WILD
FRONTIER
ECOLOGY
Proposed Local Development Order:
Egmere
Ecological Appraisal
September 2013
Egmere
Report produced by
Client details
Susannah Dickinson BSc MCIEEM
North Norfolk District Council
Checked by: Robert Yaxley CEnv
MCIEEM
Contact: Kerys Witton
Unit 2
Cold Blow Farm
Great Snoring
Fakenham
Norfolk
NR21 0HF
Holt Road,
Tel: 01328 864633
Tel: 01263 513811
susie@wildfrontier-ecology.co.uk
kerys.witton@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Cromer,
Norfolk
NR27 9EN
© All rights reserved, Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd 2013. No part of this document to be
copied or re-used without the permission of the copyright holder.
Company Registered in England and Wales No 4942219.
Registered Office - Bank Chambers, Market Place, Reepham Norfolk NR10 4JJ
Director Robert Yaxley BSc (Hons) CEnv MCIEEM. VAT Reg No. 887 4692 54
Ecological Appraisal
1
Egmere
Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 4
2. Legislative Context ................................................................................ 6
2.1
International habitat designations ..................................................... 6
2.2
UK habitat designations ................................................................. 6
2.3
Regional habitat designations .......................................................... 6
2.4
Species protection and designation .................................................... 6
2.5
Birds of Conservation Concern .......................................................... 9
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 9
3.1 Records Search .................................................................................. 9
3.2 NNDC Public Consultation ...................................................................... 9
Natural England ................................................................................... 9
Christopher Yardley ............................................................................. 11
3.3 Phase 1 Habitat survey ........................................................................ 11
3.4 Assessment ...................................................................................... 11
3.4.1 Impact magnitude ........................................................................ 11
3.4.2 Impact probability ........................................................................ 12
3.4.3 Geographical scale of importance ...................................................... 12
3.4.4 Impact significance ....................................................................... 12
4. Results...............................................................................................13
4.1 Records Search ................................................................................. 13
4.2 Phase 1 habitat survey ........................................................................ 14
4.3 Habitat for protected species ................................................................ 17
4.3.1 Birds ........................................................................................ 17
4.3.2 Bats ......................................................................................... 17
4.3.3 Terrestrial mammals ..................................................................... 17
4.3.4 Reptiles..................................................................................... 17
4.3.5 Amphibians ................................................................................ 17
5. Evaluation ..........................................................................................19
Table 7: Valued baseline ecological receptors ................................................. 19
6. Preliminary Assessment ..........................................................................21
6.1 Potential impacts .............................................................................. 21
6.1.1 Physical land-take ........................................................................ 21
6.1.2 Construction activities ................................................................... 21
6.1.3 Avoidance during operation ............................................................. 21
6.2 Assessment ...................................................................................... 21
6.2.1 North Norfolk Coast SPA/ SAC/ SSSI/ Ramsar, Holkham NNR ...................... 21
6.2.2 Warham Camp SSSI ....................................................................... 22
Ecological Appraisal
2
Egmere
6.2.3 Great crested newt ....................................................................... 22
6.2.4 Pink-footed goose ......................................................................... 22
6.2.5 Marsh harrier .............................................................................. 23
6.2.6 Hen harrier ................................................................................ 25
6.2.7 Golden plover ............................................................................. 25
6.2.8 Lapwing..................................................................................... 25
6.2.9 Hobby ....................................................................................... 26
6.2.10 Barn owl .................................................................................. 26
6.2.11 Other nesting birds...................................................................... 26
6.3.11 Bats ........................................................................................ 26
6.3.12 Badger ..................................................................................... 26
6.3.13 Hedgerows ................................................................................ 26
6.3.14 On-site habitats ......................................................................... 27
6.4 In-combination Impacts ....................................................................... 27
6.5 Appraisal of Public Consultation ............................................................. 27
Natural England and Christopher Yardley .................................................... 27
7. Further Investigations ............................................................................29
8. Avoidance Measures ..............................................................................30
8.1 Construction .................................................................................... 30
9. Enhancements .....................................................................................31
Appendix 1: Photographs of site...................................................................32
Appendix 2: Plant species list ......................................................................34
Appendix 3: Data Search ............................................................................37
Ecological Appraisal
3
Egmere
1. Introduction
North Norfolk District Council is in the process of designating a Local Development Order
at Egmere, North Norfolk. This is to accommodate future development associated with the
offshore wind energy developments off the north Norfolk coast. The order will allow wind
energy companies and their suppliers/sub-contractors to develop here under a simplified
planning regime. Box 1 outlines the types of development which will be permitted under
the LDO.
Ecological Appraisal
4
Egmere
Wild Frontier Ecology has undertaken this study to gather information on the existing
ecological conditions on site and, where possible, assess the potential impacts of the
proposed development. Where immediate assessment is not possible, further survey needs
have been identified.
Figure 1: Proposed site layout (as supplied)
Ecological Appraisal
5
Egmere
2. Legislative Context
2.1
International habitat designations
Habitats of European-wide importance (other than for birds) are listed under Annex I of
the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora1. Habitats designated under this Directive are Special Areas of Conservation
(SAC). Sites identified as potential SAC (pSAC) and candidate SAC (cSAC) are provided
with the same level of protection as SAC.
Habitats of European-wide importance for birds are listed under the EC Wild Birds
Directive (1979)2. Habitats designated under this Directive are Special Protection Areas
(SPA). Any site identified as a potential SPA (pSPA) is provided with the same level of
protection as an established SPA.
Wetlands of International Importance are designated under the Ramsar Convention
(1971)3.
2.2
UK habitat designations
National ecological designations, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and
