTGDTGGFGTHKXG[GCTOGCPQHDTGGFKPIRCKTUKPVJG7-
$.
.QECNKUGFDTGGFGTU QHVJG7-DTGGFKPIRQRWNCVKQPHQWPFKPVGPQTHGYGT
UKVGU DWVPQV$4
9.
.QECNKUGFPQPDTGGFGTU QHVJG7-PQPDTGGFKPIRQRWNCVKQPECPDGHQWPF
KPVGPQTHGYGTUKVGU QH 'WTQRGCP DTGGFKPI
$+
+PVGTPCVKQPCNN[ KORQTVCPV DTGGFKPI URGEKGU
RQRWNCVKQPKPVJG7-
9+
+PVGTPCVKQPCNN[ KORQTVCPV PQPDTGGFKPI URGEKGU QH PQTVJYGUV 'WTQRGCP
YKNFHQYN 'CUV #VNCPVKE (N[YC[ YCFGTU QT 'WTQRGCP QVJGTU PQPDTGGFKPI
RQRWNCVKQPUKPVJG7-
6JG 52'% ECVGIQTKGU 5RGEKGU QH 'WTQRGCP %QPUGTXCVKQP %QPEGTP CU FGHKPGF D[
6WEMGTCPF*GCVJ YGTGWUGFCUQPGETKVGTKQPHQTVJGTGXKUGFTGFCPFCODGT
NKUVKPIU#NN'WTQRGCPDKTFURGEKGUJCXGDGGPCNNQECVGFVQQPGQHHKXGECVGIQTKGUQH
EQPUGTXCVKQP EQPEGTP CNVJQWIJ QPN[ 52'% QT EWTTGPVN[ CRRGCT QP 7- TGF CPF
CODGTNKUVU
4GOCKPKPI DKTF URGEKGU CTG RNCEGF QP VJG ITGGP NKUV QH NQY EQPUGTXCVKQP EQPEGTP
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
#22'0&+:6*4''
&'5-6125748';(+0&+0)5
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
$TGGFKPIDKTFUHQT9CTYKEM7PKXGTUKV[CTGCHTQO,QJP$QYNG[9GUV
/KFNCPFU$KTF%NWD %QOOQP0COG
$NCEMDKTF
$NCEMECR
$NWG6KV
$WNNHKPEJ
$W\\CTF
%CPCFC)QQUG
%CTTKQPTQY
%JCHHKPEJ
%JKHHEJCHH
%QCN6KV
%QNNCTF&QXG
%QOOQP9JKVGVJTQCV
%QQV
%WEMQQ
&WPPQEM
(GTCN2KIGQP
)QNFETGUV
)QNFHKPEJ
)TGCV5RQVVGF9QQFRGEMGT
)TGCV6KV
)TGGP9QQFRGEMGT
)TGGPHKPEJ
*QWUG/CTVKP
*QWUG5RCTTQY
,CEMFCY
,C[
.GUUGT5RQVVGF9QQFRGEMGT
.KPPGV
.KUV
4GF
#ODGT
#ODGT
#ODGT
#ODGT
#ODGT
4GF
4GF
4GF
%TKVGTKC
$&R
$&/R
$&/R
$&/R 52'%QT
$&/R
$&R
$&R
$&R
%QOOQP0COG
.KVNG)TGDG
.QPI6CKNGF6KV
/CIRKG
/CNNCTF
/KUVNG6JTWUJ
/QQTJGP
/WVG5YCP
0WVJCVEJ
2JGUCPV
2KGF9CIVCKN
4GGF$WPVKPI
4QDKP
4QQM
5GFIG9CTDNGT
5M[NCTM
5QPI6JTWUJ
5RCTTQYJCYM
5VCTNKPI
5VQEM&QXG
5YCNNQY
5YKHV
6TGGETGGRGT
6WHVGF&WEM
9KNNQY9CTDNGT
9QQFRKIGQP
9TGP
;GNNQYJCOOGT
.KUV
#ODGT
#ODGT
4GF
4GF
4GF
4GF
#ODGT
#ODGT
#ODGT
4GF
%TKVGTKC
$&/R
$+
$&R
$&R
$&R
$&R
$+
52'%QT
$&/R
$&R
.GUUGT5RQVVGF9QQFRGEMGTDTGGFUTGIWNCTN[KP%TCEMNG[YQQF
#HCKTN[V[RKECNNKUVHQTVJGCTGCDWVYKVJUGXGTCNOKUUKPIURGEKGUUWEJCU-GUVGN.GUUGTYJKVGVJTQCV)CTFGP9CTDNGTCPF
5RQVVGF(N[ECVEJGTYJKEJEQWNFRTQDCDN[DGHQWPFYKVJDGVVGTUGCTEJKPI
6TGG5RCTTQYCNUQRTGUGPVKP%TCEMNG[9QQFCPFOC[DTGGF
/CTUJCPF9KNNQY6KVUJCXGDTGFKP%TCEMNG[CPF6QEKN9QQFUKPVJGRCUVCPFOC[UVKNNDGRTGUGPV
1HVJGPQPDTGGFKPIURGEKGUOGPVKQPOC[DGOCFGQHVJG9QQF9CTDNGT PQYTCTGKPVJGEQWPV[ YJKEJQEECUKQPCNN[VWTPU
WRKP%TCEMNG[YQQFKPVJGURTKPICPFOQTGTCTGN[CV%CPNG[
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
ES
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
Notable bird species for Tocil Wood SINC (CNCS)
Common Name
List
Criteria
Notes
Bullfinch
Red
BDp
Breeder
Corn Bunting
Red
BDp 2 & HD
Visitor
Breeder
Grey Partridge
Red
BDp 2
Linnet
Red
BDp 2
Visitor
Marsh Tit
Red
BDp 2
Breeder
Reed Bunting
Red
BDp
Breeder
Skylark
Red
BDp 2
Visitor
Song Thrush
Red
BDp 2
Breeder
Spotted Flycatcher
Red
BDp 2
Breeder
Tree Sparrow
Red
BDp 2
Breeder
Turtle Dove
Red
BDp 2
Breeder
Willow Tit
Red
BDp 2
Breeder
Blackbird
Amber
-
Breeder
Dunnock
Amber
BDMp
Breeder
Green Woodpecker
Amber
SPEC 2 or 3
Breeder
Greylag Goose
Amber
BL, WL, WI
Breeder
Kingfisher
Amber
SPEC 2 or 3
Breeder
Starling
Amber
BDp
Breeder
Stock Dove
Amber
BI
Breeder
There are several other non-breeding visitors to the wood that are not listed in the citation
Tocil Wood is the only site in Coventry where the Water Rail is regularly seen. (Amber list, BDMr)
KEY:
Red = High conservation concern
Amber = medium concern
BDp = Rapid (>50%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25yrs
BI = >20% UK breeding population in
UK
BDMr = Moderate (25-49%) contraction of UK breeding range over last 25yrs
BDMp = Moderate (25-49%) decline in UK breeding population over last 25yrs
SPEC 2 or 3 = Species with unfavourable conservation status in Europe (SPEC - Spp of European Conservation Concern)
* = decline>50% but trend provisional or poss unrepresentative of UK
2 = UK population > 10,000 pairs
HD = Historical population decline in UK during 1800-1995
BL = >50% of UK breeding population in 10 or fewer sites, but not rare breeders (BR)
WL = >50% of UK non-breeding population in 10 or fewer sites
WI = >20% of NW European (wildfowl), East Atlantic Flyway (waders) or European (others) non-breeding populations in UK
updatd from amber to red since SINC citation
removed from list since SINC citation?
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
Supplied by University of Warwick - Accumulative list of birds seen
on the campus (incl. records supplied by the warden of Tocil Woods)
Compiled Jan 1997
Common Name
Common Name
Common Name
Little Grebe
Collard Dove
Reed Warbler
Great Crested Grebe
Turtle Dove
Lesser Whitethroat
Cormorant
Stock Dove
Whitethroat
Grey Heron
Wood Pigeon
Garden Warbler
Mute Swan
Cuckoo
Blackcap
Greylag Goose
Barn Owl
Chiffchaff
Canada Goose
Tawny Owl
Willow Warbler
Mallard
Little Owl
Wood Warbler
Teal
Swift
Goldcrest
Pochard
Hoopoe
Spotted Flycatcher
Tufted Duck
Kingfisher
Marsh Tit
Buzzard
Green Woodpecker
Willow Tit
Sparrowhawk
Great Spotted Woodpecker
Coal Tit
Kestrel
Lesser Spotted Woodpecker
Blue Tit
Hobby
Skylark
Great Tit
Peregrine
Sand Martin
Long-tailed Tit
Pheasant
Swallow
Nuthatch
Red-legged Partridge
House Martin
Treecreeper
Grey Partridge
Tree Pipit
Jay
Water Rail
Meadow Pipit
Magpie
Moorhen
Yellow Wagtail
Jackdaw
Coot
Grey Wagtail
Rook
Golden Plover
Pied Wagtail
Carrion Crow
Lapwing
White Wagtail
Starling
Ruff
Wren
House Sparrow
Snipe
Dunnock
Tree Sparrow
Woodcock
Robin
Chaffinch
Curlew
Black Redstart
Brambling
Redshank
Redstart
Greenfinch
Greenshank
Winchat
Goldfinch
Common Sandpiper
Stonechat
Siskin
Green Sandpiper
Wheatear
Linnet
Black-headed Gull
Blackbird
Redpoll
Common Gull
Song Thrush
Bullfinch
Lesser Black-backed Gull
Redwing
Yellowhammer
Herring Gull
Mistle Thrush
Reed Bunting
Great Black-backed Gull
Fieldfare
Corn Bunting
Common Tern
Sedge Warbler
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
9#49+%-70+8'45+6;%18'064;
$TGGFKPI$KTF5WTXG[
&4#9+0)5
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix C
Landscape and Visual
Assessment
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix C.1
Landscape and Visual
Assessment:
Methodology for
Assessing Zones of
Visual Influence
This page is intentionally blank
ES
University of Warwick
Environmental Statement
Landscape and Visual Effects
APPENDIX C.1
METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSING ZONES OF VISUAL INFLUENCE
This was assessed using the Key Terra Firma ground modelling package. This
software uses a 3 dimensional topographic model, to which must be added key
buildings and blocks of vegetation in order to define the visual limits of a development.
A visual model was created by importing a 3d model into a scanned 1:10000 OS map
this showed that the position and scale of the coordinate information was correct.
Visual barriers were then added to supplement the topographical information provided
by the 3D model. These were determined using the OS map and knowledge of the area
gained from site visits.
Visual barriers defined are as follows (heights assigned to each one are shown)
Woodland blocks were given a height of 20m (in reality most of the main woodland
blocks exceed this height, measuring up to 25 metres)
Hedgerows a height of 3m
Suburban areas 9m
Industrial areas 10m
Urban areas 8m
Existing University buildings were modelled according to the number of storeys
(determined by visual assessment on site) each storey was counted as 3m
Visual envelopes were then developed for each of the 8 Development Zones identified
on the Macormac Jamieson Prichard Development Parameters Plan. Maximum heights
were identified by taking the highest ground level within each Development Zone then
adding the ground to top of roof height. This was based on assumed floor to ceiling
heights of 3.0 metres for residential buildings and 4.7 metres for all other buildings. An
additional height of 3 metres was then added for roof top plant rooms. From this top of
building height it was then possible by using the Key Terra Firma software to identify
which points on the ground the building could potentially be seen from. A finer grain of
assessment was then added by verifying the diagrams on site through the addition of
hedgerow information and isolated trees.
For the assessment of construction effects the height of a crane jib is taken to be 8
metres higher than the maximum number of floors
The zones of visual influence are included as Figures 3.1-3.8. It should me noted that
these diagrams illustrate a worst case scenario. In reality the visual effects are likely to
be much less significant than these diagrams show. It is not possible to input accurately
either every tree or the individual height of every tree within a 4 km radius. There are
many more individual trees in reality than have been included within the model. In
addition those trees that exceed the assumed height of 20 metres will have a much
greater screening effect than that shown on these figures. Lastly the programme does
not assess the extent of building that is visible from a given vantage point, it does not
Churchman Landscape Architects
June 2006
ES
University of Warwick
Environmental Statement
Landscape and Visual Effects
differentiate between points from which the full height of the building will be seen and
points from which only the ridgeline will be visible.
Churchman Landscape Architects
June 2006
Appendix C.2
Landscape and Visual
Assessment:
Methodology for
Preparation of
Photomontages
This page is intentionally blank
ES
University of Warwick
Environmental Statement
Landscape and Visual Effects
APPENDIX C.2
METHODOLOGY FOR THE PREPARATION OF PHOTOMONTAGES
The 6 vantage points agreed with the Council’s for modelling are identified in Para 3.5.5.
The position of the camera was determined on site using a hand held GPS device.
Images were taken using a Cannon digital SLR camera set to a focal length of 31.25mm
lens (equivalent to 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR film camera).
The camera was mounted on a levelled tripod so that the height of the camera was set
1.5 metres above ground level. A series of 4-8 images were taken at each vantage point
with an overlap of 50%. The images were then spliced together using “Cannon
Photostitch software to produce a panoramic image, into which a digital image of the
proposed development could then be inserted.
A 3D model of the university campus was generated using OS data which was
processed by Key Terra Firma into a digital terrain model. The buildings were then
added to the model by establishing the floor level using the terrain model and then
extruding the building heights using Autocad 2006. Heights of existing buildings were
established by a visual survey of the site. Heights of proposed buildings were
generated by taking 4.7m per storey and adding 3m for plant. The position and height
of the crane being used to build the Warwick business school was also modelled as a
reference point
Autocad 2006 was then used to generate perspective views. Camera positions were set
up using the coordinates taken using the GPS device on site, and the lens was set to
match the camera which took the panorama photographs. The focal point of each view
was set as the library building.
The outline perspective views were exported from cad and imported in Adobe
Photoshop CS where they were overlaid onto the panorama photographs taken on site.
The height and position of the crane and the library building were used to line up the
perspective to the panorama. Flat shading was put on the buildings using Photoshop
and any areas obscured by vegetation were removed.
Given the limited visibility of the buildings additional vegetation was not added to each of
the images. The images are included as Figures 4.1-4.6
Churchman Landscape Architects
June 2006
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix C.3
Landscape and Visual
Assessment:
Assessment Tables
This page is intentionally blank
Low
Moderate
Viewed from publicly accessible routes / open space or a moderate number of residential properties where one or more of the
following criteria apply:
•
The distance of view is significant (1 km or more) or
•
The quality of the view is only moderate or,
•
The view is filtered or screened by existing site features such as topography or vegetation or,
•
The view is of only moderate importance to the receptor.
Viewed from public routes / open space or a small number of residential properties or commercial properties where one or more of
the following criteria apply
•
The distance of view is significant (1 km or more),
•
The quality of the view is of low quality or is already compromised, The view is largely screened by existing site features such
as topography or vegetation
•
The view is not a major consideration for the receptor.
High
Classification
Viewed from publicly accessible vantage points or a large number of residential properties where one of the following criteria
apply:
•
The view is of high visual quality or,
•
Part of a wide panorama when viewed at distance or,
•
Viewed at close quarters Less than 1 km or,
•
Where quality of the view is a major consideration for the receptor.
Sensitivity
TABLE 2: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS
Landscape features that are commonplace
Or
Relatively unimportant landscape or potentially tolerant of substantial change.
Landscape features that are notable and important to overall character but which could be replaced.
Or
Moderately valued landscape character which is reasonably tolerant of changes or easy to recreate
Landscape features that are rare/unusual/distinctive, fundamental to overall character and virtually impossible to replace or recreate.
Or
A landscape of particularly distinctive sense of place and character and highly valued for its scenic quality.
Sensitivity
TABLE 1: SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS
Low
Moderate
High
Classification
Where there is no perceptible change
Where both sensitivity and magnitude are low
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Major
Where the sensitivity is high and the magnitude is moderate or vice versa
Where both the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the change are high but where the change would be of only local significance
Classification
Severe
Significance
Low
No change
Where both the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the change are high and where the change would be nationally or regionally significant.
TABLE 5: SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS
Negligible effects
Few viewers affected and/or minor change in medium/long distance views, with every prospect that the effect will be eliminated by mitigation
Moderate
High
Many viewers affected, major changes in the view from nearby vantage points or major intrusion on long distance views with little or no prospect of mitigation.
Many viewers affected and/or minor changes to nearby views, moderate changes to medium distance views neither of which change the overall balance of
landscape character within the view and where mitigation may be effective after a number of years.
Classification
No change
Low
Magnitude
TABLE 4: MAGNITUDE OF EFFECTS : VISUAL
Negligible effects
Limited removal of landscape features with
Barely perceptible change in landscape character
Moderate
High
Wholesale removal of significant landscape features leading to
notable change in landscape character over an extensive area or, a very intensive change over a more limited area
Fragmentation of landscape features leading to
Discernible but not obvious change in landscape character
Classification
Magnitude
TABLE 3: MAGNITUDE OF EFFECTS: LANDSCAPE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water Features
Water Courses
Footpaths
Existing site users
•
•
•
•
•
•
Open Space
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Car Parks
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roads
•
Structures
Hedges
•
•
•
Cranes
•
Storage
•
Buildings
Trees
Local Woods
Character of campus
Land Use
Aspect
Character of Suburban
Fringe
•
•
Definition of Urban Edge
•
•
Construction
•
General
Operations
Tranquillity of rural
landscape
Vehicles + Access
Arden Character
Openness of Green Belt
Receptors
Paths
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mounds
Earthworks
TABLE 6 : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST : POTENTIAL SOURCES OF IMPACT
Trees
•
•
Hedges
•
•
Screens
•
•
•
Ornamental
Shrubs
•
•
•
Short Grass
•
•
Building Occupant
•
•
•
•
Pedestrians
•
•
•
•
Cars
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sports people
Users
Landscape
Ditches
Water Features
Adjacent at closest
points, Cryfield &
Scarman roundabout
Adjacent at nearest
point but true rural
landscape approx 1 km
to south west
Adjacent along Gibbet
Hill Road
Adjacent along eastern
boundary of the campus
Arden Character
Tranquillity of rural
landscape
Definition of Urban Edge
Character and Quality
of Suburban Fringe
NA
NA
NA
Character of campus
Local Woods
Trees
SITE LANDSCAPE
Coventry Green Belt
adjacent.
Dist
Openness of Green Belt
LANDSCAPE SETTING
Receptor
High
High
Important collectively, and some as
individual specimens. Nearly all
trees within campus less than 50
years old. Some need to be
thinned out. Trees along water
courses and major axes of greatest
significance
Tocil Woods of major significance
in terms of local setting of this
part of Campus
Original University buildings
provide strong sense of place and
focus, University as Icon.
Varied character with development
of differing character and scale
Low – Moderate.
High
Well defined urban edge normally
discourages suburbanisation of
Green Belt. Compromised by past
development on Central Campus
West
Important in terms of enjoyment of
and character of the rural
landscape
High
Low along
Gibbet Hill Road
where urban
edge is already
weak
Important in terms of local
distinctiveness
Important buffer between campus
and residential properties.
Importance
High
High
Value
TABLE 7: SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Trees of low-moderate quality could be lost
without detrimental effect. Some thinning out
would be beneficial for long term condition of
tree population
Unable to accept major variation
Moderate, could tolerate additional buildings
of more contemporary styles but identity of
original campus is being diluted
Robust, could accommodate a range of
scales of development
Robust between Central Campus East and
West due to effect of previous development
Could accommodate limited increase in
frequency and magnitude of noise on
boundary of rural landscape without
detrimental effect
Moderately robust. Could accommodate
some degree of change so long as major
characteristics and elements are retained.
Not directly aff4ected
Fragile due to narrow width of green corridor
Robustness : Ability to accommodate
change
High
(collectively)
Variable
(individually)
Low due to
protection
offered by
Planning System
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Sensitivity
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Hedges
Open Space
Water Features
Water Courses
Footpaths
Existing site users
Receptor
Dist
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High – Species
rich hedges.
Low – Where
regularly cut
Value
Main recipients of landscape quality
Major circulation corridors.
Important natural features in terms
of character of campus
Important in terms of character of
campus
Important in terms of character of
the campus
Variable.
Species rich hedges along Tocil
Lakes, Westwood Brook, eastern
boundary and south west of Boiler
House are of high value
Importance
TABLE 7: SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Over populated site could devalue positive
qualities of the campus
Could be re-routed
Fragile ecosystems and habitats, highly
susceptible to change Improvements can be
achieved by de-culverting sections of
Westwood Brook
Reduction in size or quality would have
significant effect on quality of campus
Modest encroachment on spaces would
have limited impact, but major infilling would
have adverse impact on spatial quality of
campus
Species rich hedges are of high value and
sensitive ecological corridors. Could be
improved by connecting fragments of hedge
network.
Robustness : Ability to accommodate
change
Moderate
Low
High
High
Mod
Variable
High where
species rich
Low where
regularly
managed
Sensitivity
Major local to the development
plots but low across Central
Campus East generally
Scale of development major,
but not actually within Green
Belt
Construction effects would not
directly impact on Arden
Parklands character
Scale of development major,
but not actually within Arden
Parkland
Construction effects do not
relate to Urban edge
No effect
Construction effects do not
relate to Urban edge
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic
Operational
Impact of new
development, does
not actually impact
directly on Green
Belt
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic
Operational
Impact of new
development, does
not impact directly
on Arden features
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic
Operational
No new
development close
to tranquil zones
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic
Openness of
Green Belt
Definition of
Urban Edge
Tranquillity of
rural
landscape
Arden
Parkland
Character
Scale of Effect
Effect
Receptor
15 year s
Permanent
Adjacent to
Gibbet Hill
Road
Suburban , already
forms the urban edge
Construction
effects do not
relate to
Urban edge
No effect
None
necessary
None
necessary
None
necessary
Minor
negative
effect
Suburban
15 year s
Approx 1 km
from areas
where
tranquillity
could be
experienced
None
necessary
None
necessary
Would not be
effective
during
construction
phase
Mitigation
Options
No effect
Minor
negative
impact
Minor
negative
impact
Neg/Pos
Permanent
Suburban, within area
of dense development
Suburban, although
adjacent to green
buffer at south east
end
Context
None
necessary
Nearest
development
300 metres
Adjacent to
Coventry
Green Belt
Dist
No effect
15 year s
Permanent
15 year s
Duration
TABLE 8: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
Low
Low
Magnitude
Character of
campus
Character and
Quality of
Suburban
Fringe
Receptor
Negligible effect
Negligible effect
Negligible
Major local to the development,
moderate to minor in the
context of Central Campus East
Moderate to high, could affect
character of campus
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic,
cranes
Operational
Development
involves infill only
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic,
cranes
Operational
Development
involves infilling
around periphery of
main core
Scale of Effect
Operational
Development
involves infill only,
Urban edge is weak
in this area already
due to existing
development on
Central Campus
West
Effect
Permanent
15 year s
Permanent
15 year s
Permanent
Duration
NA
Adjacent to
suburban
fringe on
east
boundary
Dist
TABLE 8: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Existing campus
Suburban
Context
Likely to be
negative due
to loss of
open space
Negative due
to impact of
construction
activity on
open space
No effect
Negligible
effect
Potentially
positive as
urban edge
can be
redefined
with
improved
connectivity
across
Gibbet Hill
Road
Neg/Pos
Good design
will maintain
sense of place
and landmark
status of
original
buildings
Sensitive
construction
methodologies
will minimise
impact
Existing
vegetation
within green
buffer allowed
to develop
None
necessary
None
necessary
Mitigation
Options
Mod-High
Moderate
No change
No change
Moderate
Magnitude
Potentially high level of effect to
individual trees. Full extent of
effects will not be determined
until details of individual
buildings are known
Not possible to determine until
detailed development proposals
prepared
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic,
cranes, excavation
of service trenches,
dust, pollution of
watercourses
Operational
Potential for loss of
individual
specimens.