National Nature Reserves (NNR), are also afforded statutory protection. SSSIs are notified
and protected under the jurisdiction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) as
amended4. SSSIs are notified based on specific criteria, including the general condition
and rarity of the site and of the species or habitats supported by it.
Ancient Woodland Sites are woodlands that have existed since at least the Seventeenth
Century. They are of biodiversity importance due to their longevity, which often gives rise
to high species diversity. Many, but not all, ancient woodland sites are given national or
county designations that confer statutory protection.
2.3
Regional habitat designations
In Norfolk, County Wildlife Sites (CWSs) are non-statutory sites that are of county-wide
importance for nature conservation, but are below the standard for selection as SSSIs.
2.4
Species protection and designation
Legally protected species in Britain are listed under the various Schedules of the WCA 1981
(as amended)5. Schedule 1 covers birds while Schedule 5 covers non-avian vertebrates and
invertebrates, and Schedule 6 details animals which may not be killed or taken by certain
methods. Schedule 8 of the WCA 1981 lists species of plants which are afforded special
protection.
Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981 covers the non-avian animals that are afforded special
protection. Relevant to development plans, this Schedule makes it an offence to damage,
destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which any Schedule 5 animal inhabits.
It is also an offence to disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place
which it uses for that purpose. This legislation has been updated by the Countryside and
1
Council Directive 92/43/EEC On the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(EC Habitats Directive). Annex I, 1992.
2
Council of the European Communities Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds
(79/409/EEC), 1979.
3
Ramsar The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 1971.
4
Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1981.
5
Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1981.
Ecological Appraisal
6
Egmere
Rights of Way Act 20006 which includes measures to prevent reckless disturbance.
Different levels of protection are afforded for certain species.
Wild birds are protected under the WCA 1981 (as amended)7. The WCA creates a number
of offences in relation to wild birds including killing or injuring any bird or damaging or
destroying nests and eggs. Certain species are also listed under Schedule 1 of the WCA,
which prevents disturbance of the species or its nest and/or eggs at any time, with
protection by special penalties. Certain quarry species and agricultural pest species such
as woodpigeon, magpie and carrion crow are excluded from the general stipulations under
the WCA.
Certain bird species are listed in Annex 1 of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
conservation of wild birds8. These are species for which a SPA can be designated if a site’s
population exceeds 1% of the reference population, as defined in Appendix 4 of the SPA
Review9.
All bat species are listed under Annex IV of Council Directive 92/43/EEC1, and some rare
species are additionally listed under Annex II. UK protected status is conferred by
Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 201010 and Schedule 5
of the WCA 1981 as amended. This protection extends to both the species and roost sites.
Likewise bat roosts are protected at all times of the year, regardless of whether bats are
present at the time.
The water vole Arvicola amphibius is protected under Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981. The
protection is now with respect to all parts of Section 9. This section of the Act affords
protection to the water vole’s shelter and also protects the animal itself. This protection
has been provided in recognition of a significant decline in numbers in recent decades and
in recognition that this reduction in population has been primarily as a result of habitat
loss as opposed to direct persecution. The legal protection makes it an offence to
intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which water
voles use for shelter or protection, or to disturb water voles whilst they are using such a
place.
Otters Lutra lutra are protected under Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981. The otter is also a
protected species included in Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010, and is protected under Annex II of 92/43/EEC. It is an offence to
intentionally kill, injure or take an otter from the wild, or to intentionally or recklessly
damage, destroy or obstruct access to any habitat used by otters or to disturb the otters
which make use of those habitats.
All native reptiles are listed on Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981, though they are afforded
different levels of protection. For the four most commonly occurring species (adder
Vipera berus, grass snake Natrix natrix, slow-worm Anguis fragilis and common lizard
Zootoca vivipara) the protection extends to prohibit killing and injury although does not
include habitat protection. In practice, when the presence of reptiles is confirmed the
legislative protection requires that a mitigation programme is undertaken to make
‘reasonable effort’ to remove animals prior to the commencement of any site preparation
6
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Commencement No. 7) (Wales) Order 2005
JNCC, Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.
8
Council of the European Communities, Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds,
(79/409/EEC), 1979.
9
Stroud, D.A., Chambers, D., Cook, S., Buxton, N., Fraser, B., Clement, P., Lewis, P., McLean, I.,
Baker, H. and Whitehead, S. (eds), The UK SPA network: its scope and content, JNCC,
Peterborough, 2001.
10
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010.
7
Ecological Appraisal
7
Egmere
or development. In certain parts of the country the presence of one or all of the four
more common species of reptile could be regarded as a conservation issue as opposed to
what is essentially an animal welfare issue.
The great crested newt Triturus cristatus is fully protected under both national and
international legislation. Specifically, the species is listed on Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981,
making it an offence to knowingly kill, injure, disturb, handle or sell the animal. The
protection is afforded to all life stages and includes both the terrestrial and aquatic
components of its habitat. The species is also listed under Annexes II and IV(a) of
European Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora, and so is covered under Schedule 2 of the UK’s Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010.
The other native amphibians, which include common frog Rana temporaria, common toad
Bufo bufo, palmate newt Lissotriton helveticus, and smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris, are
protected by Section 9(5) of the WCA 1981. Section 9(5) only prohibits the sale,
possession or transport for the purpose of sale, and advertising the buying or selling of
listed animals.
Badgers Meles meles and their setts are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act
199211. This means that it is unlawful to knowingly kill, capture, disturb or injure an
individual badger or intentionally damage, destroy or obstruct an area used for breeding,
resting or sheltering by badgers.
Schedule 8 of the WCA 1981 lists species of plants which are afforded special protection.
It is an offence to pick, uproot or destroy any species listed on Schedule 8 without prior
authorisation from the relevant statutory organisation, and all plants are protected from
unauthorised uprooting (i.e. without the landowner’s permission) under Schedule 13 of the
WCA 1981. Schedule 4 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations10 also
protects certain plants in that it is an offence to deliberately pick, collect, uproot or
destroy a wild plant of a European Protected Species.
The Red Data Book (RDB) system applies standard criteria to define the national
conservation status of animal and plant species according to the following categories:
Extinct (EX), critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU), nearthreatened (NT) and lower concern (LC).
Biodiversity 2020 is England’s key contributions to achieving the 2010 target to halt
biodiversity loss, and replaces the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP). The strategy
focuses on the four following themes

A more integrated large-scale approach to conservation on land and at sea.

Putting people at the heart of biodiversity policy.

Reducing environmental pressures.

Improving our knowledge
Priority species and habitats are chosen according to a number of criteria, including
threatened status, decline in range/area and endemism; these priority habitats and
species are based on the previous UKBAP lists. Biodiversity action planning has been
applied at both a national and local level. A priority species or habitat reflects the fact
that the habitat or species concerned is in a national state of decline, and hence
11
Protection of Badgers Act, 1992.
Ecological Appraisal
8
Egmere
conservation action is required. It does not denote any specific level of rarity for a
priority habitat or priority species and does not in itself confer a statutory protection
status.
2.5
Birds of Conservation Concern
The British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) (2009) lists Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)12,
which fall into three categories:

red list (species of high conservation concern);

amber list (species of medium conservation concern); and,

green list (species of lower conservation concern).
Species are placed on these lists based, among other criteria, on the percentage decline
of breeding or wintering populations in the recent past. In this assessment, those species
of lower concern are not considered in detail, except where it is considered there is a
particular risk to that species posed by the development proposal. These lists do not
imply rarity for the species concerned and many species listed as being of higher or
medium conservation concern are common and widespread.
3. Methods
3.1 Records Search
Natural England’s Nature on the Map website and geographic information system (GIS)
dataset were used to identify nearby designated areas for nature conservation. Norfolk
Biological Information Service (NBIS) was contacted and asked to provide information on
any non-statutory designated nature conservation sites (i.e., CWSs) within 2.5km of the
proposal site.
NBIS were asked to provide all biological records within 2.5km of the proposed
development. A 2.5km buffer was considered a suitable distance to identify any key local
bird and bat populations, and any terrestrial species which could occur on the site.
3.2 NNDC Public Consultation
Natural England
The Natural England response to the public consultation conducted by North Norfolk
District Council between Monday 21 January and Friday 15 March 2013 is given as follows
(where relevant to an ecological appraisal).
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the
natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
Designated Sites
The application site is located approximately 5km from the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (SPA).
European sites (including SPAs) fall within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010. Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
an appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which is:
12
British Trust for Ornithology, Birds of Conservation Concern, 2009.
Ecological Appraisal
9
Egmere
(a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other
plans or projects); and
(b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site
Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European / Internationally designated site be identified or be
uncertain, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare
an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process.
Reg 78 of The Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 refers to Local Development Orders:
Local development orders
78. A local development order may not grant planning permission for development which—
(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site
(either alone or in combination with other plans or projects); and
(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site.
Therefore any LDO which will result in a likely significant effect will not be compliant with the
Habitat Regulations. This requirement is also outlined in Circular 1/06 (Guidance on changes to the
Development Control System):
“LDOs are restricted from permitting development that is likely to have a significant effect on a
European site. This restriction of the power to make an LDO covers potential development not
only on such a European site, but also development in the vicinity that might affect the site.”
(Para 18, Circular 1/06)
Therefore is it vital to understand how the LDO may affect European sites before it is progressed
further in order to ensure that the LDO only contains development that is appropriate in the
context of the relevant legislation. Development listed in Schedule 1 of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Regulations 2011 is not permitted through an LDO and Schedule 2 development can only
be permitted subject to compliance with the EIA regulations.
The LPA should ensure they are compliant with the requirements of the Habitats Directive and
Regulations before adopting an LDO. Natural England expects a screening process to be carried out
if a Local Authority intend to submit an LDO, in order to accord with the EIA regulations and
Habitats Regulations. Some LPAs have carried out an “Integrated Impact Assessment” to accompany
a draft LDO using existing evidence covering not only our requirements but those from other
statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage.
Whilst we believe it unlikely that the development proposed will have an adverse effect on the
special interest features of the North Norfolk Coast SPA, it is difficult to know this for certain given
the limited information currently available. We would expect sufficient information to be provided
to demonstrate that proposals will not have a significant effect on the European site, in accordance
with the above.
Protected species
The Local Planning Authority (LPA) in exercising their functions “must have regard to the
requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those
functions‟ (Regulation 9(5) of the Habitats Regulations). In order to comply with this duty the LPA
can only grant planning permission for development that would affect a European Protected Species
on the basis that:
The proposed development is in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Habitats Directive, which
relates to the protection of species.
The proposal would be likely to receive a Protected Species license from Natural England, if
required.
Ecological Appraisal
10
Egmere
If the site of the proposed LDO contains habitats that suggests protected species may be present or
there is existing information that suggests particular protected species may be present on site; then
Natural England recommends that further survey work should be undertaken, before formal
adoption of the LDO, with respect to the protected species identified. This would ensure that
appropriate mitigation can be incorporated into the LDO and where necessary conditions can be
applied to ensure no detrimental harm to protected species.
Other advice
We would expect the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to assess and consider the other possible
impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:
local sites (biodiversity and geodiversity);
local landscape character;
local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species.
Biodiversity enhancements
This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are
beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation
of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of
the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in
accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section
40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that 'Every public
authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper
exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity'. Section 40(3) of the same
Act also states that 'conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of
habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat'.
Christopher Yardley
The area contains large over wintering populations of Pink Footed Geese of international
importance. No assessment of the impact of the development on ecology has been made.
3.3 Phase 1 Habitat Survey
A Phase 1 habitat survey was undertaken on 5th September 2013 by Susannah Dickinson
MCIEEM. The survey was undertaken to JNCC guidance standards13, with the methods being
‘extended’ to include a general evaluation of the site in terms of any rare or protected
species likely or shown to be present.
The area within the red line boundary (survey area) was walked over and notes were also
made on surrounding habitats.
3.4 Assessment
3.4.1 Impact magnitude
Where it is necessary to define potential impacts in qualified terms, the impact magnitude
categories and criteria are described as follows per Byron (2000)14:

Major negative effect – that which has a harmful impact on the integrity of a
site or the conservation status of a population of a species within a defined
geographical area (e.g. fundamentally reduces the capacity to support wildlife
13
JNCC (2010) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – A technique for environmental audit
Byron, H. (2000) Biodiversity Impact - Biodiversity and environmental impact assessment: a good
practice guide for road schemes. The RSPB, WWF-UK, English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts, Sandy.
14
Ecological Appraisal
11
Egmere
for the entirety of a conservation site, or compromises the persistence of a
species’ population).

Intermediate negative effect – that which has no adverse impact on the integrity
of a conservation site or the conservation status of a species’ population, but
does have an important adverse impact in terms of achieving certain ecological
objectives (e.g. sustaining target habitat conditions and levels of wildlife for a
conservation site or maintaining population growth for a species).

Minor negative effect – some minor detrimental effect is evident, but not to the
extent that it has an adverse impact in terms of achieving ecological objectives.

Neutral effect – that which has no predictable or measurable impact.

Positive effect – that which has a net positive impact on an ecological receptor.
3.4.2 Impact probability
The likelihood that an impact will occur to a specified receptor is categorized following
definitions given by the IEEM’s Guidelines for Ecological Assessment15:

Certain/near-certain – probability of occurrence estimated at 95% chance or
higher;

Probable – probability of occurrence estimated above 50% but below 95%;

Unlikely – probability of occurrence estimated above 5% but less than 50%;

Extremely unlikely – probability of occurrence estimated at less than 5%.
3.4.3 Geographical scale of importance
The value of a given receptor is categorized following the terminology given by the IEEM’s
Guidelines for Ecological Assessment.