No effect
Operational
No effect
Trees
No wooded areas directly
affected
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic,
cranes, excavation
of service trenches,
dust, pollution of
watercourses
Local Woods
Scale of Effect
Effect
Receptor
Permanent
15 year s
Permanent
15 year s
Duration
Existing
trees located
throughout
development
area
Nearest
woods are
Tocil to the
south and
Brickyard
Plantation
Dist
TABLE 8: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Existing campus
Both woodland blocks
are within Green Belt
to south
Context
Positive if
part of a site
wide tree
management
strategy with
new trees
installed
Potentially
negative if
large
numbers of
trees are
lost.
No effect
No direct
effects with
minimal
possibility of
indirect
effects
Neg/Pos
High value
trees will be
protected
under Planning
process.
Detailed design
of building will
determine
number of
trees lost.
Sensitive
construction
methodology
could reduce
numbers
affected
NA
None
necessary
Mitigation
Options
Low
(Probably)
Probably
lowmoderate
No change
No change
Magnitude
Open Space
Hedges
Receptor
Potentially high if existing open
spaces are compromised by
construction
Moderate loss of open space,
would impact on campus quality
Operational
Loss due to
development of new
buildings
Minimal, development not
shown where hedges exist
Operational
Potential loss of
species rich hedges
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic
Potentially high level of effect to
individual lengths of hedgerow.
Full extent of effects will not be
determined until details of
individual buildings are known
Scale of Effect
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic,
cranes, excavation
of service trenches,
dust, pollution of
watercourses
Effect
Permanent
15 year s
Permanent
15 year s
Duration
NA
Adjacent
alongside
Westwood
Heath Brook
and on east
boundary
Dist
TABLE 8: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Existing campus
Potentially
negative if
hedgerows
lost.
Existing campus
Probably
negative
although
large part of
Central
Campus
remains
open
Potentially
negative if
quality of
open spaces
compromised
Positive if
hedges
linked into
network of
hedges
Neg/Pos
Context
Good design
will maintain
quality of
campus
landscape
Sensitive
construction
methodology
will minimise
impact
Strengthening
and
management of
existing
hedgerows.
High value
hedges
protected
under Planning
process.
Detailed design
of building will
determine
extent of
hedges lost.
Sensitive
construction
methodology
could reduce
numbers
affected
Mitigation
Options
Low
Low
Low
Potentially
high
magnitude of
positive
effects if
management
regime
adopted
Probably
lowmoderate
Magnitude
Water
Courses
Receptor
No loss of water features,
effects relate to pollution
through chemicals or silt
No change, development avoids
watercourse corridors
Operational
No effect as
buildings avoid
water courses.
Increased surface
water discharge
rates may cause
wash out/scouring
of small streams
Scale of Effect
Construction
General
construction
activities, site traffic,
pollution of water
courses
Effect
Permanent
15 year s
Duration
Adjacent
alongside
Westwood
Heath Brook
Dist
TABLE 8: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Potentially
high degree
of negative
impact
Existing campus
Value of
spaces as
wildlife
corridors
could reduce
due to
presence of
buildings,
level off use
Neg/Pos
Context
Maximise
distance
between
buildings and
watercourse,
avoid tall
buildings in
close proximity
to avoid shade
effects
Sensitive
construction
methodology
will minimise
impact
Mitigation
Options
No change
Should be
low but
depends on
site control
Magnitude
Low
Character and Quality of Suburban Fringe
Mod
High
High
Low
Moderate
Water Features
Water Courses
Footpaths
Existing site users
Variable
High where species rich
Low where regularly managed
Hedges
Open Space
High
High (collectively)
Variable (individually)
Trees
Sensitivity
Local Woods
Moderate
Character of campus
SITE LANDSCAPE
Low
Low
Definition of Urban Edge
Moderate
Arden Character
Tranquillity of rural landscape
High
Openness of Green Belt
LANDSCAPE
Receptor
Magnitude
Moderate
No change
No change
No change
Low
Low - Potentially high
Low (Probably)
No change
Moderate-High
No change
Moderate
No change
No change
Low
TABLE 9: SIGNIFICANCE OF LANDSCAPE IMPACTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Moderate adverse
Negligible
Negligible adverse
Minor adverse
Moderate beneficial
Minor adverse
Negligible adverse
Negligible adverse
Moderate beneficial
Negligible adverse
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Significance
Occupants of approx 15
properties along south
side of Burton Green
NGR270 765
Occupants of approx 20
properties to north of
Westwood Heath Road
NGR 290 765
Occupants of office
accommodation in
Science Park.
NGR 300 767
Users of upper zone of
Tesco’s Car park ,
Cannon Park
NGR 305 766
Visitors to Canley
Cemetery
NGR 306 768
Occupants of up to 40
private residences along
De Montfort Way, Canley
and adjoining streets Brill
Close and Brandsford
Avenue
NGR 305 773
Occupants of approx 3
residential properties to
north of A249
NGR 312 760
9
12
13
14
15
16
Receptor
1
Ref
24hrs
1.5
Daylight
0.8-1.3
24hr
24hr
0.5-1
0.5-1
Work hours
Night
Night
Duration of
View
0.1-1.0
1.0 – 2.0
2.5-3.0km
Dist
Suburban
Within Millennium
Wood
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
Suburban
/Commercial
Edge
Rural
Context
Moderate
Moderate
High
Views from bedrooms only. Potential
views of tall buildings only, below 4
storeys, vegetation, topography and
existing buildings will eliminate.
Sensitivity low due to distance and
impact of existing University buildings
Views from street and from upstairs
rooms only. Incoming views are of high
buildings only, up to 2 storeys being
obscured by vegetation. Sensitivity low
due to distance and impact of existing
University buildings
South side cemetery only. Reflective
nature of the space increases its
sensitivity to further intrusion
Views of buildings over 4 storeys only
due to screening effects of vegetation
along University boundary
Closeness of view increases impact but
still within context of existing University
buildings.
Low
Low
High views from bedrooms only. Mod
due to dist and lack of ground level views.
Existing buildings hide all views below 4
storeys
High views from bedrooms only.
Existing buildings hide all views below 4
storeys Long distance view , small
number of private views affected.
Notes
Low
Low
Value
TABLE 10: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Sensitivity
Occupants of approx 15
properties north of A249
at Cryfield Heights
NGR 305 750
Users of footpath W164
From Crackley particularly
at junction with Cryfield
Grange Road.
NGR 296 742
Users of Cryfield Grange
Road at Cryfield Grange
Farm
NGR 301 748
Users of footpaths from
Hurst Farm, Crackley
Lane to Westwood Heath
Road
NGR 285 755
29
30
36
Receptor
19
Ref
Daylight
24 hr
Daylight
1.0
0.5 – 2.0
24hrs
Duration of
View
1.0 – 2.1
1.0-1.5
Dist
Rural
Rural
Rural
Rural (expansive
view over open
valley landscape
Context
High
High
High
High
Value
TABLE 10: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, vegetation, topography
and existing buildings will eliminate.
Sensitivity low due to distance and
impact of existing University buildings
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 2 storeys, vegetation, topography
and existing buildings will eliminate.
Sensitivity moderate due to extent of
view, distance and impact of existing
University buildings.
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, vegetation, topography
and existing buildings will eliminate.
Sensitivity low due to distance and
impact of existing University buildings.
Could increase to moderate or high if new
accommodation introduced to south of
existing campus
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, vegetation, topography
and existing buildings (Rootes
Residences) eliminate all views.
Sensitivity moderate due to distance and
impact of existing University buildings.
Notes
Moderate
Mod-High
High
High
Sensitivity
Occupants of approx 15
residential properties
along south side of
Burton Green
NGR270 765
Occupants of approx 20
residential properties to
north of Westwood Heath
Road
NGR 290 765
Occupants of office
accommodation in
Science Park.
NGR 300 767
9
12
Receptor
1
Ref
Viewed in context of
existing campus.
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
buildings within
University and Science
Park
Operational
View of new 4-5
storey buildings at
east side of campus
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
buildings and suburban
edge
Operational
Partial view of new
buildings at north
east end of campus
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
vehicles, compounds
Viewed in context of
existing campus.
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
buildings and suburban
edge including
significant commercial
premises along
Westwood Heath Road
Operational
Partial view of new
buildings at north
east end of campus
Construction
Potential oblique
view of cranes
Viewed in context of
existing campus.
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Effect
0.1-1.0
1.0 – 2.0
2.5-3.0
Distance
Km
TABLE 11: MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Temporary as existing
planting matures
Temporary, up to 10
years
Permanent as any
mitigation planting will
not achieve maximum 5
storey height of
proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by roadside
vegetation and existing
buildings
Temporary, up to 10
years
Permanent as any
mitigation planting will
not achieve maximum 5
storey height of
proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by roadside
vegetation and existing
buildings
Temporary, up to 10
years
Duration of Effect
Additional tree planting will
mitigate effect after 10
years
Early planting adjacent to
development sites could
reduce effect
Not applicable as existing
vegetation close to source
also screens site.
Buildings up to 5 storeys
would not break existing
ridgeline of the University.
Only off site planting
would mitigate.
None possible
Not applicable as existing
vegetation close to source
also screens site.
Buildings up to 5 storeys
would not break existing
ridgeline of the University.
Only off site planting
would mitigate.
None possible
Mitigation Options
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Magnitude
Users of upper zone of
Tesco’s Car park ,
Cannon Park
NGR 305 766
Visitors to Canley
Cemetery
NGR 306 768
Occupants of up to 40
private residences along
De Montfort Way, Canley
and adjoining streets Brill
Close and Brandsford
14
15
Receptor
13
Ref
Viewed in context of
existing campus. Effect
may be increased where
vantage point is low as
crane will break skyline
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
buildings and suburban
edge including
significant commercial
premises along
Westwood Heath Road
Operational
View of new 4-5
storey buildings on
east side of campus
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
which may break
skyline of University
Viewed in context of
existing campus.
No tall buildings exist
within this corridor so
effect is greater than
would be experienced
where existing tall
buildings provide the
setting
Operational
View of new 4-5
storey buildings at
north east end of
campus, south of
University House
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
which may break
skyline of University.
No tall structures exist
within this corridor so
effect is greater than
would be experienced
where existing tall
buildings provide the
setting
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
which will break
skyline of University
Effect
0.5-1
0.8-1.3
0.5-1
Distance
Km
TABLE 11: MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Temporary, up to 10
years
Permanent as any
mitigation planting will
not achieve maximum 5
storey height of proposed
buildings. Lower storeys
already screened by
vegetation and existing
buildings
Temporary, up to 10
years
Permanent as any
mitigation planting will
not achieve maximum 5
storey height of
proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by roadside
vegetation and existing
structures
Temporary, up to 3 years
as only cranes within
narrow visual corridor will
be seen
Duration of Effect
Moderate
Moderate
None possible
High
Moderate
Moderate
Magnitude
Not applicable as existing
vegetation within the
cemetery also screens
site. Buildings up to 5
storeys would not break
existing ridgeline of the
University.
None possible
Not applicable as existing
vegetation within the car
park and along University
boundary also screens
site. Buildings above 3
storeys would break
existing ridgeline of the
University.
None possible
Mitigation Options
Occupants of approx 3
residential properties to
north of A249
NGR 312 760
Occupants of approx 15
properties north of A249
at Cryfield Heights
NGR 305 750
19
Avenue
NGR 305 773
Receptor
16
Ref
Viewed in context of
existing campus.
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
campus buildings.
Existing trees alongside
Tocil Lakes reduce
impact. Up to 3 storeys
will be screened in
summer.
Operational
View of new 3 storey
buildings on south
side of campus
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
buildings and suburban
edge. Existing tree
canopy of Millennium
Wood will greatly reduce
impact
Operational
View of new 4-5
storey buildings at
south east side of
campus
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
related to buildings
on south side of
campus
Viewed in context of
existing campus. Effect
may be increased where
vantage point is low as
crane will break skyline
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
buildings and suburban
edge including
significant commercial
premises along
Westwood Heath Road
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Operational
View of new 4-5
storey buildings at
north east end of
campus
Effect
1.0-1.5
1.5
Distance
Km
TABLE 11: MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Already screened by
planting alongside Tocil
Lakes
Temporary, up to 10
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve
maximum 5 storey height
of proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by Millennium
Wood and on site
planting
Temporary, up to 10
years
Temporary as existing
planting along east
boundary will increase
screening effect as it
matures
Duration of Effect
On site planting may
increase screening after
20 years
Could increase on site
planting but unlikely to
achieve significant effect
within construction period
On site planting would
screen lower floors after 510 years
Could increase on site
planting but unlikely to
achieve significant effect
within construction period
Not applicable as existing
vegetation along
University boundary also
screens site. Only
buildings above 5 storeys
would break existing
ridgeline of the University.
Mitigation Options
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Low
Magnitude
Users of footpath W164.
From Crackley
particularly at junction
with Cryfield Grange
Road.
NGR 296 742
Users of Cryfield Grange
Road at Cryfield Grange
Farm
NGR 301 748
30
Receptor
29
Ref
Viewed in context of
existing campus.
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
campus buildings.
Existing trees alongside
Tocil Lakes reduce
impact. Screened in
summer by existing
vegetation.
Operational
View of new 3 storey
buildings on south
side of campus
New buildings viewed in
context of southern
edge of existing campus
buildings. Existing
trees alongside Tocil
Lakes reduce impact.
Lower floors up to 3
storeys will be screened
in summer.
Operational
View of new 3 storey
buildings on south
side of campus
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
related to buildings
on south side of
campus
Oblique view across
Main Campus West.
Viewed in context of
southern edge of
existing campus. Low
angle of view means
that crane seen against
skyline, which increases
effect
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
only, low angle of
view and presence of
vegetation will
obscure other
ground level effects
Effect
1.0
1.0 – 2.1
Distance
Km
TABLE 11: MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Temporary at lower
levels. Already screened
by planting alongside
Tocil Lakes
Temporary, up to 10
years
Already screened by
planting alongside Tocil
Lakes
Temporary, up to 10
years
Duration of Effect
On site planting would
increase screening effect
after 5- 10 years
Could increase on site
planting but unlikely to
achieve significant effect
within construction period
Not possible to mitigate as
existing trees adjacent to
buildings are already
mature.
Not possible to mitigate as
existing trees adjacent to
construction sites are
already mature. New trees
would not reach required
height within given time
frame
Mitigation Options
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Magnitude
36
Ref
Users of footpaths from
Hurst Farm, Crackley
Lane to Westwood Heath
Road
NGR 285 755
(And from site of County
Fare Crackley Lane)
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing campus.
New 4-5 storey
buildings viewed in
context of existing
campus buildings.
Existing buildings at
Heronbank and trees
within Brickyard
Plantation largely
eliminate views
Operational
View of new 4-5
storey buildings on
north side of
campus but only until
new buildings
erected along
northern boundary of
Central Campus
West .
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
on north side of
campus, Not visible if
built after
development at
northern end of
Central Campus
West
Effect
0.5 – 2.0
Distance
Km
TABLE 11: MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Temporary until
development on northern
boundary of main
campus west developed
Temporary, up to 10
years
Duration of Effect
Not possible to mitigate
with vegetation. Buildings
on north boundary of
Central Campus West will
mitigate effects when built
Not possible to mitigate
with vegetation. Buildings
on north boundary of
Central Campus West will
mitigate effects when built
Mitigation Options
Moderate
Moderate
Magnitude
Occupants of approx 15 residential properties along south
side of Burtons Green
NGR270 765
Occupants of approx 20 residential properties to north of
Westwood Heath Road
NGR 290 765
Occupants of office accommodation in Science Park.
NGR 300 767
Users of upper zone of Tesco’s Car park , Cannon Park
NGR 305 766
Visitors to Canley Cemetery
NGR 306 768
Occupants of up to 40 private residences along De Montfort
Way, Canley. And adjoining streets Brill Close and
Brandsford Avenue
NGR 305 773
Occupants of approx 3 residential properties to north of A249
NGR 312 760
Occupants of approx 15 properties north of A249 at Cryfield
Heights
NGR 305 750
Users of footpath W164 From Crackley
NGR 296 744
Users of Cryfield Grange Road at Cryfield Grange Farm
NGR 300 748
Users of footpaths from Hurst Farm, Crackley Lane to
Westwood Heath Road
NGR 285 755
1
9
12
13
14
15
16
19
29
30
36
Description
Moderate
Moderate
Mod-High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Sensitivity
TABLE 12 : SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACT: CENTRAL CAMPUS EAST
Magnitude
Moderate adverse
Moderate adverse
Moderate adverse
Moderate adverse
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Moderate adverse
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Significance
•
•
•
Tranquillity of rural landscape
Definition of Urban Edge
•
Storage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water Features
Water Courses
Footpaths
Existing site users
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Open Space
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hedges
•
•
Trees
Local Woods
Character of campus
WITHIN SITE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Land Use
Aspect
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buildings
•
•
•
Roads
Character of Suburban Fringe
•
•
•
•
•
General Operations
•
Vehicles + Access
Arden Character
Cranes
Openness of Green Belt
SETTING
Receptors
•
Car Parks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Paths
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mounds
•
•
•
•
•
•
Water Features
•
•
•
Ditches
•
Trees
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hedges
Landscape
•
•
•
•
Screens
Earthworks
•
•
•
Ornamental Shrubs
Structures
Short Grass
•
•
Building Occupant
•
•
•
•
•
Users
•
•
•
•
•
Pedestrians
Construction
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cars
TABLE 13 : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST : POTENTIAL SOURCES OF IMPACT
•
•
•
•
•
Sports people
Adjacent along south
west and north west
boundaries
Adjacent along Gibbet Hill
Road
Tranquility of rural
landscape
Definition of Urban
Edge
Existing Land Uses
NA
Located within the zone
defined as having Arden
Parkland Characteristics
Arden Character
WITHIN SITE
Located within Coventry
Green Belt
Dist
Openness of Green
Belt
SETTING
Receptor
Moderate
Part used for growing of arable
crops but agricultural activities
have diminished as University has
converted land to other uses,
specifically residential use and
sports fields
Well defined urban edge normally
discourages suburbanisation of
Green Belt. Compromised by past
development on Central Campus
West
Important in terms of enjoyment
and character of the rural
landscape
High
Low within
context of
Gibbett Hill Road
Important in terms of local
distinctiveness
Existing landscape local to site not
representative of Arden character
Important buffer between Campus
and Town of Kenilworth Quality of
Green Belt already compromised at
this point through past
development within the Campus.
Proposed designation as a Major
Development Site within the Green
Belt assumes further development.
Importance
High
High
Value
TABLE 14 : SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Change of use has been a factor for past 20
years with agricultural activities reducing in
scale. Now reaching the point at which
agricultural use will become unviable,
particularly within centre of the site.
Robust between Central Campus East and
West due to past development along this
edge
Could accommodate limited increase in
frequency and magnitude of noise on
boundary of rural landscape without
detrimental effect Existing activity already
impacts on tranquillity
Moderately robust. Could accommodate
some degree of change so long as major
characteristics and elements are retained
Fragile due to width of green corridor .
Edges of Kenilworth and Crackley are not
visible from points within Central Campus
West. At its closest point the edge of
Kenilworth is still, 2km away.
Robustness : Ability to
accommodate change
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Sensitivity
NA
Old Brickyard Plantation
within the site
Whitefield Coppice
adjacent to western
boundary
NA
Local Woods
Trees
Dist
Character of campus
Receptor
Few individual trees within the site
due to recent agricultural use.
Exceptions include around the hill
top pond west of Brickyard
Plantation.
Grounds of Cryfield House contain
superb specimen Oak which must
be several hundred years old.
Site boundary hedges support
specimen trees, particularly Oak.
Juvenile Oak installed around
boundary in 2000.
Recent plantings associated with
Heronbank, Radcliffe, Scarman,
more ornamental in nature and of
less value in terms of character of
setting.
Ancient oak to be found within
grounds of Cryfield residences
Significant components in terms of
Arden Character . Whitefield
Coppice is listed as Ancient
Woodland. Brickyard Plantation not
included on list of Ancient Woods
but may have existed for 400 years
and as such qualify for inclusion.
Whitefield provides important
screen along western edge of site
High
High
Currently of low status due to
character and qualities of existing
structures
Importance
Low
Value
TABLE 14 : SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
All oak trees and trees within boundary
hedges must be prioritised for retention.
Ornamental tree planting around new
developments do have positive effect but
are of lesser long term value and could be
lost without major effect.
Trees within playing field areas of moderate
value. Recent plantings of birch and pine not
characteristic of the area but could be
supplemented with oak/ash in long terms
Individual trees, some more than 100 years
old, are irreplaceable. May tolerate limited
change of use within adjacent areas.
Could tolerate additional buildings although
increase in built area will remove any
remaining sense of this area having an
agricultural character. Will assume a
character that is similar to that already
established east of Gibbet Hill Road.
Robustness : Ability to
accommodate change
Variable.
Major oak and
perimeter trees
highly sensitive.
Around new
developments
ornamentals of
only moderate
value.
Within sports
fields of moderate
value
High
Moderate
Sensitivity
NA
NA
NA
Hedges
Open Aspect
Water Features
Receptor
Dist
Moderate –High
High
High major
component of
the Arden
Parklands
character
Value
Heronbank lake important but man
made nature makes it slightly alien
in terms of the landscape
character.
Man made water features have
been a characteristic feature of this
landscape historically.
Small ornamental features at
Radcliffe House, Scarman House
of minimal importance in landscape
terms but valuable ecologically,
Greater Crested Newts identified
Pool south of Cryfield residences
probably an old field pond
Natural pools south west of playing
fields and on eastern edge of
Whitefield Coppice.
Hill top pool west of Old Brickyard
Plantation of major value in terms
of landscape character of site
Important in terms of character of
this part of the campus.
Openness, particularly when
standing on central hill top west of
Brickyard Plantation is a major
characteristic of this landscape.
Species poor hedge connecting
Brickyard Plantation and
Whitefield Coppice
Species rich hedges run along
southern and north western
boundaries.
Species poor hedges running from
Cryfield Roundabout to Sports
Pavilion
Importance
TABLE 14 : SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Natural ponds have well established ecology
which is susceptible to change
Recent construction of Heronbank means
that its ecosystem, particularly at its south
west end has still to mature.
Incursions into existing open spaces would
compromise the aspect. Lower lying ground
along western and northern sides of site
better able to accommodate additional
development
Hedges. Species rich hedges are of high
value as ecological corridors. Full or partial
removal would devalue to a point at which
they no longer contribute to the value of the
campus landscape.
Robustness : Ability to
accommodate change
Variable,
Natural ponds
and hill top pond
highly sensitive
Heronbank,
moderately
sensitive,
Ornamental
Ponds of low
sensitivity in
landscape terms
High
High
Sensitivity
South west boundary
Footpath W164 from
Crackley
Permissive footpath along
south west edge of
playing fields,
Footpaths along northern
boundary, Hurst Farm –
Westwood Heath Rd
NA
Footpaths
Existing site users
Dist
Water Courses
Receptor
Mod
High
High
Value
Main recipients of landscape
quality
Significant in terms of accessibility
to the Campus from Kenilworth and
to the rural landscape from the
campus
Watercourse important as a
drainage feature, as a component
of the Arden Parkland character
and as an ecological resource
Importance
TABLE 14 : SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Moderate
Moderate
Could be re-routed if necessary
Over populated site could devalue positive
qualities of the campus
High
Sensitivity
High level of sensitivity, unlikely to
accommodate change or adjacent
development
Robustness : Ability to
accommodate change
Scale of development
significant, although
only affecting small
part of the wider
landscape.
Development does
not come closer to
Kenilworth than
existing buildings
Will redefine the edge
of Coventry.
Majority of Central
Campus West
remains as open
landscape.
Moderate, only
affects small
proportion of total
area of Central
Campus West
Operation
Development up to 4
storeys high,
development of
associated car parks
and roads, installation
of associated planting,
installation of
associated drainage
features
Construction
Cranes, general
construction activities,
installation of services,
site traffic
Arden Parkland
Character
Moderate, although
only affects small
proportion of total
area of Central
Campus West
Construction
Cranes, general
construction activities,
installation of services,
site traffic
Openness of Green
Belt
Scale of Effect
Effect
Receptor
15 years
Permanent
15 years
Duration
NA
2km
Campus
from edge of
Crackley
Dist
Context
Rural
Rural
TABLE 15 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Negative
Negative impact
Negative
Neg/Pos
Screen planting
would be
consistent with
Arden character
Not possible to
mitigate,
landscape,
screening will not
diminish effects
on openness.
Visibility will
diminish toward
end of 15 year
construction
period
Mitigation
Options
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Magnitude
WITHIN SITE
Definition of Urban
Edge
Tranquillity of rural
landscape
Receptor
Scale of Effect
Scale of development
significant, although
affecting only small
area of wider
landscape. Does not
actually compromise
Arden Parkland
features but
conversion from rural
landscape to
landscape dominated
by buildings produces
high magnitude of
effect.
Major locally, but
moderate in terms of
wider landscape
Major in terms of this
part of the campus
but moderate-minor
in terms of wider
landscape
Construction will
impact on rural
landscape
New development will
push urban edge out
from its current
location into Central
Campus West
Effect
Operation
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads and
installation of
associated planting
installation of
associated drainage
features Impact of new
development, does not
impact directly on
Arden features,
woodlands, hedges,
middle distance views
Construction
General construction
activities, site traffic
Operational
Development,
additional roads, car
parks, general site
activities
Construction
General construction,
construction traffic
Operational
Development up to 4
storeys high. Urban
edge is already weak
in this area due to
past adhoc
development of
Central Campus West
Permanent
15 years
Permanent
15 year
Permanent
Duration
Currently
adjacent to
Gibbett Hill
Road but will
move out
toward
Whitefield
Coppice
At the edge
Var
Var
Dist
Context
Rural ,
although
compromised
by past
development
Rural
Rural
Rural
TABLE 15 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Negative in terms of
moving urban edge
into the Green Belt.
Positive in terms of
better definition of
Urban edge
Negative
Negative,
Negative
Negative although
further planting
could reinforce
Arden character
Neg/Pos
Placement of new
building toward
centre of Central
Campus West will
give better
definition to
Urban Edge
Not possible to
mitigate
Orientating active
frontages away
from boundaries
may help to
reduce and
contain noise
Enforcement of
strict noise
controls
Associated
planting of trees
and hedges will
reinforce Arden
characteristics, if
appropriate
species are used.
Mitigation
Options
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Magnitude
Trees
Damage likely to be
minimal due to small
number of trees on
Central Campus
West
No direct effect on 2
key woodland blocks,
Brickyard Plantation
and Whitefield
Coppice
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads.
Construction
General construction,
construction traffic,
dust, noise ,
installation of services
No direct effect on 2
key woodland blocks,
Brickyard Plantation
and Whitefield
Coppice. Dust,
fumes, pollution could
cause indirect effects
Construction
General construction,
construction traffic,
dust, noise
15 years
Permanent
15 years
Dist
NA
Whitefield
Coppice
adjacent
NA
Permanent
Will significantly
change the character
of this part of
campus, which will
cease to be classed
as rural.
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads, installation
of associated planting
installation of
associated drainage
features
Local Woods
NA
15 years
Will significantly
change the character
of this part of
campus, which will
cease to be classed
as rural
Construction
General construction,
construction traffic
Duration
Character of campus
Scale of Effect
Effect
Receptor
Context
Campus
characteristic
features of
Arden
Parkland
Rural
characteristic
features of
Arden
Parkland
Part rural, part
development ,
part open
space
Part rural, part
development ,
part open
space
TABLE 15 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Possible negative
effects
No effect
Possible indirect
effects
Positive due to
better definition of
campus character
Negative in context
of rural character.
Negative
Neg/Pos
Sensitive
construction
practices will
minimise
negative impacts
NA
Sensitive
construction
practices will
minimise
negative impacts
Good design
should develop
new sense of
place and
landmark status
for key buildings
Placement of new
building toward
centre of Central
Campus West will
give better
definition to
Urban Edge
Sensitive
construction
methods will
minimise
negative impacts
Mitigation
Options
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Magnitude
Open Space
Hedges
Receptor
Loss of open space,
although most
agricultural in use
Potentially major
Operational
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads, installation
of associated drainage
features, installation of
services
Construction
Loss of open space
through use as
construction
compounds etc
Potentially high due
to proximity of
buildings to existing
hedge lines
Not possible to
determine until
detailed development
proposals prepared.
Unlikely that
significant tree loss
will occur . New tree
planting associated
with development will
supplement tree
population.
Operational
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads, installation
of associated drainage
features, installation of
services
Construction
General construction,
construction traffic,
dust, noise ,
installation of services
Scale of Effect
Effect
15 years
Permanent
15 years
Permanent
Duration
NA
Adjacent
development
alongside
hedge
connecting
Brickyard
Plantation
with
Whitefield
Coppice and
section of
hedge from
Cryfield
Roundabout
to Sports
Pavilion
Dist
Context
Campus/
Agricultural
fields/Sports
fields
Campus
characteristic
features of
Arden
Parkland
TABLE 15 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary loss of
open space
Potentially negative
if hedgerows lost.
Positive if linked
into site wide
network of hedges
Negative if hedges
lost or compromised
Positive if part of a
site wide tree
management
strategy
Neg/Pos
Not possible to
mitigate
Strengthening
and management
of existing
hedgerows.
Sensitive
construction
practices will
minimise
negative impacts
High value trees
will be protected
under Planning
process.
New tree planting
will complement
all building
projects
Mitigation
Options
Low
Potentially
high
magnitude of
positive
effects if
management
regime
adopted
Potentially
high,
probably
moderate
Low
(Probably)
Magnitude
Water Courses
Water Features
Receptor
15 years
Permanent
No development
shown encroaching
on areas currently
occupied by water
features.
Heronbank may be
adapted to flow east
– west as part of
Sustainable drainage
strategy
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads, installation
of associated drainage
features
Construction
Pollution from ground
water discharge or
surface water run off
15 years
NA
Campus
Characteristic
features of
Arden
Parkland
Campus
Neg/Pos
Negative
No change
Probably no change
NA
Context
Positive
New public space
provided within
campus
Large part of Central
Campus West
remains open
Dist
Permanent
Duration
Low probability of
damage
Scale of Effect
Construction
Pollution from ground
water discharge or
surface water run off
Operational
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads, installation
of associated planting
installation of
associated drainage
features
Effect
TABLE 15 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Sensitive
construction
practices will
minimise
negative impacts
Integration as
part of SUD’s
strategy will
improve
status/quality of
water features
Sensitive
construction
practices will
minimise
negative impacts
Good design will
maintain quality
of campus
landscape.
Concentrated
development will
maximise
retention of open
space
Mitigation
Options
Low
Low
Low
Low
Magnitude
Receptor
Duration
Permanent
Scale of Effect
Installation of new
drainage features will
extend existing
network of streams
and ditches
Effect
Development up to 4
storeys high,
associated car parks
and roads, installation
of associated drainage
features
Dist
TABLE 15 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Context
Positive, open
drainage ditches
used as major
features within the
landscape
Neg/Pos
Maximise
distance between
buildings and
watercourse,
avoid tall
buildings in close
proximity to
watercourses to
minimise shade
effects.
Integration as
part of SUD’s
strategy will
improve
status/quality of
water features
Mitigation
Options
Moderate
beneficial
Magnitude
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Arden Character
Tranquillity of rural landscape
Definition of Urban Edge
Low
Moderate
High
Variable.
High
High
Variable
High
Moderate
Moderate
Existing Land Uses
Character of campus
Local Woods
Trees
Hedges
Open Aspect
Water Features
Water Courses
Footpaths
Existing site users
WITHIN SITE
Moderate
Openness of Green Belt
SETTING
Receptor
Sensitivity
High
Low
Low
Low
Potentially high magnitude of positive
effects
Low
Low
Major
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Magnitude
TABLE 16 : SIGNIFICANCE OF LANDSCAPE IMPACTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Moderate
No change
Negligible
Negligible
Minor adverse
Moderate beneficial
Negligible adverse
Negligible adverse
Moderate adverse in loss of rural character
Major beneficial in character of campus
Moderate beneficial
Moderate adverse
Moderate adverse
Moderate adverse
Significance
Houses on south side
Cromwell Lane, Burtons
Green
NGR 272765
Walkers on footpath
W168 from Coventry
Way to Cromwell Lane,
Burtons Green
Users of public park,
Park Road Burton
Green,
NGR 278771
Drivers heading south
on Westwood Heath
Road
NGR276767
School on Charter
Avenue Tile Hill
NGR288774
Houses to north of
Westwood Heath Road
NGR 288765
15 Properties within
Cryfield Heights South
A249
NGR 305 749
2
3
4
6
9
19
Receptor
1
Ref
Daylight
24hr
1.1-2.0
0.3-2
24hr
24hr
1.8-2.3
1.0-1.5
Daylight
Daylight
1.6-2.0
1.7-2.5
24hr
Duration of
View
2.0-2.6
Dist Km
Rural with existing
campus in full view
Open panorama
Suburban
Restricted /
Oblique
Suburban
Restricted
Urban edge
Open Panorama
Suburban
Restricted
Rural
Restricted view
Rural
Open Panorama
Context
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 4 storeys, adjacent housing
development will eliminate all views .
Sensitivity low due to limited extent and
distance of view
High views from bedrooms only. Mod
due to dist and lack of ground level
views. Existing buildings hide all views
below 4 storeys
Open view, all development on south
side of Heronbank will be highly visible
Low
High
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, intervening vegetation
will eliminate. Sensitivity low due to
limited extent of view, impact of existing
University buildings, and distance of
view but increased to moderate due to
number of recipients
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 4 storeys, adjacent housing
development will eliminate all views .
Sensitivity low due to limited extent of
view and screening effect of houses .
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, intervening vegetation
will eliminate. Sensitivity low due to
limited extent of view, impact of existing
University buildings, and distance of
view
High views from bedrooms only.
Existing buildings hide all views below 4
storeys Long distance view , small
number of private views affected.
Notes
Low
High
Low
Low
High for residents
Value
TABLE 17: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
High
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Sensitivity
Centenary Way above
Dalehouse Lane
Crackley
NGR 305735
Residents Frythe Close,
Crackley
NGR 304288
Drivers on A249 at NGR
302740 and 292731
Walkers on Coventry
Way
NGR 295736
Residents, Layes Hills
Crackley
NGR 292730
Walkers on footpath
W164 from Crackley to
Cryfield Grange Road
plus permissive footpath
by Canley Brook
Walkers on footpath
Crackley Farm –
Westwood Heath Road
NGR 292 743
Drivers- walkers on
Cryfield Grange Lane
NGR 294748
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Receptor
20
Ref
24hr
Daylight
24hr
1.5-1.6
1.8
2.5
Daylight
24hr
1.25km
0.7km
Daylight
24hr
2.8
1.0-1.5
Daylight
Duration of
View
2.3
Dist Km
Rural
Restricted view
Rural
Restricted view
Rural
Variable character,
panoramas from
elevated positions,
Suburban
Open panorama
Rural
Restricted view
Rural
Glimpse through
hedgerow
Suburban
Open panorama
Rural
Restricted
Context
High for walkers
Moderate to low
for moderists
High for walkers
on footpath
High
Low
Low
Low- Moderate,
Limited field of
vision, high
number of
recipients
Low
Low
Value
TABLE 17: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Viewed through roadside hedges. Much
of the site obscured by Whitefield
Coppice which would obscure buildings
up to 2 storeys high
Extent of view limited by Roughknowles
Wood and Whitefield Coppice.
Potential views of tall buildings only, up
to 2 storeys obscured by intermediate
vegetation.
Visibility of campus restricted from many
positions by topography and vegetation
but isolated vantage points provide open
panoramas onto the campus
View form north facing windows of
properties. Vegetation, trees / hedges
will eliminate all views up to 3 storeys
Views of campus restricted to very short
length of route, Embankments and
hedgerows combine to restrict nearly all
potential views
View contained by roadside hedges.
Not possible to see any of existing
buildings including 2 storey sports
pavilion with its steeply pitched roof.
Experienced by large number of
recipients
View from north facing windows of small
number of properties. Vegetation, trees /
hedges will eliminate all views up to 3
storeys
View from green of Kenilworth golf
course. View filtered by on site
vegetation
Notes
Moderate
Moderate
Variable,
High from key
vantage points
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Sensitivity
Drivers on Cryfield
Grange Road
NGR 300747
Walkers on path along
northern boundary
NGR 290760
Walkers on path
Crackley Lane to
Westwood Heath Road
past Hurst Farm
NGR 284754
Walkers/ Drivers on
Crackley Lane at gate
to County Showground
NGR 284756
Houses on Crackley
Lane
NGR 282757
Drivers on Bockendon
Road
NGR 281766
34
36
37
38
39
Receptor
30
Ref
Daylight
24hr
24hr
24hr
0.6-1.4km
0.6-1.4km
1.1-1.8km
Daylight
0.1 -0.7
0.5-1km
24hr
Duration of
View
0.7km
Dist Km
Rural
Restricted view
Rural with existing
campus in full view
Open Panorama
Rural with existing
campus in full view
Open Panorama
Rural with existing
campus in full view
Open Panorama
Rural edge
Restricted
Rural
Open Panorama
Context
Low
High but for only
a few private
residents
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, vegetation will
eliminate. Sensitivity low due to limited
extent of view and impact of existing
University buildings
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, vegetation, topography
and existing buildings will eliminate.
Sensitivity low due to impact of existing
University buildings and small number of
recipients
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, vegetation will
eliminate. Sensitivity moderate due to
distance and impact of existing
University buildings. View only
experienced for limited period. Possible
for motorists on Crackley Lane to
experience same view but only through
gate on Crackley Lane.
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, vegetation will
eliminate.
High for walkers
High for users of
County Fare site
Full view of site from close quarters.
However boundary hedges and
earthmounds to the campus do restrict
inward views. Visual quality of the site
already compromised by presence of
existing Heronbank Residences
View only possible through gateway.
Development already intrudes on this
view in the form of the Sports Pavilion,
Cryfield Residences and Central
Campus East.
Notes
High
High for
pedestrians,
Moderate to low
for motorists due
to limited extent
of view
Value
TABLE 17: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Sensitivity
Walkers on Coventry
Way and Footpath
W169 to south of Black
Waste Wood
NGR 272757
Properties along
Featherbed Lane
NGR 291 761
Walkers on permissive
path around site
perimeter
45
46
Receptor
40
Ref
Daylight
24hr
Daylight
0.2-0.8
0.1-0.5
Duration of
View
1.9-2.6km
Dist Km
Rural/Campus
Rural
Views restricted
due to vegetation
and mounding
Rural
Restricted view
Context
Moderate
High
Low
Value
TABLE 17: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Many sections of this path have limited
views of existing buildings due to
screening effects of existing vegetation
and mounding
Potentially high sensitive due to close
proximity, but dense boundary
vegetation and high mounding have
eliminated inward views. Small number
of recipients
Potential views of tall buildings only,
below 3 storeys, intermediary vegetation
will eliminate. Sensitivity low due to
limited extent of view, impact of existing
University buildings, and distance of
view
Notes
High
Moderate
Low
Sensitivity
1
Ref
Houses on south side
Cromwell Lane,
Burtons Green
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
soften impacts.
Open view across fields.
Viewed against existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Up to 3rd floor of
buildings at southern end
of site screened by
Heronbank.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Effect
2.0-2.6
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings for
considerable time.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary and by
intermediate blocks of
vegetation. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Temporary, up to 15
years
Duration of Effect
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Mitigation Options
Low
Moderate
Magnitude
Walkers on footpath
W168 from Coventry
Way to Cromwell Lane,
Burtons Green
Users of public park,
Park Road Burton
Green,
NGR 278771
3
Receptor
2
Ref
Largely hidden by new
residential developments
to south
As 15
No operational
effects
Open view across fields.
Viewed against existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Up to 3rd floor of
buildings at southern
end of site screened by
Heronbank.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Possible views of
tops of cranes
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
soften impacts.
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Effect
1.7-2.5
1.6-2.0
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
No effect
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings for
considerable time.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary and by
intermediate blocks of
vegetation. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Temporary, up to 15
years
Duration of Effect
None necessary
Not possible to mitigate due
to height of cranes
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Mitigation Options
None
Negligible
Low
Moderate
Magnitude
4
Ref
Drivers heading south
on Westwood Heath
Road NGR 277767
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
soften impacts.
Viewed against upper
floors of existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Up to 3rd floor of
buildings at southern end
of site screened by
Heronbank.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Effect
1.8-2.3
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings for
considerable time.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary and by
intermediate blocks of
vegetation. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Temporary, up to 15
years
Duration of Effect
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Mitigation Options
Low
Low
Magnitude
6
Ref
School on Charter
Avenue Tile Hill
NGR 288774
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
soften impacts
Viewed against upper
floors of existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Up to 3rd floor of
buildings at southern end
of site screened by
Heronbank
Operational
Possible views of
buildings that
exceed 3 storeys
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Effect
1.1-2.0
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary at lower
levels but long term
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings for
considerable time.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary and by
intermediate blocks of
vegetation. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Temporary up to 15
years
Duration of Effect
Possible to reduce impacts
at lower levels of buildings
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Mitigation Options
Low
Low
Magnitude
Houses to north of
Westwood Heath Road
Approx 15 properties
within Cryfield Heights
south A249
19
Receptor
9
Ref
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
soften impacts
Viewed against upper
floors of existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Up to 3rd floor of
buildings at southern end
of site screened by
Heronbank
Viewed in context of
existing buildings, sports
pavilion, Cryfield
residences .
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
above Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Effect
1.0-1.5
0.3-2
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but long term
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings for
considerable time.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary and by
intermediate blocks of
vegetation. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Temporary up to 15
years
Duration of Effect
Could increase on site
planting but unlikely to
achieve significant effect
within construction period
Possible to reduce impacts
at lower levels of buildings
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to screening
effects of existing
vegetation to west and
north of the site
Mitigation Options
High
Low
Low
Magnitude
Centenary Way above
Dalehouse Lane
Crackley
NGR 305735
Residents Fryth Close,
Crackley
NGR 304288
Drivers on A249 at
NGR 302740 and
292731
21
22
NGR 305749
Receptor
20
Ref
Viewed through
hedgerows
Viewed through hedges
and field trees
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
above Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Viewed through hedges
and field trees
Viewed through
vegetation within golf
course. Only upper
storeys of buildings likely
to be seen (4th storey)
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to south of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Viewed through
vegetation within golf
course
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
campus buildings.
Existing trees along
Canley Brook reduce
impact of building south
of Cryfiled Residences .
Lower floors up to 3
storeys will be screened
in summer.
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
above Heronbank
residences
Effect
1.5-1.6
2.8
2.3
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years
Permanent only above
three storeys as
intermediate vegetation
cut out all low levels
views
Temporary, up to 15
years
Permanent only above
three storeys as
intermediate vegetation
cut out all low levels
views
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside Canley Brook
Duration of Effect
Could increase on site
planting but unlikely to
achieve significant effect
within construction period
Mitigation unlikely to be
effective as everything
below 3rd floor already
screened.
Ineffective due to distance
of view and time frame of
development
Mitigation unlikely to be
effective as everything
below 3rd floor already
screened.
Ineffective due to distance
of view and time frame of
development
On site planting alongside
Canley Brook and
alongside road to south of
Cryfield would increase
screening effect after 5- 10
years. After 10 years
effects of buildings up to 3
storeys should be
restricted.
Green roofs to buildings
may reduce impact when
viewed from elevated
vantage points.
Mitigation Options
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Magnitude
Walkers on Coventry
Way
NGR 295736
Residents Layes Hills,
Crackley
NGR 292730
Walkers on footpath
W164 from Crackley to
Cryfield Grange Road
NGR 296742 plus
permissive footpath by
Canley Brook
24
26
Receptor
23
Ref
Construction
Visibility of Cranes,
compounds,
vehicles.
Viewed in context of
existing buildings, sports
pavilion, Cryfield House.
Cranes on rising ground
just south west of
Heronbank will be most
visible.