International;
National;
Regional;
County;
District;
Local/parish;
Within site only.
3.4.4 Impact significance
For the purposes of this study, and following the IEEM’s Guidelines for Ecological
Assessment, an ecologically significant impact is that which affects the integrity of a
defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats or species
populations within a defined geographical area. ‘Integrity’ in this technical sense is
defined within the Guidelines as “The coherence of [a site’s] ecological structure and
function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats
and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified.”
15
Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management. (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Assessment.
IEEM, Winchester.
Ecological Appraisal
12
Egmere
4. Results
4.1 Records Search
The data search returned no CWS within 2.5km of the site. There are also no SSSI nearby.
The nearest SSSI is Warham Camp 4km north-east. This is noted for its chalk grassland
flora and associated butterfly species. The nearest SPA is the North Norfolk coast 5km
north of the proposal; this is also the nearest SAC, Ramsar site and NNR (Holkham).
The data search returned 186 records of 50 species of conservation concern. The majority
of these records were for locally frequent bird species, including pink footed geese, marsh
harrier, hen harrier, grey partridge, turtle dove, skylark and barn owl. There were no
records of European protected mammal or herpetofauna species.
This general area is known for supporting large numbers of foraging pink-footed geese
through the winter months (Wild Frontier Ecology, pers. obs.), also supported by the data
search results which give a maximum of 15,000 pink-footed geese at Egmere in 2011, and
35,000 at Waterden, approximately 2.7km to the south-west).
Records of non-native species within 2.5km of the site were also supplied. There are eight
records of muntjac and one record of giant hogweed.
In May and June 2012, specialist surveys for great crested newt were conducted by Wild
Frontier Ecology on the pond on site and on two further ponds to the west as part of the
application for the adjacent AD plant. No evidence of great crested newts using the ponds
at the site was found at that time.
All species records are appended.
Ecological Appraisal
13
Egmere
4.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey
The full habitat map is shown in Figure 2, and target notes are described in Table 1. A
plant species list is also appended.
The survey area is a mix of brownfield and greenfield land. The greenfield land consists of
arable fields and small woodlands, predominantly mature mixed plantations. The
brownfield land is a mixture of buildings and hard standings for agricultural operations and
small business surrounding the Holkham Estate’s central grain store.
The site was previously part of North Creake Airfield. Some of the greenfield land has
been previously developed as part of the airfield, with some derelict 1940’s buildings still
visible in the central plantation. On brownfield land, these wartime structures remain in
use as agricultural or industrial stores (Plates 2 and 5). Woodland plantations on site have
developed or been planted since the airfield went out of use. They are a mainly a mixture
of Scots pine Pinus sylvestris with pedunculate oak Quercus robur, ash Fraxinus excelsior
and sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus (Plates 3, 4, 5 and 11).
The surrounding lands are owned by the large estates of Holkham and Walsingham. They
are predominantly arable cultivation, with further areas of plantation woodland
(connected by hedges).
Ecological Appraisal
14
Egmere
Table 1: Phase 1 Target Notes
Reference
Target note
Photo ref.
TN01
Deep pit with pond, nearly dry, surrounded by dense ruderal
vegetation. Nettle Urtica dioica, hogweed Heracleum sphondylium,
bramble Rubus fruticosus agg., broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius.
Plate 1
TN02
Large barn, formally aircraft hangar. Track fenced with occasional
large hawthorn Crataegus monogyna.
Plate 2
TN03
Strip of mixed plantation, field maple Acer campestre, Scot’s pine,
hazel Corylus avellana, hawthorn and bramble.
Plate 3
TN04
Mixed woodland, predominantly broadleaf to south (oak, ash and
sycamore) with increasing Scots pine to the north. There are several
buildings including large barns in current use and derelict war time
structures.
Plate 4 & 5
TN05
Mixed woodland with large pond. Pond surrounded by dense nettle.
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos & moorhen Gallinula chloropus.
Plate 6
TN06
Buildings surrounded by rank amenity grassland and planters. Small
section of wood/scrub with large sycamore.
Plate 7
TN07
Amenity grassland used as car park. Surrounded by
industrial/farm buildings, Holkham Estate’s central grain store.
large
Plate 8
TN08
Area of rough scrub and ruderal vegetation, occasional mature ash and
pedunculate oak with bramble and elder Sambucus nigra. Large area of
nettle and spear thistle Cirsium vulgare.
Plate 9
TN09
Scira Offshore energy operational base – new build offices, storage
facility and car park with recent landscape planting.
Plate 10
TN10
Mixed woodland, ash, sycamore and Scots pine. Rough hummocky
ground. Surrounded to north and east by old war time buildings with
stored building materials and machinery.
Plate 11
TN11
Outgrown landscape planting, oak, ash, sycamore, cherry laurel Prunus
laurocerasus, Leyland cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii, buddleia
Buddleja davidii.
Plate 12
Ecological Appraisal
15
Egmere LDO
Ecological Appraisal
16
Egmere LDO
4.3 Habitat for Protected Species
4.3.1 Birds
A wide range of bird species were recorded on site during the Phase 1 habitat survey.
Records include a flock of approximately 150 lapwings in the field to the north west of the
LDO site, and two buzzards using the plantation at the centre of the proposal. There were
also BoCC red and amber listed farmland birds including linnet, yellowhammer and grey
partridge.
The site itself contains potential nesting habitat for two Schedule 1 species, hobby
(plantation woodland) and barn owl (disused buildings). All the available habitats have
potential to support nesting birds given general protection under the WCA, and will
undoubtedly be used by a variety of species.
4.3.2 Bats
The site holds roosting habitat potential for bats in the wide range of buildings. The trees
are thought to offer limited habitat for roosting bats as most are relatively young without
any substantial cracks or crevices. There are good foraging opportunities for bats across
the site, particularly around the ponds and plantations.
4.3.3 Terrestrial mammals
There is habitat for badger, but no setts or other signs of badger were recorded during the
Phase 1 habitat survey. This survey was limited by the dense nature of the woodland
understorey, and not all areas of the proposed development site were completely
covered. There is no habitat for riparian mammal species as there are no watercourses on
site, and the survey showed that the pond on site was not occupied by any species such as
water vole or otter.
4.3.4 Reptiles
Potential habitat for reptile species is very limited. There are areas of scrub and rough
grassland;, however, arable field margins are mainly very narrow and much of the site is
already highly disturbed by agricultural and industrial activities.
4.3.5 Amphibians
There is one pond within the proposed site and a further six ponds within 500m of the site
which could be breeding habitat for great crested newts.
Ecological Appraisal
17
Egmere LDO
Table 2: Bird species recorded
Common name
Scientific name
BoCC
status16
Notes
Sparrowhawk
Accipiter nisus
Green
Found dead at side of B1105
Red-legged partridge
Alectoris rufa
Green
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
Amber
Buzzard
Buteo buteo
Green
Linnet
Carduelis cannabina
Red
Goldfinch
Carduelis carduelis
Green
Treecreeper
Certhia familiaris
Green
Feral pigeon
Columba livia x
Green
Wood pigeon
Columba palumbus
Green
House martin
Delichon urbica
Amber
Yellowhammer
Emberiza citrinella
Red
Kestrel
Falco tinnunculus
Amber
Moorhen
Gallinula chloropus
Green
Present on pond just off-site
Swallow
Hirundo rustica
Amber
Probably nesting in grain store
Herring gull
Larus argentatus
Red
Common gull
Lesser black-backed
gull
Larus canus
Amber
Larus fuscus
Amber
black-headed gull
Amber
Pied wagtail
Larus ridibundus
Motacilla alba
yarrellii
Great tit
Parus major
Green
House sparrow
Passer domesticus
Red
Grey partridge
Perdix perdix
Red
Pheasant
Green
Wren
Phasianus colchicus
Troglodytes
troglodytes
Blackbird
Turdus merula
Green
Lapwing
Vanellus vanellus
Red
Present on pond just off-site
Two birds observed in plantation on
site.
Probably nesting in grain store
Green
Less common that red-legged
partridge
Green
Small number of individuals overflying
site. Flock of c. 150 off-site.
16
Eaton M.A., Brown A.F., Noble D.G., Musgrove A.J., Hearn R., Aebischer N.J., Gibbons D.W.,
Evans A. and Gregory R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in
the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296–341
Ecological Appraisal
18
Egmere LDO
5. Evaluation
The ecological features identified within section 4 are evaluated within Table 3, below, in
line with CIEEM guidance.
Table 3: Valued baseline ecological receptors
Valued ecological
receptor
Statutory and/or
special conservation
status
Site status
Ecological
value assigned
to status
North Norfolk Coast
SPA/ SAC/ SSSI/
Ramsar, Holkham
NNR (coincident
area)
Safeguarded under
Annex I of the EC
Habitats Directive
92/43/EEC and the
Conservation of
Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010
5km to the north of the LDO
area.
International
Warham Camp SSSI
Protected by the WCA
1981, and by the CRoW
Act 2000 as amended
4km to the north-east.
National
Great crested newt
Listed under Annexes II
and IV(a) of European
Directive 92/43/EEC
and Schedule 5 of the
Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981
Potential habitat present
Not known, but
likely to be at
most a district
value
population
Pink-footed goose
Qualifying species of
North Norfolk Coast
SPA. Reference
population 23,802 birds
UK BoCC Amber listed
Known to use fields in the
area in large numbers, up to
15,000 in the vicinity of
Egmere, and up to 35,000
within 5km
International.
15,000 birds
would be 63% of
reference
population.
Marsh harrier
Qualifying species of
North Norfolk Coast
SPA. Reference
population 14 pairs.
Also listed under Annex
1 of the European Birds
Directive 1979, and
listed on Schedule 1 of
the WCA, 1981.
Data search shows use of the
area during the breeding
season. Status of breeding
on site not known.
Not known, bur
1 pair would be
7% of reference
population.
Hen harrier
Qualifying species of
North Norfolk Coast
SPA. Reference
population 16 birds over
winter. listed under
Annex 1 of the
European Birds
Directive 1979, and
some are listed on
Schedule 1 of the WCA,
1981.
Data search suggests
occasional use of the area
during the winter season.
Not known, but
1 bird would be
6.25% of
reference
population
Golden Plover
Qualifying species of
North Norfolk Coast
SPA. Reference
population 2,667 birds
over winter.
Likely to use the fields
across the area in winter
Not known, but
likely to be at
most a district
value
population
Ecological Appraisal
19
Egmere LDO
Valued ecological
receptor
Statutory and/or
special conservation
status
Site status
Ecological
value assigned
to status
Lapwing
Contributor to
qualifying assemblage
of North Norfolk Coast
SPA.
Likely to use the fields
across the area in winter
Not known, but
likely to be at
most a district
value
population
Hobby
Listed on Schedule 1 of
the WCA, 1981.
Potential nesting habitat
present (plantations).
Not known, but
1 pair would be
of district value
Barn owl
Listed on Schedule 1 of
the WCA, 1981.
Potential nesting habitat is
present (buildings).
Not known, but
1 pair would be
of local/ parish
value
Nesting birds
All birds’ nests
protected under the
WCA 1981
The site will support nesting
by an assemblage of
farmland species, in the
hedgerows, woodland and
around the disused barn.
Ground nesting species are
also certain to use the
arable fields on site.
Site value
Bat species
Protected by Schedule 2
of Conservation of
Species and Habitats
Regulations 2010 and
Schedules 5 and 6 of
WCA 1981
Potential roost sites
available. Common
pipistrelle roost returned by
data search from Wighton.
Not known, but
likely district
value at most
Badger
Protection of Badgers
Act 1992.
Not located on site but some
areas not fully searched.
Not known, but
at most local/
parish
Hedgerows
Hedgerow Regulations
1997
Four lengths of hedgerow on
site
Local/ parish
On-site habitats –
arable cultivation,
brownfield,
plantation
woodland, scrub
No statutory protection
or enhanced ecological
status in their own right
Present on site
Site
Ecological Appraisal
20
Egmere LDO
6. Preliminary Assessment
6.1 Potential impacts
This LDO has the potential to create negative ecological impacts on species and habitats
both within the footprint of the development and in the surrounding area. For some taxa a
full impact assessment cannot be conducted without further survey work.
A summary of potential impacts is given below:
6.1.1 Physical land-take
Approximately 28ha of land will be appropriated for this development - 12.7ha of
brownfield land and 14.8ha of greenfield land. This will be for the lifespan of the
buildings, and for the purpose of this assessment is assumed to be permanent. It is
possible that existing mixed woodland may be removed and old buildings demolished or
renovated as part of these works. The development is likely to be piecemeal and take
place over several years.
Access tracks for construction traffic will be via the existing main road, B1105. An area of
greenfield land will be used for landscape planting with the intention of screening.
6.1.2 Construction activities
The activity, noise, lighting and fumes from machinery and personnel on site during the
any construction have the potential to disturb and cause mortality to species using the site
and surrounding fields.
6.1.3 Avoidance during operation
These effects are defined as the abandonment of areas of wildlife significance following
construction due to the presence of related operational activities. Operational activities
might include increased traffic and noise, presence of personnel, or simply avoidance of
the area because of the presence of buildings. Effects may be either temporary and will
disappear with habituation (i.e. species could become acclimatised to the noise/other
effects created), or lasting as long as the development is in place, which for the purposes
of this assessment is assumed to be permanent.
6.2 Assessment
6.2.1 North Norfolk Coast SPA/ SAC/ SSSI/ Ramsar, Holkham NNR
At distances of 5km or more there is no potential for a development in this location to
directly impact on sites protected for specific habitats or terrestrial species.
The only potential is for impacts to wide-ranging species, i.e. birds from the SPA. It is
possible that all species for which the SPA is listed may overfly the site, however for most
species the site would hold no attracting features. Of key concern would be species such
as pink footed goose which may well use the surrounding arable farmland for feeding, and
records of this species have been returned by the data search with a max count of 35,000
individuals.
Ecological Appraisal
21
Egmere LDO
6.2.2 Warham Camp SSSI
At 4km there are no foreseeable direct effects on Warham Camp SSSI. The site is
designated for its botanical interest. There are therefore no mechanisms for impact on
this SSSI, impacts are therefore considered neutral, and requiring no further
consideration.
6.2.3 Great crested newt
The pond on site and within 500m hold potential habitat for great crested newt. Impacts
to great crested newt cannot be fully assessed until a set of surveys have been completed.
In May and June 2012 specialist surveys for great crested newt were conducted on the
pond on site and two further ponds to the west as part of the application for the adjacent
AD plant. No evidence of great crested newts using the ponds at the site was found at that
time. The ponds to the east were not surveyed. Surveys are therefore recommended on all
ponds within 500m not surveyed in 2012. In addition a re-survey of the pond within the
development site would also be advisable.
6.2.4 Pink-footed goose
Pink-footed geese are a qualifying feature of the North Norfolk Coast SPA. In winter they