Viewed through hedges
and field trees
Viewed through
hedgerows. Only upper
storeys of buildings likely
to be seen (4th storey)
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
above Heronbank
residences
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
above Heronbank
residences
Viewed as a glimpse
through hedgerows
Construction
Visibility of Cranes
Viewed through hedges
and field trees
Viewed through
hedgerows. Only upper
storeys of buildings likely
to be seen (4th storey)
Operational
Potential view of
new 4 storey
buildings, but likely
to be screened by
topography and
hedgerows
Construction
Visibility of Cranes
Context
Effect
1.0-1.5
2.5
1.8
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years.
Top floors of 4 storey
buildings may be
permanent
Temporary, up to 15
years
Top floors of 4 storey
buildings may be
permanent
Temporary, up to 15
years
Permanent only above
three storeys as roadside
hedges cut out all low
levels views
Duration of Effect
Proposed planting along
south side of existing
service road will reduce
effects, but not for 10
years. Impossible to
reduce impacts of cranes
Mitigation unlikely to be
effective as everything
below 3rd floor already
screened.
Ineffective due to distance
of view and time frame of
development
Proposed planting along
north side of playing fields
will reduce effects of new
buildings after 10 years up
to 2 storeys and after 20
years up to 3 storeys.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimising buildings on
skyline greatly reduces
potential effects
Impossible to reduce
impacts of cranes
Mitigation unlikely to be
effective as everything
below 3rd floor already
screened.
Mitigation Options
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Magnitude
28
27
Ref
Drivers- walkers on
Cryfield Grange Lane
NGR 294 748
Walkers on footpath
Crackley Farm –
Westwood Heath Road
NGR 292743
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing buildings, Sports
pavilion, Cryfield House.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Viewed against existing
buildings, Sports
pavilion, Cryfield House.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Buildings at
northern end of site
screened by Whitefield
Coppice.
Viewed in context of
existing buildings, sports
pavilion, Cryfield House.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to south of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Viewed against existing
buildings, sports pavilion,
Cryfield House.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Buildings at
northern end of site
screened by Whitefield
Coppice.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings, car parks
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Context
Effect
0.7km
1.25km
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years.
Development between
sports fields and
Heronbank will be visible
permanently if more than
3 storeys high
Temporary, up to 15
years.
Development between
sports fields and
Heronbank will be visible
permanently if more than
3 storeys high
Duration of Effect
Proposed planting along
north side of playing fields
will reduce effects, but not
for 10 years. Impossible to
reduce impacts of cranes
Proposed planting along
north side of playing fields
will reduce effects of new
buildings after 10 years up
to 2 storeys and after 20
years up to 3 storeys.
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect. Retention of hill top
as open green space,
minimising buildings on
skyline greatly reduces
potential effects
Proposed planting along
north side of playing fields
will reduce effects, but not
for 10 years. Impossible to
reduce impacts of cranes
Proposed planting along
north side of playing fields
will reduce effects of new
buildings after 10 years up
to 2 storeys and after 20
years up to 3 storeys.
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect. Retention of hill top
as open green space,
minimising buildings on
skyline greatly reduces
potential effects
Mitigation Options
High
High
High
High
Magnitude
30
Ref
Drivers on Cryfield
Grange Road
NGR 300747
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing buildings, sports
pavilion, Cryfield
residences .
New buildings viewed in
context of existing
campus buildings.
Lower floors up to 3
storeys will be screened
in summer.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to south of
Heronbank
residences
Filtered view through
hedgerows. Viewed
against existing
buildings, sports pavilion
Cryfield House.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Buildings at
northern end of site
screened by Whitefield
Coppice.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to south of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Context
Effect
1.0-1.5
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings.
Temporary, up to 15
years
Development between
sports fields and
Heronbank will be visible
permanently if more than
3 storeys high
Duration of Effect
Proposed planting along
north side of playing fields
will reduce effects of new
buildings after 10 years up
to 2 storeys and after 20
years up to 3 storeys.
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect. Retention of hill top
as open green space,
minimising buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Could increase on site
planting but unlikely to
achieve significant effect
within construction period
Proposed planting along
north side of playing fields
will reduce effects of new
buildings after 10 years up
to 2 storeys and after 20
years up to 3 storeys.
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect. Retention of hill top
as open green space,
minimising buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Mitigation Options
High
High
Moderate
Magnitude
Walkers on path along
northern boundary
NGR 290760
Walkers on path
Crackley Lane to
Westwood Heath Road
past Hurst Farm
NGR 284754
36
Receptor
34
Ref
Viewed against existing
Heronbank residences.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
north west . Up to 3rd
floor of buildings at
southern end of site
screened by perimeter
mounding and
Heronbank
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Main Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just north of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees will soften impacts.
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences. Cranes on
development plots just
south of Heronbank will
be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
screen impacts.
.
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Context
Effect
0.5-1km
0.1 -0.7
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Proposed intensification of
planting along north side of
site will reduce effects, but
not for 10 years.
Impossible to reduce
impacts of cranes
Additional intensification of
boundary planting will
largely eliminate inward
views.
Potential short rotation
coppice planting in north
west corner of the site will
help to restrict inward views
Temporary.
Already screened by
planting alongside
northern boundary.
Buildings north of
Heronbank viewed
against backdrop of
these buildings. South of
Heronbank lower floors
screened by existing
buildings
Temporary, up to 15
years
Mitigation will have little or
no effect within time frame
of development
Mitigation Options
Temporary, up to 15
years
Duration of Effect
High
High
High
Magnitude
37
Ref
Walkers/ Drivers on
Crackley Lane at gate
to County Showground
NGR 284756
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just north of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees will soften impacts.
Viewed through
hedgerows and boundary
trees.
Viewed against existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on Main
Campus East. However
context of this side of the
campus still green when
viewed from west.
Buildings at southern
end of site screened by
Whitefield Coppice.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
Context
Effect
0.6-1.4km
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Duration of Effect
Proposed intensification of
planting along north side of
site will reduce effects, but
not for 10 years.
Impossible to reduce
impacts of cranes
Proposed intensification of
boundary planting along
north side of site will reduce
effects of new buildings
after 10 years up to 2
storeys and after 20 years
up to 3 storeys. After 50
years all floors likely to be
screened .
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline and greatly
reducing potential effects
Potential Biomass planting
in north west corner of
campus would mitigate low
level views.
Mitigation Options
High
High
Magnitude
38
Ref
Houses on Crackley
Lane
NGR 282757
Receptor
Context
Viewed through
hedgerows. And
boundary trees.
Viewed against existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Buildings at
southern end of site
screened by Whitefield
Coppice.
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just north of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees will soften impacts.
Effect
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
compounds, vehicles
0.6-1.4km
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Duration of Effect
Proposed intensification of
planting along north side of
site will reduce effects, but
not for 10 years.
Impossible to reduce
impacts of cranes
Proposed intensification of
boundary planting along
north side of site will reduce
effects of new buildings
after 10 years up to 2
storeys and after 20 years
up to 3 storeys. After 50
years all floors likely to be
screened .
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline greatly reduces
potential effects
Potential Biomass planting
in north west corner of
campus would mitigate low
level views.
Mitigation Options
High
High
Magnitude
39
Ref
Drivers on Bockendon
Road
NGR 281766
Receptor
Context
Viewed through
hedgerows and boundary
trees.
Viewed against existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Buildings at
southern end of site
screened by Whitefield
Coppice.
Glimpsed view through
hedgerow. Viewed in
context of existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
buildings in Central
Campus East. Cranes
on rising ground just
north of Heronbank will
be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
soften impacts.
Effect
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
1.1-1.8km
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings. South
of Heronbank lower
floors screened by
existing buildings
Duration of Effect
Proposed intensification of
planting along north side of
site will reduce effects, but
not for 10 years.
Impossible to reduce
impacts of cranes
Proposed intensification of
boundary planting along
north side of site will reduce
effects of new buildings
after 10 years up to 2
storeys and after 20 years
up to 3 storeys. After 50
years all floors likely to be
screened .
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Potential short rotation
coppice planting in north
west corner of campus
would mitigate low level
views.
Mitigation Options
Moderate
High
Magnitude
40
Ref
Walkers on Coventry
Way and Footpath
W169 to south of Black
Waste Wood
NGR272757
Receptor
Viewed in context of
existing Heronbank
residences and upper
storeys of buildings in
Central Campus East.
Cranes on rising ground
just south of Heronbank
will be most visible.
Boundary hedges and
trees plus intermediate
blocks of vegetation will
soften impacts.
Glimpsed view through
hedgerow. Viewed
against existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Up to 3rd floor of
Buildings at southern
end of site screened by
Heronbank.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
Context
Effect
1.9-2.6km
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings for
considerable time.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings .
South of Heronbank
lower floors screened by
existing buildings
Duration of Effect
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Proposed intensification of
boundary planting along
north side of site will reduce
effects of new buildings
after 10 years up to 2
storeys and after 20 years
up to 3 storeys. After 50
years all floors likely to be
screened .
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Mitigation Options
Moderate
Moderate
Magnitude
45
Ref
Properties along
Featherbed Lane
NGR 291 761
Receptor
Operational
Views of new 4
storey buildings west
of Lakeside
Rural, views from rear
gardens of properties
Open view across fields.
Viewed against existing
Heronbank residences
and upper storeys of
major buildings on
Central Campus East.
However context of this
side of the campus still
green when viewed from
west. Up to 3rd floor of
Buildings at southern end
of site screened by
Heronbank.
Operational
View of new 4 storey
buildings particularly
to north of
Heronbank
residences
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Context
Effect
0.2-0.8
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Medium term. Existing
trees and hedges along
north west boundary
already screen out most
views. Additional Oak
saplings planted around
campus boundary in
2000 will increase
screening effects.
Temporary, up to 15
years
Temporary at lower
levels but permanent
above three storeys as
any mitigation planting
will not achieve maximum
4 storey height of
proposed buildings for
considerable time.
Lower storeys already
screened by planting
alongside northern
boundary and by
intermediate blocks of
vegetation. Buildings
north of Heronbank
viewed against backdrop
of these buildings .
South of Heronbank
lower floors screened by
existing buildings
Duration of Effect
Further planting along this
boundary would increase
depth of tree belt thereby
increasing effectiveness of
visual screen, even in
winter months.
Planting will not have any
effect on reducing visibility
of cranes. Placing the
buildings and the cranes
further away from the north
west boundary will minimise
the angle of view and
reduce overshadowing
Mitigation will have little or
no effect due to distance of
view and effects of existing
blocks of vegetation
Whitefield Coppice
provides greatest mitigating
effect.
Retention of hill top as
open green space,
minimises buildings on
skyline greatly reducing
potential effects
Mitigation Options
Low
Moderate – High
Moderate
Magnitude
46
Ref
Walkers on permissive
path on site perimeter
Receptor
Operational
Views of new 4
storey buildings west
of Lakeside
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Effect
Rural landscape,
currently agricultural
land, with backdrop of
University Residences
Context
0.1-0.5
Distance
TABLE 18 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Permanent
Buildings will be viewed
in close proximity to
boundary path
Temporary, up to 15
years
Duration of Effect
Could mitigate effects of
buildings by planting along
inside of existing boundary
vegetation. Effects could
also be reduced by
maintaining greatest
possible distance between
new buildings and
boundary
Not possible to mitigate
effect of cranes by planting.
Effects could be reduced by
maintaining greatest
possible distance between
new buildings and
boundary
Mitigation Options
High
High
Magnitude
Walkers on footpath Crackley Farm – Westwood Heath Road
NGR 293740
Drivers- walkers on Cryfield Grange Lane
NGR 294748
Drivers on Cryfield Grange Lane at Cryfield Grange Farm
NGR 300747
27
28
30
Houses Frythe Close Crackley
NGR 304288
21
Walkers on footpath from Crackley to Cryfield Grange Road 742296 and University and
Permissive Footpath from footpath 164 to footpath 165X NGR 294744
Walkers on Centenary Way, Crackley
NGR 305735
20
26
Properties within Cryfield Heights south A249
NGR 304748
19
Houses, Layes Hills, Crackley
NGR292730
Houses to north of Westwood Heath Road
NGR 290764
9
24
School on Charter Avenue Tile Hill
NGR 288774
6
Drivers on A249 at NGR 740302 and 731292
Drivers heading east on Westwood Heath Road NGR 276767
4
Walkers on Coventry Way
NGR 295736
Users of public park, Park Road Burton Green,
NGR 278771
3
23
Walkers on footpath W168 from Coventry Way to Cromwell Lane, Burtons Green
2
22
Houses on east side Cromwell Lane, Burtons Green
NGR271764
1
Description
TABLE 19 : SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACT : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
Mod
Mod
High
Mod
High
High
Variable
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Magnitude
None
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Mod
Low
Low
Low
Sensitivity
Major
adverse
Moderate –Major
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Major
adverse
Minor
adverse
Minor
adverse
No change
Minor
adverse
No change
Major
adverse
Minor
adverse
Minor adverse
Minor
adverse
Minor
adverse
Minor
adverse
Minor
adverse
Significance
Walkers on path along northern boundary
NGR 290760
Walkers on path Crackley Lane to Westwood Heath Road past Hurst Farm
NGR 284754
Walkers/ Drivers on Crackley Lane at gate to County Showground
NGR 284756
Houses on Crackley Lane
NGR 282757
Drivers on Bockendon Road
NGR 281766
Walkers on Coventry Way and Footpath W169
NGR272757
Residents of properties on Featherbed Lane
NGR 291 761
Walkers on permissive path on site perimeter
34
36
37
38
39
40
45
46
Description
TABLE 19 : SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACT : CENTRAL CAMPUS WEST
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Mod
Mod
High
Mod
Sensitivity
Moderate
Moderate
Mod
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Magnitude
Major
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Minor
adverse
Minor adverse
Mod
adverse
Mod
adverse
Major
adverse
Moderate
adverse
Significance
General Operations
•
•
•
•
Water Features
•
•
Footpaths
Existing site
users
•
•
•
•
Open Space
Water Courses
•
•
Hedges
•
Trees
Local Woods
Character of
campus
WITHIN SITE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Land Use
Aspect
•
•
•
Storage
Character of
Suburban
Fringe
Structures
•
•
•
Buildings
Definition of
Urban Edge
Tranquillity of
rural landscape
•
Construction
Arden
Character
•
Vehicles + Access
•
Cranes
Openness of
Green Belt
SETTING
Receptors
Paths
Car Parks
Roads
TABLE 20 : POTENTIAL SOURCES OF IMPACT : GIBBET HILL
Trees
•
•
Hedges
•
•
Screens
•
•
Ornamental Shrubs
•
•
Short Grass
•
Building Occupant
•
•
•
Pedestrians
•
•
•
Cars
•
•
•
Sports people
Users
Landscape
Ditches
Water Features
Mounds
Earthworks
Not actually within area
defined as Arden but
adjacent at closest point
Adjacent along Gibbet
Hill Road
Adjacent along
southwest and north east
boundaries
Arden Character
Definition of Urban
Edge
Character and Quality
of Suburban Fringe
NA
No blocks of woodland
adjacent
NA
Hedges adjacent to
development are of low
landscape value
NA
Adjacent to development
site
Character of campus
Local Woods
Trees
Hedges
Open Space
Water Features
WITHIN SITE
Coventry Green Belt
adjacent.
Dist
Openness of Green
Belt
SETTING
Receptor
Moderate - Poor quality of open
space provision at present
Locally important
Moderate
Low
No specimens of great significance
although collectively of moderate
quality
Low
Low
Moderate
NA
Close relationship between
University and adjacent residences
makes this an important interface
Low – Moderate.
Low
Well defined urban edge normally
discourages suburbanisation of
Green Belt. Not an issue here as
development already exists to west
of Gibbet Hill Rd
Low
Gibbet Hill site does not have same
level of architectural presence as
Main Campus East
Important in terms of local
distinctiveness
High
Moderate
Important buffer effect between
Gibbet Hill and Central Campus
East.
Importance
High
Value
TABLE 21 : SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : GIBBET HILL
Retention beneficial, but modification or loss
would not be significant in terms of overall
campus landscape
Modest encroachment on spaces would have
limited impact,
Robust
Some trees of low- moderate quality could be
lost without detrimental effect
NA
Could accommodate additional buildings of
higher architectural merit
Moderately robust, development needs to be
in keeping with surrounding suburban context
Robust due to existence of development both
sides of road
Moderately robust. Could accommodate
some degree of change so long as major
characteristics and elements are retained
Fragile due to narrow width of green wedge
Robustness : Ability to accommodate
change
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
NA
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
High
Sensitvity
Existing site users
Receptor
NA
Dist
Mod
Value
Main recipients of landscape quality
Importance
TABLE 21 : SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : GIBBET HILL
Over populated site could devalue positive
qualities of the campus
Robustness : Ability to accommodate
change
Moderate
Sensitvity
Character and
Quality of Suburban
Fringe
Definition of Urban
Edge
Arden Parkland
Character
Openness of Green
Belt
SETTING
Receptor
2 years
max
Permanent
2 years
max
No change
Scale of
development
modest and not
actually within
landscape that is
characteristic of
Arden Parkland
Negligible effect
Negligible effect
not actually on
urban edge as the
outer line of south
development is to
south-west of
Gibbet Hill Rd at
this point
Negligible effect.
Construction
General construction,
cranes, site traffic
Operational
Replacement of existing
Estates Office with
building up to 3 storeys
Construction
General construction,
cranes, site traffic
Operational
Replacement of existing
Estates Office with
building up to 3 storeys
Construction
General construction,
cranes, site traffic
2 years
max
Permanent
Permanent
2 years
max
Duration
Scale of
development
modest , and not
actually within
Green Belt
Low
Scale of Effect
Operational
Replacement of existing
Estates Office with
building up to 3 storeys
General construction,
cranes, site traffic
Construction
Effect
TABLE 22 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : GIBBET HILL
Adjacent to
suburban
fringe on
Adjacent to
Gibbet Hill
Road
Adjacent on
south west
boundary
Adjacent to
Coventry
Green Belt
Dist
Suburban
Suburban, within
area of low
density residential
Suburban, within
area of low
density residential
Suburban,
although adjacent
to green wedge at
north west end
Context
None necessary
None necessary
No effect
Potentially
marginal
benefit due
None necessary
None necessary
Boundary planting
could be reinforced
locally
Mitigation
Options
No effect
No effect
No effect
Neg/Pos
Low – no
change
No change
No change
No change
No change
Low
Low
Magnitude
Trees
SETTING
Local Woods
Character of campus
WITHIN SITE
Receptor
Potentially high but
likely to be low
No effect
Operational
No effect
Construction
General construction,
traffic, dust, installation of
services
No direct effects
Construction
Dust, pollution from
surface water run off
2 years
max
Permanent
2 years
max
Permanent
Negligible
Operational
Development involves
minor infill only .
NA
0.5 Km
NA
south –east
and north east
boundary
Permanent
2 years
max
Dist
Duration
Low – Moderate
Tightness of site
will compound
construction
effects
Negligible, limited
effect on adjacent
residential area but
buildings are only
3 storeys.
Scale of Effect
Construction
General construction,
cranes, site traffic
Operational
Development involves
minor infill only
Effect
TABLE 22 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : GIBBET HILL
Campus
Green Belt to north
Existing campus
Context
Negative
No effect
Possible
negative
effects
Potentially
positive due
to poor
quality of
buildings
being
replaced
Negative in
short term
adjacent to
development
to
replacement
of Estates
Office with
building of
higher merit
Neg/Pos
Sensitive
construction
methodologies to
minimise impact
NA
Sensitive
construction
methodologies to
minimise impact
Good design will
promote sense of
place
Sensitive
construction
methodologies to
minimise impact
Existing vegetation
adjacent to north
west boundary
allowed to develop
Mitigation
Options
Potentially
high but
should be low
No change
Low
Low
LowModerate
No change
Magnitude
Open Space
Hedges
Receptor
Potentially high
due to constraints
of site
Minimal nature of
development
unlikely to affect
open space
provision
Operational
Loss due to development
of new buildings
Minimal,
development not
shown where
hedges exist
Operational
Potential loss of species
rich hedges
Construction
General construction,
traffic, dust,
Potentially high but
is likely to be low
Not possible to
determine until
detailed
development
proposals
prepared
Scale of tree loss
likely to be
negligible.
Tightness of site
will compound
construction
effects
Scale of Effect
Construction
General construction,
traffic, dust, installation of
services
Operational
Potential for loss of
individual specimens.
Effect
Permanent
2 years
max
Permanent
2 years
max
Permanent
Duration
TABLE 22 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : GIBBET HILL
NA
NA
Dist
Campus
Campus
Context
Positive if
open space
well planned
Negative
due to
tightness of
site
Potentially
negative if
hedgerows
lost.
Negative
Potentially
negative if
large
numbers of
tree lost.
Positive if
part of a site
wide tree
management
strategy
Neg/Pos
Good design will
maintain quality of
campus landscape
Working space
must be kept to
minimum
Strengthening and
management of
existing hedgerows.
Sensitive
construction
methodologies to
minimise impact
High value trees will
be protected under
Planning process
Mitigation
Options
Low
Low
Low Potentially
moderate
magnitude of
positive
effects if
management
regime
adopted
Low
Low
Magnitude
Water Features
Receptor
Potentially high
due to tightness of
site
High if pond
removed,
moderate if
retained and
subject to pollution
Operational
Pond may be removed,
could be replaced
Scale of Effect
Construction
Pond may be removed
Effect
Permanent
2 years
max
Duration
TABLE 22 : MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : GIBBET HILL
NA
Dist
Campus
Context
Marginally
negative due
to potential
construction
effects
Negative
Neg/Pos
Maximise distance
between buildings
and water feature,
avoid tall buildings
in close proximity to
avoid shade effects.
Pond could be
replaced
Sensitive
construction
methodologies to
minimise impact
Mitigation
Options
High
High
Magnitude
No change
Character and Quality of Suburban
Fringe
Moderate
NA
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Character of campus
Local Woods
Trees
Hedges
Open Space
Water Features
Existing site users
WITHIN SITE
No change
Low
Moderate
Definition of Urban Edge
Magnitude
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Potentially moderate magnitude of positive
effects
Low
No change
Low
No change
Low
Low
High
Arden Character
Sensitivity
Openness of Green Belt
SETTING
Receptor
TABLE 23 : SIGNIFICANCE OF LANDSCAPE IMPACTS : GIBBET HILL
Moderate
Negligible adverse or no change
Negligible beneficial
Negligible adverse or no change
Negligible adverse or no change
Negligible adverse or no change
Negligible beneficial
Negligible beneficial
No change
No change
Negligible adverse
Significance
Residents of 15
residential properties in
Cromwell Lane, Burtons
Green NGR 272 763
Approx 5 properties
within Morreall
Meadows
NGR 307754
Motorists on Gibbet Hill
Rd
NGR 305 753
Approx 5 properties
along Gibbet Hill Road
NGR 306753
Walkers on footpaths
within Canley Valley,
particularly from
vantage point by Sports
Pavilion
NGR 296 755
17
18
19
32
Receptor
1
Ref
24hr
0.5
24hr
24 hr
Adjacent
1.0km
24hr
24hr
Duration of
View
0.1-0.5
3.5km
Dist Km
Rural
Suburban /
Existing Campus
Suburban/
existing Campus
Suburban /
Existing Campus
Suburban
Context
TABLE 24: SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : GIBBET HILL
Campus screened by roadside
hedgerow. Viewed by high number of
people.
Only sensitive to development of 3
storeys or more on south west boundary
Moderate
Low
Only structures over 3 storeys, existing
campus buildings cannot be seen from
this point
Only sensitive to development of 2
storeys or more. Viewed by low number
of people.
Moderate
High for those
residents with a
direct view
High
Only structures over 3 storeys likely to be
seen
Notes
Low due to
distance
Value
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Sensitivity
Residents of 15
properties in Cromwell
Lane, Burtons Green
NGR 272 763
Approx 5 properties
within Morreall
Meadows
NGR 754307
Motorists on Gibbet Hill
Rd
NGR 305 753
Approx 5 properties
along Gibbet Hill Road
NGR 306753
17
18
19
Receptor
1
Ref
Viewed over roadside
hedges and trees
Viewed over roadside
hedges and trees.
Viewed over trees along
Gibbet Hill Rd to east
Operation
Visibility of 3 storey
buildings
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Viewed over existing
boundary vegetation
which provides
screening up to 2
storeys
Operation
Visibility of 3 storey
buildings
Construction
Visibility of cranes,
working areas,
vehicles
Viewed over existing
boundary vegetation
which provides
screening up to 2
storeys
Viewed across Central
Campus West. Minimal
effect
Operation
Visibility of 3 storey
buildings
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Viewed across Central
Campus West. Minimal
effect
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Effect
TABLE 25: MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : GIBBET HILL
0.5
Adjacent
0.1-0.5
3.5km
Distance
2 years max
May be permanently
visible dependent on
proximity to Gibbet Hill Rd
2 years max
2nd and 3rd floors may be
visible for 10 years until
vegetation matures
Cranes should be placed
at maximum distance from
boundary to reduce angle
of view
Mitigation may not be
required, Visibility of
building may help to
announce University’s
presence
Cranes should be placed
at maximum distance from
Buildings should be placed
at maximum distance from
boundary to reduce angle
of view and over looking.
Height of buildings should
be lowest at boundary
Cranes should be placed
at maximum distance from
boundary to reduce angle
of view
None required
No likely effect
2 years max
None required
Mitigation Options
2 years maximum
Duration of Effect
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate – High
Moderate
Moderate – High
Low
Low
Magnitude
32
Ref
Walkers on footpaths
within Canley Valley,
particularly from
vantage point by Sports
Pavilion
NGR 296 755
Receptor
Viewed across open
valley landscape of
Canley valley
No likely effect
Operation
No likely effect
Viewed over trees along
Gibbet Hill Rd to east.
Unlikely to be seen
Context
Construction
Visibility of cranes
Operation
Visibility of 3 storey
buildings
Effect
TABLE 25: MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : GIBBET HILL
1.0km
Distance
No likely effect
2 years max
No effects likely
Duration of Effect
None required
None required
Buildings should be placed
at maximum distance from
boundary to reduce angle
of view and over looking.
Height of buildings should
be lowest at boundary
Mitigation Options
Low
Low
Low
Magnitude
Houses on south side Cromwell Road Burtons Green
NGR 272763
Properties within Moreall Meadows
NGR 307754
Drivers on Gibbet Hill Road
NGR 305753
Properties along Gibbet Hill Road
NGR 306753
Walkers within the Canley Valley, particularly at Sports Pavilion
NGR 296755
1
17
18
19
32
Description
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Sensitivity
TABLE 26: SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACTS : GIBBET HILL
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Magnitude
Negligible
Minor
Moderate
Moderate
Negligible
Significance
Receptors
General Operations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trees
Hedges
Open Space
Water Courses
Existing site
users
Sports
participants
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vehicles + Access
Character of
campus
WITHIN SITE
Character of
Suburban Setting
SETTING
Cranes
•
•
•
•
Storage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Buildings
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roads
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Car Parks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Paths
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ditches
Water Features
Mounds
Earthworks
Trees
•
•
Hedges
•
•
Landscape
Screens
Structures
Ornamental Shrubs
•
Short Grass
•
Building Occupant
•
•
Users
•
•
Pedestrians
Construction
•
•
•
Cars
TABLE 27 : POTENTIAL SOURCES OF IMPACT : WESTWOOD
Sports people
Adjacent along western
edge
Openness of Greenbelt
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Character of campus
Trees
Hedges
Open Space
Footpaths
Existing site users
WITHIN SITE
Adjacent along north
and south east
boundaries
Dist
Character and Quality
of Suburban setting
SETTING
Receptor
Mod
Mod
Moderate in
terms of quality
but high in terms
of significance
High
High
Main recipients of landscape
quality
Existing routes not fundamental to
success of the site or circulation
Few areas of meaningful open
space. Better spaces toward
western boundary where
landscape has a parkland quality.
Variable.
Species poor hedges along
western boundary
Important collectively, and some
as individual specimens. Nearly all
trees within campus less than 100
years old. Some need to be
thinned out. Trees along west and
southern boundaries of greatest
significance
Buildings on west side of site have
sense of order but rest of buildings
of low status with little sense of
connectivity
Locally important in that this finger
of Green Belt separates the
Campus from residential properties
north of Westwood Heath Road
High
Low – Moderate
Low in context of wider suburban
areas
Importance
Low – Moderate.
Value
TABLE 28: SENSITIVITY OF LANDSCAPE RECEPTORS : WESTWOOD
Over population could devalue positive
aspects of campus.
Could be re-routed : Potential for improved
connections to Central Campus East
Lack of quality of existing external space
gives significant scope for enhancement
Hedges are of modest quality/potential for
enhancements
Trees of moderate quality could be lost
without detrimental effect
Lack of quality of existing building stock
gives significant scope for enhancement
Could be compromised by development that
is out of scale to the setting
Robust, could accommodate a range of
scales of development
Robustness : Ability to accommodate
change
Moderate
Low
Mod
Variable
High – Low
High
(collectively)
Variable
(individually)
Academic AreaLow/ Sports
PitchesModerate
High
Low
Sensitivity
Trees
Character of
campus
WITHIN SITE
Openness of
Greenbelt
Character and
Quality of Suburban
Setting
SETTING
Receptor
Construction
General construction,
installation of services
Potentially high
due to lack of
working space,
number and
size of trees
High in terms of
restructuring of
campus
Operational
Involves redevelopment
along eastern core of the
site & to north of athletics
track
High
Operational
Development to north of
athletics track could
compromise qualities of
Green Wedge
Low, will be
compounded by
lack of available
space
High related to
development
north of athletics
track
Construction
Construction
General construction,
cranes, traffic , dust,
fumes
Permanent
Negligible
Operational
Development within main
body of site involves infill
only
5 years
Permanent
5 years
Permanent
5 years
5 years
Duration
Low
Scale of
Effect
Construction
General construction,
cranes, traffic , dust,
fumes
Effect
Dist
Adjacent
NA
Within the
Green Belt
Surrounded
by
suburban
setting
TABLE 29: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : WESTWOOD
Good quality
tree population
Existing campus
Suburban /
Green Belt
Suburban
Context
None required but
associated landscape will
achieve high quality
setting
Sensitive construction
methods to minimise
impacts. Detailed
planning will avoid
sensitive trees
Negative
Reduced working area
will assist in mitigating
impact
None possible
Not possible to mitigate.
Screen planting will
slightly reduce visual
effects
None required
Sensitive construction
methods to minimise
impacts
Mitigation Options
Development
will deliver
improvement in
terms of quality
of campus
Negative
Negative
effects on
openness of
Green Belt
Negative
Negligible
change on
surroundings
Negative
Neg/Pos
Potentially
high
Moderate
Moderate
High locally
Low in wider
context
High
Low
Low
Magnitude
Open Space
Hedges
Receptor
Low – moderate
Minimal,
development
not shown
where hedges
exist
High to North of
athletics track
Operational
Potential loss of hedge
along west boundary but
unlikely to be affected
due to concentration of
development at east end
of site.
Hedges could be affected
by development to north
of athletics track
Construction
General construction,
installation of services,
traffic
Potentially high
due to lack of
working space
and length of
hedgerows
Not possible to
determine until
detailed
development
proposals
prepared
Scale of
Effect
Construction
General construction,
installation of services
Operational
Potential for loss of
individual specimens
Effect
5 years
Permanent
5 years
Permanent
Duration
Dist
NA
Adjacent
TABLE 29: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : WESTWOOD
Good open
space provision
existing
Strong
hedgerow
network
Context
Negative
Potentially
negative if
hedgerows
lost.
Positive if
hedges linked
into wider
network of
hedges
extending
across
campus.
Negative
Potentially
negative if
large numbers
of tree lost.
Positive if part
of a site wide
tree
management
strategy
Neg/Pos
Good design will provide
quality open space
framework
Strengthening and
management of existing
hedgerows.
Sensitive construction
methods to minimise
impacts. Detailed
planning will avoid
sensitive sections of
hedge
High value trees will be
protected under Planning
process
Mitigation Options
Low
Low
Potentially
high
magnitude of
positive
effects if site
wide
management
regime
adopted
Potentially
high
Low
(Probably)
Magnitude
Receptor
Operational
Loss due to development
of new buildings
Effect
Moderate loss
of open space,
impacts on
campus quality
Scale of
Effect
Permanent
Duration
TABLE 29: MAGNITUDE OF LANDSCAPE EFFECTS : WESTWOOD
Dist
Context
Marginally
negative
although large
part of
Westwood
remainopen
Neg/Pos
Good design will maintain
quality of Westwood
landscape
Mitigation Options
Low
Magnitude
High
Openness of Greenbelt
Academic Area-Low, Sports PitchesModerate
High (collectively)
Variable (individually)
Variable
High – Low
Mod
Low
Moderate
Trees
Hedges
Open Space
Footpaths
Existing site users
Sensitivity
Character of campus
WITHIN SITE
Low
Character and Quality of Suburban
setting
SETTING
Receptor
TABLE 30 : SIGNIFICANCE OF LANDSCAPE IMPACTS WESTWOOD
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Potentially high
Low (probably)
Moderate
High locally. Low in wider context
Low
Magnitude
Moderate
Minor
Moderate beneficial
Minor adverse
Minor adverse
Moderate-major beneficial
Moderate adverse
Negligible
Significance
Properties within
Charter Avenue
NGR 296 772
Residents to the north of
Westwood Heath Road
NGR 290 764
Properties along Kirby
Corner Road
NGR 300 767
Users of Sports facilities
to West of Westwood
NGR 296 768
Workers in commercial
premises at Westwood
Business Park
NGR 286 767
Drivers on Mitchell
Avenue
NGR 295 700
Drives on Kirby Corner
Road
NGR 296 764
9
11
41
42
43
44
Receptor
8
Ref
Daylight
Working hours
24 Hr
24 Hr
Adjacent along
Western
boundary
1.3km
0.35km
0.2 km
Green wedge
Green Wedge
Urban Fringe
Green Wedge
Suburban , set
within an area
that is used for
sports
Suburban
24 Hr
Facing across
Gibbet Hill Rd
Suburban
Existing sports
facilities
24 hr
0.2 km
Suburban
Context
24 hr
Duration of
View
Adjacent along
northern
boundary
Dist
TABLE 31 : SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RECEPTORS : WESTWOOD
Moderate
Moderate
Viewed over hedgerows and behind
fencing of athletics track
Glimpsed view through 1.5m high
deciduous roadside hedges.
Western boundary of University Sports
Fields contained by 5-6m high hedges
Views from upper storeys of 4-5
commercial units
Although designated as Green Belt this
area is already occupied by sports
facilities including the athletics track,
games courts and associated parking
facilities
Low
High
Views from ground and 1st floor . These
views already occupied by exiting
building stock within Westwood
Views toward Westwood largely blocked
by perimeter vegetation.
Views from bedrooms at 1st floor level
only. These views already occupied by
exiting building stock within Westwood
Notes
Low
Low
Low
Value
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
High
Sensitivity
Properties within
Charter Avenue
NGR 296 772
Residents to the north
of Westwood Heath
Road
NGR 290 764
Properties along Kirby
Corner Road
NGR 300 767
9
11
Receptor
8
Ref
Only seen above line of
trees on western
boundary
Unlikely to be seen
above line of trees on
western boundary
Viewed across busy
Kirby Corner Road and
through line of boundary
trees
Operation
3 storey buildings
Construction
Cranes, vehicles,
construction activities
Viewed over rear
boundary fences and
through line of existing
trees. Possible
overlooking development
north of athletics track
seen from upper storey
of properties in Charter
Avenue.
Operation
3 storey buildings,
parking
Construction
Cranes
Viewed over rear
boundary fences and
through line of existing
trees. Possible
overlooking particularly
of new development
north of athletics track
Context
Construction
Cranes
Effect
TABLE 32 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : WESTWOOD
Facing
0,2km
Adjacent
Distance
Not possible to mitigate as
trees will not achieve effective
height within time frame of
construction cycle of project.
Placing cranes at maximum
distance from boundary
would reduce impact
None required
No effect
2 years max
Not possible to mitigate as
trees will not achieve effective
height within time frame of
construction cycle of project.
Placing cranes at maximum
distance from western
boundary would reduce
impact
Not possible to increase
effectiveness of screening
beyond that already provide
by boundary trees. Placing
buildings at maximum
distance from boundary
would reduce impact as
would reducing storey heights
along this edge. Existing
hedges will screen out all
views after 20 years
Not possible to mitigate as
trees will not achieve effective
height within time frame of
construction cycle of project.
Placing cranes at maximum
distance from boundary
would reduce impact
Mitigation Options
2 years max
Development north of
athletic track could be
screened after 15-20
years
2 years max
Duration of Effect
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate in
centre of
Westwood
High north of
athletics track.
Moderate in
centre of
Westwood
High north of
athletics track
Magnitude
41
Users of Sports
facilities to West of
Westwood
NGR 296 768
Viewed in context of
existing athletics facilities
and games courts
Viewed in context of
existing athletics facilities
and games courts
Operation
3 storey buildings,
parking
Viewed across busy
Kirby Corner Road and
through line of boundary
trees
Construction
Cranes, vehicles,
construction activities
Operation
3 storey buildings,
parking
Adjacent
Development north of
athletics track – 20
years
2 years max
Within main site –
permanent
North of athletics track
– no effect
Not possible to increase
effectiveness of screening
beyond that already provide
by boundary trees. Placing
buildings at maximum
distance from boundary
would reduce impact as
would reducing storey heights
along this edge. Existing
hedges will screen out all
views after 20 years
Not possible to mitigate as
trees will not achieve effective
height within time frame of
construction cycle of project.
Placing cranes at maximum
distance from boundary
would reduce impact
Not possible to greatly
increase effectiveness of
screening beyond that
already provide by boundary
trees. Placing buildings at
maximum distance from
boundary would reduce
impact as would reducing
storey heights along this
edge.
Moderate in
centre of
Westwood
High, north of
athletics track.
Moderate in
centre of
Westwood
High, north of
athletics track
Moderate
Workers in commercial
premises at Westwood
Business Park
Drivers on Mitchell
Avenue
NGR 295 700
Drivers on Kirby
Corner Road
NGR 296 764
43
44
Receptor
42
Ref
Operational
New 10.5m high
sports building
Construction
Cranes
Only seen above 5m due
to screening effects of
hedge
Development north of
athletics track seen
above 5-6m high hedges
Only seen above 5-6m
high hedges
Seen above line of trees
& hedges
Operation
Views of
development north of
athletics track only
Construction
Cranes
Only seen above line of
trees on western
boundary end
Context
Construction
Cranes
Effect
TABLE 32 : MAGNITUDE OF VISUAL EFFECTS : WESTWOOD
0.2km
0.35km
1.3km
Distance
Further tree planting along
west boundary of sports fields
will be effective after 10
years, eliminating views by 20
years
Permanent subject to
mitigation
Moderate
Low
10 years
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Magnitude
12 months
Planting could be
supplemented alongside Kirby
Corner Road or to north of
athletics track
None possible
Further tree planting along
west boundary may be
effective after 15-20 years
Not possible to mitigate as
trees will not achieve
sufficient height within
construction period.
Mitigation Options
12 months
Development north of
athletics track 20 years
2 years
Duration of Effect
Properties within Charter Avenue
NGR 296 772
Properties to North Westwood Heath Road
NGR 290 764
Properties along Kirby Corner Road
NGR 300 767
Users of Sports Facilities to West of Westwood NGR 296 768
Workers in commercial premises at Westwood Business Park NGR 286 767
Drivers on Mitchell Avenue
NGR 295 700
Drivers on Kirby Corner Road
NGR 296 764
8
9
11
41
42
43
44
Description
TABLE 33: SIGNIFICANCE OF VISUAL IMPACTS : WESTWOOD
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
High
Sensitivity
Low
Low
Low
Moderate/High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Magnitude
Minor
Minor
Minor
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
Moderate
Significance
Appendix D
Air Quality
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix D.1
Air Quality:
Air Quality Risk
Assessment
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix D.2
Air Quality:
Predicted Air Pollutant
Concentrations
This page is intentionally blank
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
40 by 2010
19.2
19.2
17.6
17.6
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
17.0
17.3
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
18.7
16.8
17.1
2004 Baseline
2008 Do-Minimum
2008 Do-Something
Receptor 3: Hurst/Cryfield Halls of Residence
17.3
17.3
18
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Something
18
2008 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Minimum
19.9
2004 Baseline
Receptor 2: Rootes Halls of Residence
20.3
20.3
2008 Do-Minimum
22.2
2004 Baseline
40.1
39.5
44.8
34.8
33.2
38.7
37.9
41.4
40.6
46.0
38.0
37.7
42.6
42.6
45.3
45.3
50.9
99.8 %ile of Hourly Means
μg/m3
200
200 by 2010
Receptor 1: Gosford Halls of Residence
National
EU
Objective / Value
th
Nitrogen Dioxide
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
-1-
19.9
19.9
21.1
18.3
18.3
19.5
19.5
20.0
20.0
21.3
19.6
19.6
20.8
20.8
21.5
21.5
22.8
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
20 by 2010
Fine Particulate Matter
0.32
0.26
0.34
0.29
0.25
0.33
0.29
0.39
0.35
0.46
0.36
0.35
0.42
0.43
0.49
0.50
0.68
0.42
0.35
0.46
0.30
0.26
0.33
0.30
0.39
0.35
0.47
0.36
0.36
0.43
0.44
0.50
0.51
0.69
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
90.4 %ile of daily means*
98.1th %ile of daily means*
μg/m3
μg/m3
50
−
−
−
* Results not comparable with objectives as no background included
th
16.4
16.4
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
16.5
16.8
16.5
16.5
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
19.1
19.1
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
2008 Do-Minimum
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
20.3
18.5
2004 Baseline
2008 Do-Minimum
Receptor 6: 116 Kenilworth Road
20.8
2004 Baseline
Receptor 5: Tocil Halls of Residence
17.4
17.7
2008 Do-Minimum
19.1
2004 Baseline
Receptor 4: Whitefields Halls of Residence
16.3
16.3
2010 Do-Something
37.9
43
33.3
30.6
35.3
34.4
37.8
36.8
41.2
28.2
26.9
30.8
30.4
33.2
32.7
37
33.8
32.3
37.4
36.9
99.8th %ile of Hourly Means
μg/m3
200
200 by 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
40 by 2010
2010 Do-Minimum
National
EU
Objective / Value
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
-2-
20.7
21.9
19.6
19.6
20.8
20.8
21.4
21.4
22.6
18.5
18.4
19.7
19.6
20.2
20.2
21.4
18.2
18.2
19.4
19.4
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
20 by 2010
0.12
0.15
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.12
0.24
0.19
0.27
0.22
0.16
0.21
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.1
0.1
0.13
0.32
0.26
0.36
0.29
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
90.4th %ile of daily means*
98.1th %ile of daily means*
μg/m3
μg/m3
50
−
−
−
* Results not comparable with objectives as no background included
Fine Particulate Matter
17.3
17.3
16.1
16.1
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
14.4
14.4
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
15.1
15.1
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
2004 Baseline
21.3
Receptor 9: 14 Gibbet Hill Road
16.5
16.5
2010 Do-Something
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
17
17
2008 Do-Minimum
19.1
2004 Baseline
Receptor 8: 1 Gibbet Hill Road
15.8
15.8
16.4
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Something
16.4
2008 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Minimum
18.2
2004 Baseline
Receptor 7: 139 Kenilworth Road
18.5
2010 Do-Minimum
48.6
35.5
34.9
40
40
42.8
42.8
39.4
32.3
31.9
36.7
36.7
39.4
39.4
35
31.4
31.3
35.2
35.2
37.9
99.8th %ile of Hourly Means
μg/m3
200
200 by 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
40 by 2010
2008 Do-Something
National
EU
Objective / Value
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
-3-
21.6
17.7
17.7
18.9
18.9
19.6
19.6
20.8
17.7
17.7
18.9
18.9
19.6
19.6
20.7
18.8
18.8
20
20
20.7
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
20 by 2010
0.59
0.30
0.29
0.31
0.31
0.36
0.36
0.47
0.17
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.21
0.27
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.12
0.62
0.36
0.34
0.37
0.38
0.44
0.44
0.58
0.23
0.23
0.26
0.27
0.31
0.31
0.41
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.16
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
90.4th %ile of daily means*
98.1th %ile of daily means*
μg/m3
μg/m3
50
−
−
−
* Results not comparable with objectives as no background included
Fine Particulate Matter
18.3
18.3
16.6
16.6
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
17.3
17.3
16.5
16.5
15.4
15.4
2008 Do-Minimum
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
17.3
17.3
16.5
16.5
15.1
15.1
2008 Do-Minimum
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
Receptor 12: Four Winds, Dalehouse Lane
19.3
2004 Baseline
Receptor 11: 20 Stoneleigh Road
19.3
2004 Baseline
Receptor 10: 15 Stoneleigh Road
18.9
18.9
2008 Do-Something
31.6
31.4
35.7
35.7
38.3
38.3
43.7
28.7
28.6
32.4
32.4
34.7
34.7
39.7
35.4
34.9
39.9
40.0
42.8
42.8
99.8th %ile of Hourly Means
μg/m3
200
200 by 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
40 by 2010
2008 Do-Minimum
National
EU
Objective / Value
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
-4-
18.1
18.1
19.3
19.3
19.9
19.9
21.1
18.1
18.1
19.3
19.3
20
20
21.1
18.6
18.6
19.8
19.8
20.3
20.3
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
20 by 2010
0.19
0.18
0.2
0.2
0.23
0.23
0.3
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.38
0.35
0.39
0.39
0.45
0.45
0.24
0.23
0.25
0.25
0.29
0.29
0.37
0.13
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.2
0.39
0.37
0.40
0.40
0.47
0.47
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
90.4th %ile of daily means*
98.1th %ile of daily means*
μg/m3
μg/m3
50
−
−
−
* Results not comparable with objectives as no background included
Fine Particulate Matter
15.2
15.2
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
17.5
17.5
16.1
16.1
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
16.9
16.9
15.8
15.8
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
18.1
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Something
18.1
2008 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Minimum
20.1
2004 Baseline
Receptor 14: Brook Farm, Stoneleigh Road
18.6
18.6
2008 Do-Minimum
20.6
2004 Baseline
Receptor 13: The Cottage, Dalehouse Lane
16.3
16.3
17.2
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Something
17.2
2010 Do-Minimum
19.2
2008 Do-Minimum
34.5
34.2
38.3
38.3
41.4
41.4
47.5
32.4
32.3
36.2
36.2
39.2
39.2
44.5
29.1
29.0
32.7
32.7
35.6
35.6
40.4
99.8th %ile of Hourly Means
μg/m3
200
200 by 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
40 by 2010
2004 Baseline
National
EU
Objective / Value
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
-5-
18.0
18.0
19.2
19.2
19.9
19.9
21.1
18.1
18.1
19.3
19.3
20
20
21.2
18.0
18.0
19.2
19.2
19.8
19.8
21
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
20 by 2010
0.23
0.22
0.24
0.24
0.27
0.27
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.31
0.31
0.36
0.36
0.47
0.11
0.11
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.28
0.27
0.30
0.30
0.34
0.34
0.46
0.28
0.28
0.32
0.32
0.36
0.36
0.47
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.24
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
90.4th %ile of daily means*
98.1th %ile of daily means*
μg/m3
μg/m3
50
−
−
−
* Results not comparable with objectives as no background included
Fine Particulate Matter
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
40 by 2010
15.8
15.8
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
17.7
17.7
16.0
16.0
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
19.3
17.3
17.3
16.5
16.5
15.1
2004 Baseline
2008 Do-Minimum
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
Receptor 17: Wainbody Wood Farm
18.5
18.5
2008 Do-Minimum
20.7
2004 Baseline
Receptor 16: 35 Stoneleigh Road
16.9
16.9
18.1
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Something
18.1
2008 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Minimum
20.1
2004 Baseline
27.2
30.4
30.4
32.8
32.8
37.5
32.4
32.2
36.8
36.8
39.4
39.4
44.9
33.4
33.2
36.9
36.9
39.9
39.9
45.2
99.8th %ile of Hourly Means
μg/m3
200
200 by 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide
Receptor 15: Croyde House, Dalehouse Lane
National
EU
Objective / Value
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
-6-
18.1
19.3
19.3
19.9
19.9
21.1
18.2
18.2
19.4
19.4
20.1
20.1
21.3
18.0
18.0
19.2
19.2
19.9
19.9
21.1
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
20 by 2010
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.15
0.21
0.30
0.29
0.32
0.32
0.36
0.36
0.47
0.15
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.2
0.2
0.27
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.30
0.29
0.32
0.32
0.37
0.37
0.48
0.20
0.20
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.37
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
90.4th %ile of daily means*
98.1th %ile of daily means*
μg/m3
μg/m3
50
−
−
−
* Results not comparable with objectives as no background included
Fine Particulate Matter
15.1
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
40 by 2010
17.3
17.3
16.5
16.5
15.4
15.4
2008 Do-Minimum
2008 Do-Something
2010 Do-Minimum
2010 Do-Something
2018 Do-Minimum
2018 Do-Something
19.3
2004 Baseline
28.0
27.9
31.4
31.4
33.7
33.7
38.3
27.3
99.8th %ile of Hourly Means
μg/m3
200
200 by 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide
Receptor 18: Newera Farm, King's Hill
2018 Do-Something
National
EU
Objective / Value
Predicted Air Pollutant Concentrations
-7-
18.1
18.1
19.3
19.3
20
20
21.1
18.1
Annual Mean
μg/m3
40
20 by 2010
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.21
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.13
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
90.4th %ile of daily means*
98.1th %ile of daily means*
μg/m3
μg/m3
50
−
−
−
* Results not comparable with objectives as no background included
Fine Particulate Matter
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix E
Noise
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix E.1
Noise:
Noise Survey
Measurement Results
This page is intentionally blank
University of Warwick
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
E1.