range widely outside the SPA boundary, from Terrington St Clement in the west of Norfolk,
south to Fakenham and east to Bodham, and also with substantial interchange between
north Norfolk and the Broads, where there are further significant feeding areas. The
county population is estimated at 100,000 to 150,000 birds17. The data search indicates up
to 15,000 birds have been observed using the Egmere area, a figure which represents 63%
of the SPA reference figure. It is almost certain that any pink-footed geese using the LDO
area and surrounding land will be associated with the North Norfolk Coast SPA and could
be considered part of the SPA population.
The potential effects on pink-footed geese are predicted to be habitat loss (28 hectares)
and human disturbance from both construction and operation of the LDO. Regarding
habitat disturbance, the geese only use open cultivated arable fields, preferring those
which have sugarbeet tops or autumn sown cereals. The loss proposed for the LDO
amounts to approximately 20 hectares of such land, some of which is adjacent to existing
woodland, and unlikely to be used by geese currently. The amount of habitat loss is small
in comparison to the abundance of this habitat locally, and is not considered to give rise
to a significant effect on the conservation status of the species.
A disturbance effect could radiate some hundreds of metres from the LDO boundary,
perhaps up to 500 metres18. The only circumstances in which disturbance of this kind could
result in a significant effect to geese, is if very significant numbers were feeding for
prolonged periods within 500 metres, and were regularly being prevented from feeding.
Disturbance on this scale should, however, be avoided by the avoidance measures advised
below in section 8.1.
There is a potential issue of increased human disturbance resulting from the LDO during
construction and operation. Geese are disturbed by the human form and by traffic and
poor lines of sight18, but would also be vulnerable to periodic disturbance from
construction or other activities where people are visible to the open fields, or should plans
17
Taylor et al (2011). The Norfolk Bird Atlas. BTO Publications
Madsen, J. (1985) Impact of Disturbance on Field Utilization of Pink-footed Geese in West
Jutland, Denmark. Biological Conservation 33 (1985) 53-63
18
Ecological Appraisal
22
Egmere LDO
for helicopter take-off and landing be brought forward. It is considered likely that geese
would quickly habituate to prolonged noise or the presence of heavy fixed plant such as
cranes. There is also a not inconsiderable background level of disturbance created by the
existing on-site activity and the traffic along the B1105.
Some of the LDO is currently screened from the adjacent open fields by plantation
woodland or hedges, but much of it is openly visible. Proposed structure planting will, in
time, screen the rest of the LDO from the land outside, and also create a distance buffer
in most places. Therefore, any disturbance effects will be limited to the period
immediately after the structure planting, until such a time as it had formed sufficient
cover to mask human activity. Although large numbers of geese could be involved in such
disturbance, the likelihood of a population level effect is low, because of their ability to
easily relocate within a very large area of suitable habitat. There is also uncertainty that
an effect would be felt at all, as there is some dependence on crop rotation and field
treatment. It is considered that such effects on the goose population would be at most
minor negative in magnitude, temporary, and not significant.
Avoidance measures to minimise disturbance to land outside the LDO are advised. See
section 8.1.
It is considered that development of the LDO, with the exception of helicopter activity
(for which the disturbance level is not known but is likely to be significantly higher), and
provided avoidance measures are carried out, would not give rise to a Likely Significant
Effect on pink-footed goose populations for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations.
However, it would nevertheless represent good practice, provide added certainty to such
an assessment (assuming monitoring is also carried out), and provide baseline data for any
potential helipad proposal, to understand the current level of usage of the fields by pinkfooted geese and other wintering bird species. See section 7.
It is considered that the effects of establishing helicopter activity on pink-footed geese
the Egmere site are not sufficiently clear to enable a conclusion of Likely Significant
Effect to be made.
6.2.5 Marsh harrier
It is probable that marsh harriers nest in the area, and although the data search provides
some evidence of occupation of the general area during the breeding season, it is unknown
at this stage whether marsh harriers regularly nest close to the LDO area. Marsh harriers
can nest in crops. A breeding bird survey, incorporating methodology suitable for
detecting marsh harrier nests, is prescribed in section 7.
However, it is likely that if marsh harriers were displaced by the LDO, there would be an
abundance of suitable habitat in the area for relocation. Unless the LDO site is a regular
nesting area (to be evaluated by survey), loss of the relatively small area of nesting
habitat taken up by the LDO area is not considered to give rise to a Likely Significant
Effect on the SPA population.
The same issue for disturbance from construction or operation arises with marsh harrier as
with pink-footed goose, and the same analysis applies. Some of the LDO is currently
screened from the adjacent open fields by plantation woodland or hedges, but much of it
is openly visible. Proposed structure planting will, in time, screen the rest of the LDO from
the land outside, and also create a distance buffer in most places. Therefore, any
disturbance effects will be limited to immediately after the structure planting. It is
assumed that if the area is heavily disturbed, that marsh harriers would be unlikely to nest
there and the effect would be one of avoidance of disturbed areas rather than disturbance
of an active nest.
Ecological Appraisal
23
Egmere LDO
It is considered that such disturbance, with the potential exception of helicopter activity,
would at most cause minor negative and not significant impacts on marsh harrier, and
would not give rise to a Likely Significant Effect on marsh harrier populations for the
purposes of the Habitats Regulations.
It is considered that the effects of establishing helicopter activity on marsh harriers at the
Egmere site are not sufficiently clear to enable a conclusion of Likely Significant Effect to
be made.
Ecological Appraisal
24
Egmere LDO
6.2.6 Hen harrier
The data search suggests occasional use of the general area by hen harriers. Hunting hen
harriers range widely over open habitats in winter in north Norfolk, and return at dusk to
known roost sites. There is nothing to suggest that the LDO area would be particularly
favoured for hunting, and is not known to support a roost. It is considered extremely
unlikely that hen harrier would experience minor negative effects from the development
of the LDO, and any effects would be not significant, nor give rise to a Likely Significant
Effect.
6.2.7 Golden plover
In addition, the surrounding cultivated fields are good habitat for wintering wader species
such as lapwing and golden plover. There is some potential for these species to be
temporarily displaced by development where screening is insufficient to mask human
activity.
A disturbance effect could radiate a few hundreds of metres from the LDO boundary,
perhaps up to 500 metres18. The only circumstances in which disturbance of this kind could
result in a significant effect to golden plovers, is if very significant numbers were feeding
for prolonged periods within 500 metres, and were regularly being prevented from
feeding. Disturbance on this scale should, however, be avoided by the avoidance measures
advised below in section 8.1.
There is currently insufficient information to be conclusive about the scale of likely
impact, but there is an abundance of suitable habitat throughout north Norfolk, which is
used by this species. The cited SPA population is 2,667 birds; it is considered unlikely that