SURVEY MEASUREMENT RESULTS
E1.1
Ad-hoc Measurement locations
E1.1.1
Location 1
Description
Start
Traffic noise, Birdsong, aircraft overhead
Statistical Noise Levels (dB(A))
LA1
LAmin
LA10
LA90
LAeq
LAmax
13:28:06
73.6
38.8
68.6
47.2
63.7
79.8
Traffic noise, approx 900 cars per hour
16:58:03
74
42.8
70.4
52.2
66.4
81.2
Distant traffic noise, traffic on Westwood
Heath Road
19:14:09
72.4
38.4
67
45.4
62.1
76.7
Traffic Noise
19:01:30
73.6
38.5
68.2
44.2
63.4
78.3
00:02:51
74.2
31.8
49.6
34
58.5
78.4
01:10:27
57
29.7
40.6
31.8
52.5
80.9
02:42:44
72.8
32.5
47.2
33.8
57.9
79.7
Distant traffic noise, leaves in trees
blowing in breeze
Trains in distance, occasional cars on
Westwood Heath Road
Distant noise, sounds like helicopter,
unidentified.
E1.1.2
Location 2
Description
Start
Statistical Noise Levels (dB(A))
LA1
LAmin
LA10
LA90
LAeq
LAmax
13:55:30
77.8
45.3
70.6
54.4
68.2
91.7
18:18:13
74.4
42.7
70.4
52.2
66.2
81.9
Traffic noise, and aircraft overhead.
19:18:19
74.4
48.5
69.2
54
65.4
79.6
Distant traffic, light traffic on A45. Distant
faint plant noise, maybe related to
railway operations. Train in distance.
00:18:31
67.2
34.7
53
37
53.7
75.1
Distant traffic noise, Plant noise. Bog
barking, distant train.
01:32:33
55.4
32.5
41.2
34.2
43.9
66.7
Light traffic on A45
03:00:40
67.2
32.2
50.8
34.2
53
74.8
Traffic on A45, Bus breaks with loud
squeal.
Traffic noise. Traffic level approx 1300
vehicles per hour.
Page E1.1
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick
E1.1.3
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
Location 3
Description
Distant traffic. Aircraft overhead.
Birdsong.
Birdsong. Distant traffic. 2 cars go past.
Aircraft overhead.
Distant traffic, birdsong.
Leaves rustling in trees. Distant traffic,
train in distance
Leaves in trees, helicopter in distance.
Distant train.
E1.1.4
Start
Statistical Noise Levels (dB(A))
LA1
LAmin
LA10
LA90
LAeq
LAmax
14:16:02
44.6
31.6
40.4
33.4
38.6
63.7
17:22:06
55.8
31.3
46.2
33
43.7
62.8
18:37:41
49.2
36.3
42.8
38
41.4
61.7
00:36:22
43.2
29.6
38
31.6
35.8
50.1
02:00:00
44.4
28.2
37.8
30
35.4
49.7
Location 4
Description
Start
Statistical Noise Levels (dB(A))
LA1
LAmin
LA10
LA90
LAeq
LAmax
14:42:11
84.4
70.1
82.6
75
79.9
86.8
Traffic noise
18:58:20
77.6
50
73.4
54
69.2
88.2
Some traffic on A429/Stoneleigh Way.
Breeze in trees. Dog barking. Distant
train.
23:45:47
73.2
35.8
57.4
40.8
59.4
79.4
Traffic noise, dog barking.
00:54:19
76.6
32.1
64
37.2
62.8
81.3
02:20:01
74.2
28.2
57.8
32.6
60
80
03:20:33
65.4
27.7
43.6
29.4
52.1
73.9
Tree mulcher on opposite side of road
dominant.
Low traffic level. Wind in trees at high
level.
Distant traffic noise, occasional car goes
past.
Page E1.2
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick
E1.2
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
Permanent noise Monitoring Logs
E1.2.1
Location 5
24-hour Continous Logged Result for Location 5 on Roof Of Admin Building
90
70
-5
Sound Pressure Level, dBA re 2 x 10 Pa
80
60
LAeq
LAmax
LA10
LA90
50
40
30
20
10
17:03
16:03
15:03
14:03
13:03
12:03
11:03
10:03
09:03
08:03
07:03
06:03
05:03
04:03
03:03
02:03
01:03
00:03
23:03
22:03
21:03
20:03
19:03
18:03
17:03
0
Time hh:mm
E1.2.2
Location 6
24-hour Continous Logged Result for Location 6 Close to Scarman Building
100
80
-5
Sound Pressure Level, dBA re 2 x 10 Pa
90
70
60
LAeq
LAmax
LA10
LA90
50
40
30
20
10
16:52
15:52
14:52
13:52
12:52
11:52
10:52
09:52
08:52
07:52
06:52
05:52
04:52
03:52
02:52
01:52
00:52
23:52
22:52
21:52
20:52
19:52
18:52
17:52
0
Time hh:mm
Page E1.3
Arup Acoustics
Page E1.4
16:54:32
15:54:32
14:54:32
13:54:32
12:54:32
11:54:32
10:54:32
09:54:32
08:54:32
07:54:32
06:54:32
05:54:32
04:54:32
03:54:32
02:54:32
01:54:32
00:54:32
23:54:32
22:54:32
E1.2.4
16:09
15:09
14:09
13:09
12:09
11:09
10:09
09:09
08:09
07:09
06:09
05:09
04:09
03:09
02:09
01:09
00:09
23:09
22:09
21:09
20:09
19:09
18:09
17:09
16:09
-5
Sound Pressure Level, dBA re 2 x 10 Pa
E1.2.3
21:54:32
20:54:32
19:54:32
18:54:32
17:54:32
16:54:32
-5
Sound Pressure Level, dBA re 2 x 10 Pa
University of Warwick
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
Location 7
24-hour Continous Logged Result for Location 7on Roof of Warwick Arts Building
90
80
70
60
50
40
LAeq
LAmax
LA10
LA90
30
20
10
0
Time hh:mm
Location 8
24-hour Continous Logged Result for Location 8 on Roof of Estates Management Building
90
80
70
60
50
LAeq
40
LAmax
LA10
LA90
30
20
10
0
Time hh:mm
Arup Acoustics
Appendix E.2
Noise:
Noise Survey Site
Photographs
This page is intentionally blank
University of Warwick
E2.
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph E2.1
Ad-hoc Measurement location 1, Broadwells Crescent
Photograph E2.2
Ad-hoc Measurement Location 2, Sheriff Avenue
Page F2.1
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
Photograph E2.3
Ad-hoc Measurement Location 3, Highwayman’s Croft.
Photograph E2.4
Ad-hoc Measurement Location 4, Stoneleigh Road.
Page F2.2
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
Photograph E2.5
Logging Location 5, Administration Building.
Photograph E2.6
Logging Location 6, Close to the Scarman Building.
Page F2.3
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
Photograph E2.7
Logging Location 7, Warwick Arts Centre
Photograph E2.8
Logging Location 8, Building Estates
Page F2.4
Arup Acoustics
Appendix E.3
Noise:
Noise Maps
This page is intentionally blank
University of Warwick
Page A1
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A2
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A3
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A4
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A5
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A6
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A7
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A8
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A9
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A10
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A11
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
University of Warwick
Page A12
Arup Acoustics
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
Appendix E.4
Noise:
Traffic Schematic
This page is intentionally blank
University of Warwick
University of Warwick Development Plan
Noise and Vibration Assessment
2004
58dB(A)
2004
57dB(A)
2004
62dB(A)
2004
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
58dB(A)
2008 DoM
57dB(A)
2008 DoM
62dB(A)
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
58dB(A)
2008 DoS
57dB(A)
2008 DoS
62dB(A)
2008 DoS
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
58dB(A)
2010 DoM
57dB(A)
2010 DoM
62dB(A)
2010 DoM
72dB(A)
69dB(A)
2010 DoS
58dB(A)
2010 DoS
57dB(A)
2010 DoS
61dB(A)
2010 DoS
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
58dB(A)
2023 DoM
57dB(A)
2023 DoM
62dB(A)
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
58dB(A)
2023 DoS
57dB(A)
2023 DoS
61dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2004
69dB(A)
2008 DoM
69dB(A)
2008 DoS
Westwood Way
2010 DoS
69dB(A)
2004
72dB(A)
2004
72dB(A)
2023 DoM
69dB(A)
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
2023 DoS
69dB(A)
2008 DoS
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
72dB(A)
2004
68dB(A)
2010 DoS
72dB(A)
2010 DoS
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
68dB(A)
2023 DoM
72dB(A)
2023 DoM
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
68dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2010 DoM
69dB(A)
2010 DoS
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
69dB(A)
2023 DoS
69dB(A)
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
72dB(A)
2010 DoS
72dB(A)
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
Gibbet Hill
Road
University
House
2010 DoS
72dB(A)
72dB(A)
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
2004
70dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2008 DoM
70dB(A)
71dB(A)
71dB(A)
2010 DoM
54dB(A)
2010 DoM
53dB(A)
55dB(A)
2010 DoS
54dB(A)
2010 DoS
53dB(A)
2010 DoM
72dB(A)
2010 DoS
55dB(A)
2023 DoM
54dB(A)
2023 DoM
53dB(A)
2010 DoS
72dB(A)
2023 DoM
55dB(A)
2023 DoS
54dB(A)
2023 DoS
53dB(A)
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
55dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
University Road
Scarman
Road
2004
70dB(A)
2010 DoM
67dB(A)
2008 DoM
70dB(A)
2010 DoS
67dB(A)
2008 DoS
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
67dB(A)
2010 DoM
70dB(A)
2023 DoS
66dB(A)
2010 DoS
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
70dB(A)
2023 DoS
70dB(A)
Radcliff
North
Access to
Car Parking
70dB(A)
69dB(A)
55dB(A)
2010 DoM
70dB(A)
55dB(A)
2010 DoS
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
70dB(A)
2023 DoS
70dB(A)
Gibbet Hill
Road
Global HGV Factor
One Way
CENTRAL
CAMPUS
WARWICK
52dB(A)
72dB(A)
2023 DoM
71dB(A)
55dB(A)
2010 DoM
68dB(A)
52dB(A)
2010 DoS
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
2008 DoS
2008 DoS
52dB(A)
72dB(A)
2023 DoM
71dB(A)
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
2023 DoS
2010 DoS
73dB(A)
70dB(A)
72dB(A)
2004
52dB(A)
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
2008 DoS
66dB(A)
2023 DoM
72dB(A)
2010 DoS
2023 DoM
2008 DoS
2008 DoM
67dB(A)
52dB(A)
2010 DoM
2023 DoM
58dB(A)
2010 DoS
72dB(A)
53dB(A)
2023 DoS
2010 DoM
2010 DoM
2008 DoS
67dB(A)
2008 DoS
72dB(A)
54dB(A)
2008 DoS
52dB(A)
2010 DoM
2008 DoS
2008 DoM
51dB(A)
72dB(A)
53dB(A)
55dB(A)
2004
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
2004
2008 DoM
58dB(A)
2004
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
54dB(A)
72dB(A)
58dB(A)
2023 DoS
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
2004
2004
58dB(A)
2023 DoM
2004
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
2010 DoS
2023 DoM
55dB(A)
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
53dB(A)
58dB(A)
55dB(A)
2004
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
2008 DoM
58dB(A)
55dB(A)
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
72dB(A)
54dB(A)
2010 DoS
2010 DoS
2004
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
2010 DoM
2010 DoM
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
56dB(A)
2008 DoS
2008 DoS
2004
2008 DoS
2004
2008 DoM
55dB(A)
University
House (East
Access)
University
House (West
Access)
58dB(A)
55dB(A)
WESTWOOD SITE
Kirby
Corner
Road
72dB(A)
2004
2008 DoM
Car Park 14
Westwood
Heath Road
2004
2004
Car Park 13
Car Park 12
CENTRAL
CAMPUS
COVENTRY
Library
Road
2004
57dB(A)
2004
70dB(A)
2008 DoM
57dB(A)
2008 DoM
70dB(A)
2008 DoS
n/a
2008 DoS
69dB(A)
2010 DoM
57dB(A)
2010 DoM
70dB(A)
2010 DoS
n/a
2010 DoS
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
57dB(A)
2023 DoM
70dB(A)
2023 DoS
n/a
2023 DoS
70dB(A)
2.31%
Speeds
32 mph
=
51.2
kph
43 mph
=
68.8
kph
Radcliff
South
Access to
Car Parking
2004
70dB(A)
2008 DoM
70dB(A)
2008 DoS
69dB(A)
2010 DoM
70dB(A)
2010 DoS
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
70dB(A)
2023 DoS
69dB(A)
2004
70dB(A)
2008 DoM
70dB(A)
2008 DoS
70dB(A)
2010 DoM
70dB(A)
2010 DoS
70dB(A)
2023 DoM
71dB(A)
2023 DoS
68dB(A)
One Way
University
Road
2004
61dB(A)
2008 DoM
61dB(A)
2008 DoS
67dB(A)
2010 DoM
61dB(A)
2010 DoS
67dB(A)
2023 DoM
61dB(A)
2023 DoS
67dB(A)
Gibbet Hill
Road
2004
52dB(A)
2008 DoM
52dB(A)
2008 DoS
52dB(A)
2008
DoM
71dB(A)
2010 DoM
52dB(A)
2008
DoS
71dB(A)
2010 DoS
52dB(A)
2010
DoM
71dB(A)
2004
60dB(A)
2023 DoM
52dB(A)
2004
62dB(A)
2010
DoS
71dB(A)
2008 DoM
59dB(A)
2004
69dB(A)
2023 DoS
52dB(A)
2008 DoM
62dB(A)
2023
DoM
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
59dB(A)
2008 DoM
71dB(A)
2008 DoS
62dB(A)
2023
DoS
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
59dB(A)
2008 DoS
71dB(A)
2010 DoM
62dB(A)
2010 DoS
59dB(A)
2010 DoM
71dB(A)
2010 DoS
62dB(A)
2023 DoM
62dB(A)
2010 DoS
71dB(A)
2023 DoM
62dB(A)
2023 DoS
62dB(A)
71dB(A)
2023 DoS
61dB(A)
Cryfield
Grange
2004
58dB(A)
2008 DoM
58dB(A)
2008 DoS
58dB(A)
2010 DoM
58dB(A)
2010 DoS
58dB(A)
2023 DoM
2023 DoS
71dB(A)
2004
GIBBET HILL SITE
Unnamed
Road
A429
Kenilworth
Road
2004
74dB(A)
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
2008 DoM
75dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2008 DoS
75dB(A)
2010 DoM
71dB(A)
2010 DoM
75dB(A)
2010 DoS
73dB(A)
2010 DoS
75dB(A)
2004
71dB(A)
58dB(A)
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
2023 DoM
75dB(A)
2008 DoM
73dB(A)
60dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
75dB(A)
2008 DoS
73dB(A)
2010 DoM
73dB(A)
Gibbet Hill
Road
Gibbet Hill
Campus
2004
70dB(A)
2008 DoM
70dB(A)
2008 DoS
70dB(A)
2004
72dB(A)
2010 DoM
70dB(A)
2008 DoM
2010 DoS
70dB(A)
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
2008 DoS
71dB(A)
2010 DoS
73dB(A)
2004
73dB(A)
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
72dB(A)
2008 DoM
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
2008 DoS
72dB(A)
2008 DoS
73dB(A)
2023 DoM
71dB(A)
2010 DoM
73dB(A)
2004
70dB(A)
2010 DoM
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
71dB(A)
2010 DoS
73dB(A)
2008 DoM
2023 DoM
73dB(A)
2023 DoS
73dB(A)
J:\115000\115438-00\4 INTERNAL PROJECT DATA\4-05 REPORTS\EIA AND
Page
SCOPING REPORTS\ES SEPT 2006\02. APPENDICES\APPENDIX E - NOISE\AP E4
- TRAFFIC SCEMATIC.DOC
AAc/115438-50/R01
2004
A1
Stoneleigh Road
A429
Kenilworth
Road
2004
68dB(A)
2004
69dB(A)
70dB(A)
2010 DoS
73dB(A)
2008 DoM
68dB(A)
2008 DoM
70dB(A)
2008 DoS
70dB(A)
2023 DoM
74dB(A)
2008 DoS
68dB(A)
2008 DoS
70dB(A)
2010 DoM
71dB(A)
2023 DoS
74dB(A)
2010 DoM
68dB(A)
2010 DoM
70dB(A)
2010 DoS
71dB(A)
2010 DoS
68dB(A)
2010 DoS
70dB(A)
2023 DoM
71dB(A)
2023 DoM
69dB(A)
2023 DoM
70dB(A)
2023 DoS
71dB(A)
2023 DoS
69dB(A)
2023 DoS
70dB(A)
Arup Acoustics
Draft 1 2 November 2005
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix F
Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix F.1
Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage:
Archaeological Gazetteer
This page is intentionally blank
430820 276610
430830 276720
430800 276660
430440 277210
429250 276300
430500 277220
429800 277000
430000 277660
430360 274640
430750 2 74550
707
709
732
811
2017
3150
3151
3155
3154
NGR
706
Coventry SMR
SMR No
Type
FLINTS;
COVENTRY/GIBBETT
HILL RD
FLINT IMPLEMENT;
CRYFIELD LANE
FLETCHAMSTEAD
DMV
AXE; TRAINING
COLLEGE; CANLEY
MOAT SW OF IVY
FARM; SIR HENRY
PARKES RD; CANLEY
CHURCH OF ST JOHN
THE BAPTIST;
WESTWOOD
THE MOAT HOUSE &
BARN; 1-2 MOAT
HOUSE LANE;
CANLEY
STABLES; IVY FARM;
IVY FARM LANE;
CANLEY
IVY FARMHOUSE; IVY
FARM LANE; CANLEY
CANLEY HALL FARM
HOUSES; 1-2 IVY
FARM LANE; CANLEY
Archaeological Gazetteer
Archaeological Gazetteer
Deserted hamlet of parish of Stoneleigh. Fletchamstead. 13 in 1304 list; 26 people dispossessed
in 1497
Medieval
Prehistoric
-1-
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
Number of flint flakes & cores found in this field from time to time. No dates or periods are
ascribable to them - flint flakes etc being found in association with finds of all periods from the
Palaeolithic to Roman
Mr C Melbourne in 1935, obtained from the surface soil of a garden in Cryfield Lane, Kenilworth,
the implement of light coloured flint figured..'[see AO: 61:38:3] It is more suggestive of a Neolithic
date than most of the Warwickshire points.
Broken Neolithic (Graig Lwyd) Axe with ground cutting edge found in grounds of Training College
at Canley.
Neolithic
Neolithic?
Rect moated site, surrounded by wet ditch, max (N) 6' deep x 18m wide.Interior tree-grown.
1842-5 by Scott and Moffat in C13 and C14 styles. Nave, chancel, north porch, west bellcote. An
interesting example of the earlier work of George
Gilbert Scott.
C16 timber framed house divided into 2 cottages. Red brick casing & partial rebuilding in EC19. 2
storeys, 2 ledged doors, simple EC19 casement windows. No 1 has plaque of 1940
commemorating birth here, 27.8.1815 of Sir Henry Parkes (1815-96) Prime Minister of New South
Wales. 2nd plaque, 1950, commemorates gift of 4 bricks from the cottage, 2 to Melbourne
Museum, 2 to New Coventry, New South Wales.
Medieval
Post Medieval
Post-Medieval
EC19. Red brick, hipped Welsh slated roof with cornice. 2 storeys and attics, square plan. Plinth,
sill bands, floor band. 3 windows, some altered. Sashes with glazing bars under original cambered
relieving arches & brick keyblocks. Altered windows have flush casements without glazing bars.
Stucco door surround with arched reveal, cornice on consoles
C16 or C17. Stone plinth, timber frame with red brick nogging. Tiled roof. 2 storeys and attics,
canted bay on right. 4:1 casement windows with glazing bars, gabled casement dormer. 2
doorhoods. T plan.
Post-Medieval
Post-Medieval
EC18 or earlier, altered. Pebble dash, old tiled roof of steep pitch with corbelled brick cornice & 3
gabled lattice casement dormers. 2 storeys and attics, 3 flush lattice casement windows, 3 light
with wood mullions and transoms under cambered relieving arches. 6 fielded panelled door and
oblong fanlight under hood.
Description (where available)
Post-Medieval
Date/Period
430900 274770
430700 274800
430000 275000
430200 276800
430290 275420
429200 277200
430300 275550
430820 276540
428830 278400
430800 278000
429400 27425
429500 278340
429070 276780
429460 277670
428750 276500
3157
3163
3938
3965
4578
4592
5462
5636
6053
6122
6127
6154
6155
6503
NGR
3156
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
WESTWOOD HEATH
FARM (SITE);
WESTWOOD HEATH
RD; WESTWOOD
HEATH
RIDGE AND FURROW;
SE OF TILE HILL
CROPMARK;
WESTWOOD HEATH
OLD REFORMATORY;
TILE HILL LANE
BRICKWORKS; 3 KM
NW OF WARWICK
UNIVERSITY
CANLEY HALT
NORTH WASTE; 504
TILE HILL LANE
CANLEY HALL FARM
COTTAGES; 1-2
CANNOCKS LANE
TOCIL WOOD
TEN SHILLING WOOD
EARTHWORK; TOCIL
WOOD
POTTERY KILN;
LYCHGATE RD/KIRBY
CORNER; CANLEY;
COVENTRY
NEO AXE; GREEN
LANE; COVENTRY
SITE OF GIBBET;
GIBBET HILL
FLINTS; N SIDE
STONELEIGH RD
Type
-2-
Demolished c1989/90.
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
Traces of ridge & furrow in field immed S of railway line. Area is in vicinity of Fletchamstead DMV
Ridge & Furrow as earthworks various - passing under railway line. Mostly N-S, though 1 block EW. Varying widths from broad to narrow rig.
Undated
Post-Medieval
Possible cropmark in field now built over, to south of Westwood Way. 2 linear features visible but
not clear enough to interpret.
Site of old reformatory.
Post-Medieval
Undated
Site of former brickworks in corner of field on south side of Westwood Heath Rd.
Date - c1922-23.
Semi-natural ancient woodland of 4ha. Warwickshire Nature Conservation Trust Reserve.
Ancient woodland classified as plantation.
'Rectilinear earthwork at Tocil Wood - lies close to C13 pottery kilns. Coppice fuel production
?.Earthwork survey showed rectangular enclosure with several
Pottery, C13. Now in Herbert Art Gallery & Museum. Acc no. 76/108.1976 - pottery discovered on
site of new Sainsburys shop & freezer centre carpark. Found to be all C13 kiln waste.
Post-Medieval
Post-Medieval
Post-Medieval
Post-Medieval
Undated
Undated
Undated
Medieval
Axe in Coventry Museum, Mr JB Shelton, who presented it, stated that when found being used as
gate-weight and provenance is not known.
Gibbett Hill. Three murderers were gibbeted here c1765
Post-Medieval
Neolithic
A `leaf' arrow point, parts of two button scrapers and five flakes found during the last seven years
in a garden on the N side of Stoneleigh Road and W of the railway line.
Description (where available)
Prehistoric
Date/Period
430300 277350
430500 278350
430600 278100
429750 276690
429600 276530
428850 278400
430940 278320
6757
6758
6759
8635
8636
10110
10170
429960 274690
429990 2 74710
430130 274700
2851
2852
2853
Warwick SMR
428500 278100
NGR
6752
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
Site of Cryfield Grange
deserted settlement
Medieval Grange Site
Building: Cryfield
Grange
WATER TOWER;
STANDARD MOTOR
WORKS; S OF TILE
HILL LANE; CANLEY
WATER TOWER;
NORTH WASTE; 504
TILE HILL LANE; TILE
HILL
ENCLOSURE;
PLAYING FIELDS;
WARWICK
UNIVERSITY
MOTTE? NE OF KIRBY
CORNER
RIDGE & FURROW
ETC; W OF CANLEY
RD
RIDGE & FURROW ; S
OF TILE HILL LANE;
WHOBERLEY
ENCLOSURE? S OF
PRIOR DEAN WALK
2WW DEFENCES ETC:
S OF TILE HILL LANE
Type
Medieval
Medieval
Post-Medieval
Post-Medieval
Post Medieval
-3-
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
In 1564 this village paid a stone of wax yearly for maintenance of the lights in Stoneleigh Abbey.
This place has also been depopulated; for, of twelve tenements that were here, only the Grange
Cryfield was said to have been the site of a royal residence called the Burystede, which was
(presumably during the Anarchy) occupied by a foreign lord who was a highway robber. Later, it
was the first site given to Stoneleigh Abbey when it moved from Radmore in Cannock Chase. The
monks found the presence of the road too distracting and were eventually resettled at Stoneleigh.
Information exists on ownership after the Dissolution
Cryfield Grange, situated off the west side of the Kenilworth-Coventry road about half a mile north
of Crackley, is an L-shaped house and although almost entirely rebuilt in the early 19th century, on
its original foundations, it still retains some features of interest
Appears on 1950 OS 1:2500 sheet SP3078; now demolished.
Short crenellated private tower in garden.
Banjo shaped enclosure on 1952 APs. May have been affected by landscaping for running track to
N. Resistivity survey planned as part of study by Dan Smith
Mound in corner of development area of University Campus. Suggested motte of Roger de Maure
or More. Now under trees. Reported by Dan Smith. No sign of mound or trees on first edition.
Post-Medieval
Prehistoric
Ridge & Furrow NE-SW to S of factory units. Circular mound on top of this, series of buildings
around courtyard and foundations of rectangular building. Access from factory area so may be
defences related to this - shelters? along S side of factory property.
Ridge & Furrow as earthwork roughly NE-SW, 2 different widths.
Large D shaped enclosure survives as ditches in middle of pasture – now recreation ground. Field
system cut across it.
Series of buildings, barracks?, another series around circular track, octagonal structures (4) and
square (12) and rectangular. Trenches etc dispersed to S of this. Now covered by modern
buildings.
Description (where available)
Post-Medieval
Undated
Undated
Post-Medieval
Date/Period
431040 273740
429100 274100
430000 274000
430000 274800
429000 273000
428530 275000
428240 275170
429010 275070
428530 275000
430150 273670
429540 275600
429600 275190
429830 274880
429960 273800
2881
2882
2890
2891
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2934
428230 276010
2860
2876
429810 274540
NGR
2854
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
Crackley Bridge
Crop mark enclosure
Linear features
Crop Mark
Milburn Deserted
Medieval Settlement
Linear features
Quarry site
Quarry site
Hurst Deserted
Medieval Settlement
Find spots mesolithic
flints
Find spot stone tool
Roman coins find spot
Stone tool find spot
Quarry site
Site of Fish Ponds
Site of Watermill
Type
Post-Medieval
Undated
Undated
Undated
Medieval
Undated
Post-Medieval
-4-
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
Crackley Bridge, the remains of a possible Post Medieval bridge. The downstream side is
sandstone of an older date than the upstream concrete side. It crosses the Finham Brook north
The site of several enclosures of unknown date which are visible as cropmarks on aerial
photographs. They are located 900m west of Roughknowles Wood
Two linear features of unknown date are visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs. They are
situated 600m south east of Whitefield Coppice
A linear feature of unknown date that is visible as a cropmark on aerial photographs. It is situated
500m north east of Whitefield Coppice
The possible site of the Medieval deserted settlement of Milburn. A series of earthworks may
represent the remains of the settlement. The site is located in the area either side of Milburn
viaduct
Several linear features of unknown date. They are visible as earthworks and appear on aerial
photographs of the area. The linear features are situated 500m south east of Broadwells Wood
The site of a marl pit, from which marl was extracted during the Imperial period and possibly
earlier. The site is suggested by documentary evidence and a large hollow still exists on this site.
It is located 300m south of Whitefield
The site of a quarry, dating to the Imperial period or earlier, is suggested by documentary
evidence. The site lies to the east of Broadwells Wood
In 1154, when monks were settled at Cryfield Grange (PRN 2852-3) the village was moved to
Hurst. Hurst was anciently a pretty village consisting of nineteen houses, of which by the start of
Henry VII's reign (1485) there is now no more than one left. There are here fourteen houses
Medieval
Post-Medieval
Finds of worked flint over a period of several years at Crackley, one mile S of Gibbet Hill. In 1949 a
microlith, a broken blade, a pot-boiler and other debris were found on a layer of red sand about
0.3m below the ground
A possible perforated hammerstone described as "a stone egg with a hole through it"; the hole ran
from end to end. Findspot location is not known
Stoneleigh. Coins. Under index of Roman finds
Perforated stone disc, ploughed up on SE edge of Crackley Wood in 1954
This field is known as 'Pit Field' on an estate map from 1766.
Three large fishponds near Bockendon Grange were drained shortly before the middle of the 19th
century and cartloads of fish were found
There are mill dams at SP2974 and SP3074. The N dam is 1m high with modern mutilation. The S
dam is also mutilated. There are no traces of a mill
remained by the beginning of Henry VIII's reign (1509)
Description (where available)
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
Roman
Prehistoric
Post-Medieval
Medieval
Medieval
Date/Period
429700 273000
429500 273000
428150 273400
429000 273000
430900 274770
430250 274130
428360 275080
3304
3305
3308
4429
4436
4803
5356
429540 273100
3260
429550 273030
429670 273280
3255
3303
429000 273000
3248
430200 273300
429900 273100
3236
429220 273290
429900 273100
3235
3275
428420 273110
3217
3267
4309470 23240
NGR
2669
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
Shrunken Post-med
settlement at Hurst
Linear crop mark
Flint Scatter
Prehistoric flints find
spot
Silver coin find spot
Find spot coins &
tokens
Roman coin findspot
Windmill site
Brick works site
Flint tool
St Josephs Convent
School
Possible Roman
settlement site
Findspot-flint tool
Palaeolithic flint object
Findspot – stone axe
Roman Catholic Chapel
of St Austin
Site of Watermill at Dale
House
Type
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
The possible site of the Post Medieval shrunken village of Hurst. It is situated to the east of
Broadwells Wood
Post-Medieval
-5-
Linear features of unknown date are visible as cropmarks on aerial photographs. They are
situated to the south west of Gibbet Hill
Flint scrapers, a type of Neolithic or Bronze Age tool, were found near Stoneleigh Road, Gibbet
Hill
Chips of flint dating to the Neolithic or the Bronze Age were found to the north of Kenilworth
Undated
Neolithic or Bronze Age
Neolithic – Bronze Age
A coin dating to the Medieval period was found 500m north west of the church, Birmingham Road,
Kenilworth
coins and tokens dating to the Imperial period were found at Upper Ladyes Hills
Post-Medieval
Medieval
A coin dating to the Roman period and made in Rome was found on The Common, Kenilworth
The site of a windmill of the post mill type, in use during the Imperial period. No surface trace is
now visible at the site, 150m north east of Windmill Close, Ladyes Hill.
The site of brickworks from the Imperial period which are marked on the Ordnance Survey map of
1886. No surface evidence remains. The works were 300m north of Ladyes Hills, Kenilworth
A flint tool of Neolithic or Bronze Age date was found in a garden in Highland Road, Kenilworth
Roman
Post-Medieval
Post-medieval
Neolithic/Bronze Age
St Joseph's Convent School. The building, dating to the Imperial period, was originally called
Crackley Hall, and was marked on the Ordnance Survey maps of 1886 and 1923. It became a
school in 1945, and has since added a chapel. It is located east of Littleton Close
The site of a possible settlement dating to the Roman period. Gravel paths, foundations, square
drain pipes and painted stones have been found at the site, which is located 200m north west of
The Common
Roman
Post-Medieval
A flint implement which dated to the Neolithic period was found to the north of Kenilworth.
A flint dating to the Palaeolithic period was found 500m south east of Crackley Hill
Neolithic
Prehistoric
Findspot - a stone axe dating to the Neolithic period was found 500m south east of Crackley Hill.
The Roman Catholic Chapel of St Austin, built in the Imperial period to a design by Pugin. The
north aisle is a later addition. It is situated on the Birmingham Road, Kenilworth.
Post-Medieval
Neolithic
The site of a watermill which was in use during the Imperial period. The mill race is still visible as
an earthwork. It is situated north of Dale House Lane, on the outskirts of Kenilworth
east of Crackley
Description (where available)
Post-Medieval
Date/Period
430780 273410
429850 273120
429720 273080
429850 273120
429630 275390
429670 275400
429300 275900
429700 275600
429690 275680
429560 275650
429640 275550
429580
6923
6936
6942
6945
6990
8208
8320
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
275560
428760 275230
428760 275230
6922
428100 276200
NGR
6636
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
Cryfield Farm House
Resistivity anomaly
Possible fishpond
Possible windmill
mound
Prehistoric flint scatter
Flint Scatter
Arch Eval, Cryfield
House Farm
Possible prehistoric
occupation site
LNWR-BerskswellKenilworth Branch
Gravel Pit
Site of Signal Box
Gravel pits
Roman finds
Iron Age coin
Iron age coins
Type
Post-Medieval
Undated
-6-
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
Cryfield House Farm was established during the Post Medieval period. It was built on land
A geophysical survey identified a possible archaeological site. The type and date of the site are
unknown. It is located to the north of Cryfield Village.
The site of a possible fishpond, used for the breeding and storage of fish. The fishpond may have
been used as a marl pit. It dates to the Medieval/Post Medieval period, and is situated 200m
northwest of Cryfield Village
The site of a possible windmill mound, a mound on which a windmill stood. It is probably of
Medieval or Post Medieval date. It lies to the north of Cryfield Village.
Medieval
Medieval
a flint scatter, comprising flint artefacts of Mesolithic and Neolithic date, was found to the north
west of Cryfield Village
Mesolithic and Neolithic
a flint scatter, comprising flint artefacts of Prehistoric date, was found during a field walking
exercise. The flint scatter was found in an area to the north of Whitefield Coppice
An evaluation was carried out at this location by the Archaeological Field Unit of the Department of
Continuing Education, University of Warwick. Both geophysical and test pitting techniques were
employed. A concentration of Mesolithic and Neolithic finds was recovered (WA 8208), together
with some probable Roman and Medieval pottery and a number of undated archaeological
features possibly associated with the Prehistoric finds
Multi-Period site
Prehistoric
Various finds may be associated with features such as post holes found during an excavation.
They suggest that this may have been a settlement or occupation site during the Mesolithic or
Neolithic periods. The site lies to the south of Cryfield Village.
The site of the Kenilworth to Berkswell branch of the LNWR railway, in use during the Imperial
period. It is marked on the Ordnance Survey map of 1886
The site of a gravel pit from which gravel was extracted during the Imperial period. It was marked
on the Ordnance Survey map of 1886, and was situated 100m east of St Joseph's Convent
School, Kenilworth
The site of a railway signal box which was built in the Imperial period and which is no longer in
use. It is marked on the Ordnance Survey map of 1886 and is situated on the Common,
Kenilworth
The site of several gravel pits from which gravel was extracted during the Imperial period. They
are marked on the Ordnance Survey map of 1886. The gravel pits were situated 500m east of
Millburn Viaduct, Crackley
various Roman finds, including coins, pottery and a brooch, were found 500m south west of
Whitefield
A single Iron Age coin was found 500m south west of Whitefield Coppice
Several gold Iron Age coins were found in an area to the south of Westwood Heath
Description (where available)
Prehistoric
Post-Medieval
Post-Medeival
Post-Medieval
Post-Medieval
Roman
Iron Age 800 BC – 42 AD
Iron Age 800 BC – 42 AD
Date/Period
429580 275560
429740 274600
429700 274700
429800 274200
429130 274380
429110 274460
429110 274530
428900 274700
429400 274700
429700 275600
4298070 274200
429500 275700
429900 274400
430310 273620
429780 275810
429990 274610
429000 273900
430400 275100
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
9599
9648
NGR
8351
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
Anti-Aircraft Artillery site
Iron Age staters
Brickyard Field Names
Brickworks site
Milburn Grange Farm
Flint tool
Roman mosaic
fragments
Pottery sherd
Roman finds
Prehistoric flint scatter
Mesolithic flint scatter
Curvilinear Crop mark
Rectilinear cropmark
Possible Sandstone
Bride
Flint scatter
Flint scatter
Post- Medieval building
Possible Monastic site
Type
Post-Medieval
Iron Age
Post-Medieval
Post-Medieval
Medieval
-7-
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
The site of a heavy anti aircraft installation from the Second World War and identified at this grid
The findspot of a scatter of Iron Age staters in the area of Crackley Wood
Documentary evidence suggests that this is the site of a brickworks dating from the Imperial
period. The works were situated in the area of Cryfield Grange
The site of a brickworks, where bricks were made during the Imperial period. The site is located in
Old Brickyard
The site of Millburn Grange, a Medieval farm or estate that was associated with Stoneleigh Abbey.
The site of the grange is located 100m north east of Millburn Viaduct.
A flint artefact dating to the Prehistoric period was found 800m east of Crackley Wood during field
walking
Several fragments of a Roman mosaic (tesserae) were found in an area to the north west of
Cryfield Village
Roman
Prehistoric
A single pottery sherd dating to either the Prehistoric or Migration period was found 600m east of
Crackley Wood during field walking
Mosaic fragments of Roman date were found to the north of Cryfield Village, suggesting that this
might be the site of an important Roman building
Flint artefacts of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic date were found 200m south east of Roughknowles
Wood
A flint scatter dating to the Mesolithic period was found between Roughknowles Wood and
Crackley Wood
A curvilinear soil mark which is visible on aerial photographs and is undated. It is located 100m
east of Crackley Wood
Prehistoric/Saxon
Roman
Prehistoric
Mesolithic
Unknown
The site of a rectilinear feature that is visible as a cropmark on aerial photographs. It is undated
and it is located 100m east of Crackley Wood
The possible site of a sandstone bridge of unknown date, observed during an archaeological
survey, and located 100m north east of Crackley Wood.
Unknown
Unknown
A flint scatter dating to the Mesolithic period was found 600m east of Crackley Wood.
A flint scatter dating to the Neolithic or Bronze Age was found 700m east of Roughknowles Wood
The site of a building possibly dating to the Post Medieval period and known from the discovery of
sandstone blocks and a pebble floor surface. It was situated 800m south east of Roughknowles
Wood
The possible site of a Cistercian monastery dating to the Medieval period. The site lies to the west
of Cryfield Village
formerly belonging to Cryfield Grange, west of Cryfield Village
Description (where available)
Mesolithic
Neolithic or Bronze Age
Post-Medieval
Medieval
Date/Period
431000 272200
429300 274100
428100 276200
429503 277138 to
430272 276969
429771 277075 to
430516 275183
429775 275897 to
429349 275534
430290 275420
430291 275688
429653 276632
429636 275628
Centroid: 429570
276605
Centroid: 428869
276047
Centroid: 429599
275596
Centroid: 429434
275333
Centroid: 429872
275385
9945
9951
10083
MP 1
MP 2
MP 3
MP 4
MP 5
MP 6
MP 7
AP 1
AP 2
AP 3
AP 4
AP 5
428500 275800
NGR
9856
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
Find of an Ancient British stater in 1992 at" Hurst Farm, Crackley Lane", at SP281762. This grid
reference is however about a kilometre north of Hurst Farm.The method of recovery was not
recorded
Medieval Wood
Medieval Wood formerly The Frith
Find of a dispersed Roman coin Hoard and brooch fragment 400 m southeast of The Pools,
Stoneleigh
Hydrological features
Various sized ridge and
furrows
Cut features
Undated/Post medieval
Undated? Medieval/Postmedeival
Undated
Undated
Former field boundaries
-8-
Curvilinear features identified as water management features
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
Linear features identified as ridge and furrows dating to medieval and post-medieval
Linear cut features identified on aerial photographs
Linear features which probably represent former field boundaries
Cut features identified on Aerial photograph and some areas of archaeological features
Undated/Iron Age
Possible Iron Age
features
Iron Age site and further predicted areas
Site identified by Hill, drawn in Masterplan
Excavation carried out by Warwick University; site contained prehistoric, Roman and medieval
features and archaeology
Possible medieval routeway extending west from Gibbet Hill Road north of the Old Brickyard
plantation and Cryfield Farmhouse
Possible medieval routeway following Gibbet Hill Road
Possible medieval routeway following the southern railway boundary north of Westwood Campus
Area of Cryfield farmhouse and lands containing archaeological sites and features dating to the
prehistoric through to the post-medieval
Iron Age
Roman
Multi-Period
Undated
Undated
Undated
Description (where available)
reference from documentary evidence. It was located west of Gibbet Hill Road.
Other Sites
Medieval
Late Iron Age (100 BC to
41 AD)
Medieval
Roman
Date/Period
Multi-period sites
Cryfield Farm House
Archaeology complex
Iron Age site
Roman site identified by
Hill
Excavation of multiperiod site
Historic Routeway 3
Historic Routeway 2
Historic Routeway 1
Prehistoric Coin
Crackley Wood
Kings Wood
Roman Coin Hoard
Find
Type
Centroid: 429256
275129
Centroid: 429849
274847
Centroid: 430446
275119
Centroid: 430274
274139
Centroid: 429200
274104
Centroid: 428947
274658
AP 7
AP 8
AP 9
AP 10
AP 11
NGR
AP 6
SMR No
Archaeological Gazetteer
Former boundaries
Former boundaries and
cut features
Cut Features
Former military
dispersal site
Hydrological features
Hydrological features
Type
-9-
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
Linear features relating to former boundaries and cut features and track way.
Linear features relating to former boundaries and cut features. Rounded features which are
probably tree boles.
Undated
Undated
Linear cut features located north of Kenilworth Road
Linear features relating to a former military dispersal site
Post medieval
Undated
linear features identified as water management features and probably former fishponds
linear features identified as water management features
Description (where available)
Undated/ Post medieval
Undated/ Post medieval
Date/Period
This page is intentionally blank
Appendix F.2
Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage:
Buildings Gazetteer
This page is intentionally blank
LB number
308177
308176
308178
308179
308180
308181
308182
218505
218506
218507
218508
218509
218537
Fig no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SP3043577216
SP3082076608
SP3079976710
SP3080076730
SP3083876726
SP3088176660
SP3284574615
SP3162674450
SP3160074462
SP2960975512
SP3091973270
SP2842575060
SP2995774712
NGR
Built Heritage Gazetteer
Built Heritage Gazetteer
-1-
The Moat House and Barn
Ivy Farmhouse
16th/17th century
16th century
Canley Hall Farmhouse
Early 19th century
Canley Hall Farmhouses
Hill Farmhouse
16th/17th century
Early 18th century
Barn to east of Wainbody Wood
FH
17th century
Barn at Ivy Farm
Wainbody Wood Farmhouse
17th century
Stables at Ivy Farm
Cryfield House Farmhouse
Early 19th century
18th/early 19th century
Dale House Farmhouse
Late 18th century
17th century
South Hurst Farm
17th century
Name
Cryfield Grange Farmhouse
Age
Mid 16 century
th
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
Timber framed, brick cased house divided in to 2 cottages, 2 storeys. The first
cottage has a plaque of 1940 commemorating birth of Sir Henry Parkes, Prime
minister of New South Wales in the 19th century, in the house. The second has a
plaque of 1950, commemorating gift of four bricks from the cottage to Australian
museums
Pebble-dash, 2 storeys with old tile roof with gabled casement dormers. Panelled
door with fanlight under hood
2 storey, 3 bay red brick with old tiled roof
Three bay barn, timber frame with brick noggin, old tile roof
Timber framed with brick noggin on a stone plinth. 2 storey T plan, with tiled roof and
casement windows. Forms group with Barn and Stables at Ivy Farm
2 storey plus attics, red brick with hipped Welsh slate roof and sash windows
Timber frame rendered in roughcast, on sandstone foundations. Plain tile gable end
roof. Central recessed section with porch, dated 18855 and showing initials ‘AHG’
Three bay barn, timber framed with brick infill. Plain tile gable end roof
Timber framed cottage faced in red brick, 1 storey and attic to early section, and 2
storeys to 19th century re-built section. Plain tile, gable end roof. Brick chimney
stacks to central ridge and west gable
2 storey red brick, hipped plain tiled roof. Central door has ornate fanlight above, and
fenestration comprises sash windows
2 storey red brick on sandstone plinth, plain tiled gable end roof. Former home of
Mary Dormer Harris (1867 – 1936), Warwickshire historian
Three cottages and a stable, timber framed with red brick infill. T-plan, 2 storeys, with
plain tiled gable end roof (hipped to one end), and casement windows
Irregular L shaped 2 storey range, steep plain tiled gable end roofs. Red brick and
red sandstone to 16th century parts
Description
SP3049375256
SP3071375371
SP2998575577
15
16
NGR
14
Fig no
1965
1969
18 century
th
Age
Name
Rootes Hall
-2-
Houses for Visiting Mathematicians
Gibbet Hill Farmhouse
Unlisted Buildings of Local Interest on the University Campus
Built Heritage Gazetteer
Ove Arup and Partners Ltd
First hall of residence on University site, 4 storeys with angled bays, faced in
white tiles
Group of 6 buildings around a central garden, of a curved pod-like style, faced
with sanded yellow clay bricks, 2 stroeys with 1 storey study areas. Interior
boasts curved black boards to study areas
Group of farm buildings and farm house, red brick with plain tile roof (slate in
parts)
Description
Appendix F.3
Archaeology and
Cultural Heritage:
Interpretation of Aerial
Photographs for
Archaeology
Appendix G
Socioeconomic
Assessment
Appendix G.1
Socioeconomic
Assessment:
Expenditure Impact
Methodology
Annex A: Expenditure impact methodology
Approach
A.1
Figure A-1 shows diagrammatically how the University has an impact on the economy. This
shows how the University, its students and its staff have a role in contributing to the local and
regional economy. There are then subsequent rounds of re-spending within the local and
regional economy. Of course, there are also leakages of spending to the rest of the UK and
through imports, taxes and savings. Our approach in calculating the economic impact was to
assess the individual contributions through expenditure on wages, through purchases and by
students. We then made assumptions on the level of multiplier effects to assess re-spending
in the economy.
Figure A-1: Expenditure impacts
University
students
Casual earnings
Spending
Spending
Student
Union
Local and regional
economy
Re-spending
Purchases
& wages
The
University
of Warwick
University
staff
Leakage of
spending
Rest of the
UK,
imports,
taxes,
savings etc
Purchases
Payroll expenditure
A.2
The University of Warwick provided us with payroll data for 2004/05. This data covered all
staff and contained a range of information, in particular: basic pay; start-date; postcode of
residence; date of birth. The key analysis that we undertook using the data was to calculate
pay of staff by geographical area.
A.3
We made adjustments for members of staff who had not worked for the full academic year,
i.e. if they started in March the pay was calculated pro rata for six months. The data provided
on postcodes of residence were used to identify the particular geographical areas of residence.
The breakdown we have used is:
•
The district of Warwick;
•
The district of Coventry;
A.4
•
The rest of the West Midlands;
•
Total expenditure on staff pay – i.e. covering all areas of residence.
This enabled us to determine the local economic impact of the University (i.e. in the districts
of Warwick and Coventry) and the regional impact (i.e. in the West Midlands as a whole).
Table A-1 summarises the data, providing by geographical area of residence: the number of
staff (irrespective of whether part-time, full-time etc); gross pay total and average. This
shows that the direct expenditure in the local economy through wages was almost £71m and
in the regional economy almost £95m. The table also shows that the University provided
some form of employment to 4,785 people in 2004/05. Taking into account part-time
arrangements, this is equivalent to 4,243 full-time equivalent jobs.17
Table A-1: Payroll data – summary 2004/05 academic year
Area
No. of staff
Full-time
equivalent jobs
Gross pay Average
per person (£)
Gross pay Total (£)
Warwick
976
905
30,856
30,115,184
Coventry
2,423
2,070
16,821
40,756,538
3,399
2,975
23,839
70,871,722
897
813
26,556
23,820,611
4,296
3,787
22,042
94,692,333
East Midlands
164
154
29,286
4,802,870
Living elsewhere
325
302
26,058
8,468,986
Total Staff
4,785
4,243
22,563
107,964,189
Warwick and Coventry
Local impact
Other West Midlands
Total West Midlands
Regional impact
University purchases
A.5
The University provided purchases information. We analysed the location of expenditure and
broke this down by geographical area as follows:
•
The district of Warwick;
•
The district of Coventry;
•
The rest of the West Midlands;
•
The Rest of the UK;
•
Abroad;
•
Total – i.e. covering all areas in the UK and elsewhere.
17
Casual staff have been excluded because we could not obtain data on their salaries or length of employment.
A.6
Some purchases did not include a location of supplier. These were dealt with through having
an “unclassified” area in our analysis. Table A-2 shows the resulting break down of
expenditure by geographical area. The data include all purchases by University units, such as
conferences, as well as academic and central purchasing.
Table A-2: University purchases data – summary 2004/05 academic year
Area
Vendors
% of total
vendors
Value (£)
% of total value
Warwick
364
5%
2,927,651
4%
Coventry
605
8%
11,292,336
14%
969
12%
14,219,987
18%
1,322
17%
13,897,109
17%
2,291
3,787
28,117,096
35%
East Midlands
527
7%
6,028,502
7%
Rest of UK
4,223
54%
41,397,404
51%
Abroad
582
7%
2,770,951
3%
Unclassified area
134
2%
2,013,718
3%
Total
7,041
100%
75,543,002
100%
Warwick and Coventry
Local impact
Other West Midlands
Total West Midlands
Regional impact
Students’ Union expenditure
A.7
For Students’ Union purchases we have undertaken a similar analysis as for University
purchases. The data are summarised in Table A-3, resulting in a total local impact of just
under £1 million and a regional impact of just over £1 million.
Table A-3: Students’ Union purchases data – summary 2004/05 academic year
Area
Value of
purchases (£)
% of total value
Total purchases (£)
Warwick
4,786
Less than 1%
12,792
Coventry
936,822
43%
956,575
Warwick and Coventry: Local impact
941,608
43%
969,367
Other West Midlands
135,620
6%
173,045
Total West Midlands: Regional impact
1,077,228
49%
1,142,412
East Midlands
596,663
27%
596,663
Rest of UK
501,747
23%
505,947
Unclassified area
1,721
Less than 1%
1,721
Total
2,177,359
100%
2,246,743
A.8
In addition to the expenditures outlined above, the Students’ Union has an impact on the
economy through paying staff wages. Table A-4 indicates the payroll expenditure by
geographical area using residence postcodes of staff. Adding this to our purchases data
results in the overall expenditure of the Students’ Union.
Table A-4: Students’ Union payroll data and final expenditure – summary 2004/05
academic year
Payroll (£)
Purchases
(from Table
1.4) (£)
Total
expenditure
(£)
11
244,137
12,792
256,929
Coventry
50.5
997,687
956,575
1,954,262
Warwick and Coventry: Local impact
61.5
1,241,824
969,367
2,211,191
Other West Midlands
12
318,636
173,045
491,681
Total West Midlands: Regional impact
73.5
1,560,460
1,142,412
2,702,872
East Midlands
2
65,789
596,663
662,452
Rest of UK
0
0
505,947
505,947
Unclassified area
1
3,865
1,721
5,586
Total
76.5
1,630,114
2,246,743
3,876,857
Area
Full-time
equivalents
Warwick
Student expenditure
A.9
The existence of the University of Warwick means that there is a student population that may
not have otherwise existed in the locality. The expenditure of the students is therefore a direct
impact of the University. We have used data provided on student numbers to estimate their
expenditure. A number of assumptions were required in order to estimate student expenditure
– these are summarised in Table A-5.
Table A-5: Assumptions used in calculation of student expenditure
Issue
Assumption
Distance learning
students
These have been discounted on the assumption that they are very rarely on campus, and
do not spend additionally as a result of the University’s existence.
Choosing regional
Universities
ONS Regional Trends indicates that the 61% of students from the West Midlands choose
to study within the region. Seventeen per cent of Warwick students are from within the
region. We have therefore discounted 10% (61%x17%) of student expenditure on the
assumption that their impact on the economy is not additional.
Amount of expenditure
We have used average expenditures taken from the MORI student expenditure survey
2004.
Expenditure back to
the University
We have discounted expenditure on accommodation for those who live in Universityowned accommodation. This is because it is not additional impact – as this provision will
be taken into account in the University’s own spending.
Living at home
We have discounted those who live in their own home, their parent’s home or their marital
home because we have assumed that whatever they spend on housing, they would have
spent regardless of attending Warwick University.
A.10
Issue
Assumption
Seasonal impact
Student impact is seasonal as they are not at the University all year. We have assumed
impact on the basis of eight months.
Spending back to the
Student Union
Some student spending will be to the Student Union, which will have already been taken
into account through the impact here (Tables 2.3 & 2.4). Therefore we have deducted the
Student Union’s tradable income.
Using these assumptions, we have calculated the local expenditure of the students to be just
under £64 million. The key data are shown in Table A-6 identifying student numbers,
expenditure on particular types of items – both monthly and for the whole year.
Table A-6: Student expenditure summary (2004/05 academic year)
Stage of calculation
Data
Calculating student numbers,
and the number whose
expenditure is additional
Including visiting, overseas and UK, there were 22,542 students for the 2004/05
academic year. Taking into account our assumptions, the expenditure of 20,103
was additional.
Using MORI monthly expenditure
patterns
Expenditure was calculated using the following categories:
Accommodation £247 per month
Food £122 per month
Alcohol £73 per month
Going out £66 per month
Clothes £33 per month
Mobile phones £29 per month
Cigarettes £13 per month
CDs/videos £11 per month
Films £9 per month
Total £603 per month
University of Warwick student
expenditure (on the basis of
eight months worth of
expenditure; discounting
expenditure on Warwick-owned
accommodation and
accommodation for those living
in own/marital/parental home)
Total additional expenditure:
Accommodation £10,765,984
Food £19,599,110
Alcohol £11,727,336
Going out £10,602,797
Clothes £5,301,399
Mobile phones £4,658,805
Cigarettes £2,088,430
CDs/videos £1,767,133
Films £1,445,836
Total £67,956,829
Deducting expenditure back to
the Student Union
67,956,829 minus 4,240,000
Total student expenditure impact £63,716,829
Using multipliers – the evidence base
A.11
The broad approach to calculating economic impact through expenditure identifies the respending that takes place in the local and regional economy. This means that after the direct
expenditure impact through purchases, staff wages and student spending, there will be
subsequent rounds of re-spending. For example: staff will spend their wages in the economy,
generating further business and employment; purchases made will generate employment in
businesses, and these employees will receive wages and spend these in the local and regional
economies.
A.12
These effects through re-spending are measured using economic multipliers. This Annex
summarises the available evidence on multipliers.
A.13
Table A-7 shows previous studies in the HE sector and more widely. The evidence on the size
of multipliers varies, with local multipliers varying from 1.1 to over 1.3, and regional ones
from 1.2 to over 2.0. Some of the variation is explained in the study of the Economic impact
of Higher Education in the South West Region, undertaken in 2002 for HERDA-SW. This
indicates that input-output models can be biased by high levels of student expenditure, which
is often on services where employees are lower paid. This results in high multiplier effects.
Studies that rely on a Keynesian approach are based on average UK tax and savings ratios
that can understate the true multiplier effect.
A.14
The level of the multiplier adopted for this study could potentially over-/under- estimate the
economic impact of the University. As the table of evidence demonstrates, multipliers can
vary enormously. On the basis of this available evidence base, it would seem reasonable to
apply multiplier effects of 1.2 (at the local level) and 1.5 (at the regional level) – in line with
the HERDA-SW study. These are reasonable multipliers to adopt, and would indicate fairly
average levels of economic linkages at local and regional level.
Table A-7: Summarising evidence on multipliers
Study
Multipliers considered
Comments and multipliers used/
calculated
Economic impact studies of Higher Education Institutions
Economic impact of
Higher Education in
the South West
Region, HERDA-SW,
2002
Regional coverage
Refers to several studies:
McNicholl (1995) on the impact of Scottish
HEIs using an input-output model. This
resulted in the following multipliers: the effect
from overall University expenditure (including
payroll) was 1.79; from student expenditure in
Scotland (2.72); from visitor expenditure in
Scotland (2.75); including all three elements
(1.92); including both University expenditure
and student expenditure (1.91).
Harris (1997) calculated the income multiplier
effects on the local economy using inputoutput model for the University of Portsmouth,
defining the local economy to be the
Portsmouth travel to work area. The effect
through direct University expenditure was
estimated to be between 1.24 and 1.73
(although the higher figure was thought to be
more accurate).
Hill (1997) carried out a study using an inputoutput model for the Welsh HEI sector, with a
multiplier of 1.56 estimated.
Other studies tend to use Keynesian
multipliers, with local multipliers equivalent to
Harris’s study quoted at 1.1-1.2. The study by
Robson et al (1995) estimates a regional
multiplier for the North West region of 1.495
using the Keynesian multiplier approach of
Bleaney et al (1992). The study of the
University of Bristol (Chatterton, 1997)
estimated a regional Keynesian multiplier of
1.23 - 1.30.
The Economic Impact
of the University of
Bristol on its Region,
Chatterton, P., 1997
Local and regional
coverage
The Local Economic
Impact of the
University of Wales,
Bangor, Welsh
Economy Research
Unit (University of
Cardiff) and Treble, J.
(University of Wales)
Coverage local, i.e.
North Wales
McNicholl’s study is nationally-based and
so suggests multipliers that would be
higher than appropriate for Warwick.
Harris’s study is of local impact and so at
an appropriate scale for our purpose.
These studies use input-output models,
which tend to estimate higher multiplier
effects than Keynesian ones.
The study itself decided to strike a
balance between the two. Its reasoning
was that input-output models were biased
by high levels of student expenditure
multipliers: “student spending… is largely
spent on accommodation and on service
industries where there are lower paid
employees who pay proportionately less
tax and buy less luxury goods. Although
HEI direct expenditure on supplies offsets
this to some extent, the growth of student
numbers and their average expenditure is
still the dominant effect. HEI multipliers
calculated using the Keynesian approach
based on average UK tax and savings
ratios are likely, on average to understate
the true effect.”
The local economy multiplier used was
1.2 and the regional economy multiplier
1.5.
This study is referred to above.
Adopts a Keynesian-based approach.
Refers to the South Bank and Robson models.
The local economy multiplier (for Avon) is 1.20
and the regional economy multiplier (for the
South West) is between 1.23 and 1.30.
The local economy multiplier is 1.2 and
the regional economy multiplier is
between 1.23 and 1.30.
The study used input-output tables for Wales,
and calculated a multiplier of 1.38 for
University expenditure (every £100 directly
spent by the University results in a further £38
of output in the local economy).
Local economy multipliers are 1.38 or
1.57 dependent on the inclusion of
student expenditure.
Including student expenditure, the multiplier
was 1.57. This is couched slightly differently to
other studies, in that it indicates that for every
£100 spent directly by the University (therefore
excluding student direct expenditure) a further
£57 of output results in the local economy.
North Wales economy will differ fairly
significantly from the West Midlands
economy.
Study
Multipliers considered
The Economic Impact
of the University of
New Brunswick:
estimations and
comparisons with
other Canadian
Universities,
Department of
Economics,
University of New
Brunswick,
September 2002
The study uses 1990 input-output tables for
the Canadian economy. It uses these to
calculate the multiplier effects of University,
student and visitor direct expenditure (from
2000) on Ontario’s economy.
The result is a regional economy multiplier of
1.68.
Comments and multipliers used/
calculated
Regional economy multiplier of 1.68 is
estimated using input-output tables to
model indirect and induced effects.
Report also refers to other impact studies
of other Universities with the following
multipliers:
Dalhousie (1991): 1.30
Lakehead (1998): 2.15
University of Toronto (1998): 2.18
Windsor (1998): 2.15
Regional coverage:
Ontario
Simon Fraser University (1998): 1.49
University of British Columbia (1998):
1.30
The Economic Impact
of University System
of Georgia Institutions
on their Regional
Economies in FY
2004, Georgia’s
Intellectual Capital
Partnership Program,
February 2005
Bases multiplier effects on the impact through
the first round of spending. For 2004, reports
that the average regional multiplier effects of
the 34 Georgia-based institutions was 1.52
(taking into account initial direct expenditure
through personal services, operating
expenses and student expenditure).
Average regional economy multiplier of
1.52.
Regional impacts
Other evidence on multipliers
The Value of the
Sports Economy in
the Regions: The
Case of the West
Midlands, Cambridge
Econometrics, June
2003
Refers to an economic impact study of a test
match where a local income multiplier was
adopted of 1.2.
A local income multiplier of 1.2 is referred
to from a different study.
Closure of MG Rover:
Economic Impact
Assessment Interim
Report, Regeneris
Consulting, July 2005
Uses a standard income multiplier of 1.3 to
calculate induced impact on loss of income.
A local income multiplier of 1.3 is used.
The Additionality
Guide, English
Partnerships,
September 2004
Refers to ready-reckoners from the DETR
depending on estimated extent of linkages:
Overall impact on GVA of direct UK purchases
indicates a regional multiplier effect of
between 1.39 and 1.46.
Neighbourhood: low level of linkages 1.05;
medium 1.10; high 1.15
Regional: low 1.3; medium 1.5; high 1.7.
Also refers to multiplier effects of different
types of property-related activity (on the basis
of previous evaluation evidence) with local
multipliers ranging from 1.21 to 1.38, and
regional ones from 1.38 to 1.56.
Regional multiplier effect of around 1.39
to 1.46 implied.
Suggested multipliers are: 1.21 to 1.38 for
local economy multiplier; 1.3 to 1.7 for
regional economy multiplier.
Appendix G.2
Socioeconomic
Assessment:
Organisations Consulted
University of Warwick Expansion
Socio-economic Inputs to the Environmental Impact Assessment
Annex B: Organisations consulted
B.1
B.2
SQW Limited has consulted its clients for background information to assist in this socioeconomic impact assessment :
•
University of Warwick : Robert Wilson, Director of Estates
•
Turley Associates : Michael Best, Director
SQW Limited has found sufficient additional information on the websites of key
organisations to assist in this socio-economic impact assessment :
•
Coventry City Council : Planning and Regeneration Departments
•
Warwick District Council : Planning and Transport Departments
•
Government Office for the West Midlands
•
West Midlands Regional Assembly
•
Advantage West Midlands
B-1
Appendix G.3
Socioeconomic
Assessment:
Documents Reviewed
University of Warwick Expansion
Socio-economic Inputs to the Environmental Impact Assessment
Annex C: Documents reviewed
C.1
SQW Limited has referred to the following key documents to assist in this socio-economic
impact assessment :
•
University of Warwick Masterplan : MacCormac, Jameson, Pritchard architects,
Turley Associates, planners, Churchman landscape architects and Arup transport and
infrastructure, Draft : December 2005
•
University of Warwick Expansion : Needs Analysis of University Expansion,
University of Warwick, June 2006
•
Regional Impact of the University of Warwick : SQW Limited, June 2006
•
University of Warwick Expansion : draft Scoping Report for the Environmental
Impact Assessment : Turley Associates, October 2005
•
Economic Impact Assessment Guidance : extract provided by Turley Associates,
August 2006
•
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (published June 2004)
•
West Midlands Regional Economic Strategy (RES) 2004 – 2010
•
The West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership: Introduction and Priorities (2005)
•
Warwickshire Structure Plan (1998 – 2011)
•
Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (2006-2011)
•
Coventry Development Plan (1996 – 2011) adopted in 2001
•
Warwick District Council Local Plan; Revised Deposit Version (1996 – 2011)
approved in May 2005
•
Warwick District Community Plan (2020)
C-1