the minor habitat loss and temporary potential for disturbance caused by the LDO
development would amount to anything but a very minor effect on wintering habits of this
species. No Likely Significant Effect is predicted, with the exception of the potential
helipad.
It is considered that the effects of establishing helicopter activity on golden plovers at the
Egmere site are not sufficiently clear to enable a conclusion of Likely Significant Effect to
be made.
6.2.8 Lapwing
Lapwing may nest in the area to be occupied by the LDO, depending on the crop rotation.
Numbers will also overwinter in the area.
The loss of a small number of nesting pairs of lapwing might represent a population level
effect on the local/ parish population, however this would need to be evaluated by
original survey. As with other nesting birds, the legal issue is avoidance of nest
destruction, most effectively by timing of works.
There is currently insufficient information to be conclusive about the scale of likely
impact, but there is an abundance of suitable wintering habitat throughout north Norfolk,
which is used by this species. It is considered unlikely that the minor habitat loss and
temporary opportunities for disturbance caused by the LDO development would amount to
anything but a very minor effect on wintering habits of this species. No Likely Significant
Effect is predicted, with the exception of the potential helipad.
It is considered that the effects of establishing helicopter activity on lapwings at the
Egmere site are not sufficiently clear to enable a conclusion of Likely Significant Effect to
be made.
Ecological Appraisal
25
Egmere LDO
6.2.9 Hobby
The mixed plantation woodlands have the potential to support a breeding pair of hobbies,
although presence or absence has not been demonstrated through survey. Absence through
survey would indicate no likely effects on this species. Presence of a nesting pair would
have implications for timing of any plantation clearance, and potentially some avoidance
of disturbance impacts. The species is not part of the SPA, but is protected by Schedule 1
of the WCA 1981.
6.2.10 Barn owl
The buildings on the site may support nesting barn owls, another species protected by
Schedule 1 of the WCA 1981. This would need specific investigation prior to any conversion
or demolition of buildings. Removal of a nesting location would result in a negative effect
to barn owls. However, such a loss could easily be mitigated.
6.2.11 Other nesting birds
The site will certainly support populations of several different bird species, not protected
by Schedule 1 of the WCA or listed in EU Annex 1. Specific investigation prior to
development would establish the size of populations, which would be necessary to provide
an impact assessment. However, all nesting bird issues are likely to be addressed by best
practice avoidance measures.
6.3.11 Bats
Bats are also known to be in the area and are likely to use the site for foraging. The
majority of trees on site are relatively young and are not though to hold good habitat for
roosting bats. However, the buildings on site hold good potential habitat for roosting bats
so a dedicated survey should be conducted before impacts to bat species can be properly
assessed. A bat survey on each building to be affected should be conducted before work is
undertaken.
6.3.12 Badger
The habitat within 500m of the site is suitable for badger. The phase 1 habitat survey
found no evidence of any setts on site, nor any signs of badger (however not all areas
could be viewed easily). Should the development not commence for another 12 months, a
badger survey should be conducted as a precaution, to confirm no new setts have been
established in that time. This is a considered a precautionary measure and does not imply
that badgers are especially likely to move on to the site in this period.
6.3.13 Hedgerows
There are several lengths of hedgerow on the site, all of which are species-poor, and one
of which has trees. It is noted that development involving removal of hedgerows and trees
will need to be agreed by the LPA. It is assumed that any hedgerows present would be
subject to this agreement rather than the Hedgerow Regulations, which are intended to
address uncontrolled removal of hedgerows in the wider countryside.
The hedgerows are likely to have ecological value as corridors of movement for wildlife,
and as habitat for nesting birds. Their removal would represent a negative impact on the
site’s biodiversity, but could be addressed through mitigation elsewhere on the site.
Ecological Appraisal
26
Egmere LDO
6.3.14 On-site habitats
The footprint of the development is predominantly focused on an arable fields and
existing brownfield land and buildings of low ecological value. Approximately 0.02km2 of
mixed woodland and a small area of rough ruderal vegetation and scrub with mature ash
and oak trees also lies within areas proposed for new building. The proposal also includes
a large area of proposed structure planting.
The assessment of the potential impacts of habitat loss is limited by not having final plans
for the site. However, loss of any arable habitat should be negligible given the abundance
of similar habitat in the surrounding landscape. The arable land which may be lost is close
to existing plantations and buildings, and as such is probably not heavily used by groundnesting farmland birds.
Even assuming a worst case scenario that all trees and woods within the highlighted zone
are lost, new proposed planting should be sufficient to mitigate for this. There would,
however, be a temporary loss of mature plantation habitat.
To be clear, there are no legal implications associated with the loss of on-site habitats
aside from those mentioned for hedgerows, above.
6.4 In-combination Impacts
The development of the 28 hectare LDO needs to be assessed in combination with the
permitted solar farm and biomass boiler development on Egmere airfield. These are
situated directly to the west (biomass) and to the south (solar) of the LDO, and will take
up approximately 28.4 hectares of arable land. The effect of both of these developments
will be to remove habitats for open field species, in particular the SPA species pink-footed
goose, golden plover and lapwing. It is considered that additional disturbance to these
species from the solar farm and biomass plant will be minimal, because the solar farm will
have infrequent and low-level human intervention, and the biomass plant will be
adequately screened from adjacent open fields by landscape planting.
The combined areas of the three proposals, amounting to a loss of potential feeding area
of approximately 56.4 hectares, is considered unlikely to result in a likely significant
effect on pink-footed geese, golden plover or lapwing. The reasoning for this is that there
is abundant suitable habitat for these species throughout a significant area of north
Norfolk (hundreds of square kilometres), and all these species are highly mobile and
opportunistic foragers, which move feeding areas on a daily basis. Pink-footed geese, in
particular, range over a considerable area, from Fakenham in the south, to Bodham in the
east, and right across towards King’s Lynn in the west.
6.5 Appraisal of Public Consultation
Natural England and Christopher Yardley
Both comments refer, directly or indirectly, to the presence of habitats and species of
European importance, and (NE particularly) to the fact that the LPA needs to have due
regard to these before the development can progress.
This report does address issues associated with these species (i.e. those having status as
part of the North Norfolk Coast SPA, in particular the open field wintering species pinkfooted goose, golden plover and lapwing, and the breeding species marsh harrier.
Ecological Appraisal
27
Egmere LDO
It is also considered that this report addresses potential for any protected species to be
present on the LDO site, and advises a suitable course of action for giving due regard to all
species that may be present.
It is considered that section 9, below, does outline an appropriate course of action for
providing biodiversity enhancements within the LDO proposal, which may also benefit
local priority BAP species.
Ecological Appraisal
28
Egmere LDO
7. Further Investigations
The following survey work is recommended:

A breeding bird survey is recommended; a three visit version of the common bird
census methodology should be sufficient to establish impacts. Schedule 1 species
with on-site breeding potential consist of hobby, barn owl and marsh harrier.

A wintering bird survey is recommended to ascertain what species are using the
site and surrounding fields, and to understand the frequency of use. The sporadic
nature of the use of the fields (e.g. thousands of birds on one day, but none for the
following week) suggests that periodic survey visits might not be appropriate.
Rather, an approach using continuous monitoring with time-lapse camera
technology is suggested. This would potentially be more cost-effective and more
informative than intermittent survey visits by personnel.

Ponds should be surveyed for great crested newts in line with Natural England
guidelines.

If any buildings are to be removed these should be subject to a full inspection for
bats and breeding barn owl.

An updated badger survey should be conducted as a precaution prior to
development beginning. An annual update of this survey would be appropriate as
development is ongoing, and the site presents new opportunities for this species.
Ecological Appraisal
29
Egmere LDO
8. Avoidance Measures
The following general best practice mitigation is seen as proportionate. Further
investigations for protected species may elicit the need for further specific mitigation
measures:
8.1 Construction

Construction traffic will be restricted to no more than 10mph off road, and will not
work at night to avoid impacts on nocturnal species. These construction impacts
would be temporary.

Best practice construction works should be undertaken. This includes back filling
any trenches before sunset, or leaving egress boards to allow terrestrial species to
exit should they fall in. Stored materials that might act as resting places should be
raised off the ground (e.g. on pallets) to avoid being used by amphibians, reptiles
or small mammals. Similarly any rubble/ building waste should be put directly into
skips for the same reason.

If any trees or shrubs have to be removed to allow access to the site this should be
done outside of the breeding bird season (1st March to 1st August inclusive).

If large scale building works are to be undertaken within sight of the surrounding
fields these should be conducted outside of the winter period (November – January
inclusive) to minimise effects to wintering bird populations. Screening of the
development from the surrounding fields by planting hedges / shelter belt is also
recommended.

Subject to survey, demolition may require mitigation for protected species,
including bats (with the possibility of the requirement for EPS licensing if bat roosts
are present) and barn owls.

Where there is currently no barrier between the site and open fields, it is advised
that the early establishment of a dense boundary hedge or other masking feature
would assist in reducing any temporary disturbance effects on wintering birds.
Where a boundary cannot effectively be established before works begin, the works
should be temporarily enclosed by opaque fencing or boarding to minimise the
visibility to birds using the open fields.
Ecological Appraisal
30
Egmere LDO
9. Enhancements

The site could further be enhanced by the inclusion of wildlife friendly species
planting in any shelter belts or landscape planting. Native species, fruiting or high
nectar yielding shrub species should be used. If possible the design could also
include areas of open grassland to be left for wild flowers and invertebrates.
Nesting boxes for birds and bats can be installed with initial landscaping works.

A detailed enhancement plan is recommended. Given the nature of the LDO and its
reason for being brought forward, there is a great opportunity to make the
development as biodiverse and eco-friendly as possible, and for this to be part of
its appeal to developers.
Ecological Appraisal
31
Egmere LDO
Appendix 1: Photographs of site
Plate 1. Pond on proposal site.
Plate 2. View south across site
Plate 3. Strip of plantation woodland
Plate 4. Woodland clearing with digger
Plate 5. Mixed plantation with old buildings
Plate 6. Pond in woodland east of site
Ecological Appraisal
32
Egmere LDO
Plate 7. Old amenity grassland and
buildings
Plate 8. Car park and hedges
Plate 9. Ruderal, scrub and small trees
Plate 10. Scira base
Plate 11. Mixed woodland and adjacent yard Plate 12. Old planting
Ecological Appraisal
33
Egmere LDO
Appendix 2: Plant species list
Table 3: Plant species recorded on site
Species name
Acer campestre
Common name
Field maple
Red Data Book status
Least concern
Acer pseudoplatanus
Sycamore
-
Achillea millefolium
Yarrow
Least concern
Aegopodium podagraria
Ground-elder
Least concern
Agrostis capillaris
Common bent
Least concern
Alliaria petiolata
Garlic mustard
Least concern
Anthriscus sylvestris
Cow parsley
Least concern
Arctium lappa
Greater burdock
Least concern
Arctium minus
Lesser burdock
Least concern
Arrhenatherum elatius
False oat-grass
Least concern
Artemisia vulgaris
Mugwort
Least concern
Avena fatua
Common wild oat
Least concern
Ballota nigra
Black horehound
Least concern
Bryonia dioica
White bryony
Least concern
Buddleja davidii
Buddleia
-
Calystegia sepium
Hedge bindweed
Least concern
Chenopodium album
Fat-hen
Least concern
Cirsium arvense
Creeping thistle
Least concern
Cirsium vulgare
Spear thistle
Least concern
Convolvulus arvensis
Field bindweed
Least concern
Corylus avellana
Hazel
Least concern
Crataegus monogyna
Hawthorn
Least concern
Cupressocyparis leylandii
Leyland cypress
-
Dactylis glomerata
Cock's-foot
Least concern
Elytrigia repens
Common couch
Least concern
Epilobium hirsutum
Great willowherb
Least concern
Equisetum arvense
Field horsetail
Least concern
Fallopia convolvulus
Black-bindweed
Least concern
Festuca rubra
Red fescue
Least concern
Filago vulgaris
Common cudweed
Near Threatened
Fraxinus excelsior
Ash
Least concern
Galeopsis tetrahit
Common hemp-nettle
Least concern
Galium mollugo
Hedge bedstraw
Least concern
Geranium molle
Dove's-foot crane's-bill
Least concern
Geranium robertianum
Herb-robert
Least concern
Ecological Appraisal
34
Egmere LDO
Species name
Geum urbanum
Common name
Wood avens
Red Data Book status
Least concern
Glechoma hederacea
Ground-ivy
Least concern
Hedera helix
Ivy
Least concern
Heracleum sphondylium
Hogweed
Least concern
Holcus lanatus
Yorkshire-fog
Least concern
Hypochaeris radicata
Cat's-ear
Least concern
Lamium album
White dead-nettle
Least concern
Lamium purpureum
Red dead-nettle
Least concern
Lapsana communis
Nipplewort
Least concern
Larix decidua
European larch
-
Ligustrum sp.
Privet
-
Lolium perenne
Perennial rye-grass
Least concern
Lonicera periclymenum
Honeysuckle
Least concern
Malva sylvestris
Common mallow
Least concern
Matricaria discoidea
Pineapple weed
-
Matricaria recutita
Scented mayweed
Least concern
Mercurialis perennis
Dog's mercury
Least concern
Papaver rhoeas
Common poppy
Least concern
Persicaria maculosa
Redshank
Least concern
Pinus sylvestris
Scots pine
Least concern
Plantago lanceolata
Ribwort plantain
Least concern
Plantago major
Greater plantain
Least concern
Poa annua
Annual meadow-grass
Least concern
Polygonum aviculare agg.
Knotgrass
Least concern
Potentilla reptans
Creeping cinquefoil
Least concern
Prunus laurocerasus
Cherry laurel
-
Prunus padus
Bird cherry
Least concern
Prunus spinosa
Blackthorn
Least concern
Pteridium aquilinum
Bracken
Least concern
Quercus robur
Pedunculate oak
Least concern
Reseda luteola
Weld
Least concern
Rosa canina
Dog-rose
Least concern
Rubus fruticosus agg.
Bramble
Least concern
Rumex acetosella
Sheep's sorrel
Least concern
Rumex obtusifolius
Broad-leaved dock
Least concern
Salix cinerea
Grey willow
Least concern
Sambucus nigra
Elder
Least concern
Ecological Appraisal
35
Egmere LDO
Species name
Sedum acre
Common name
Biting stonecrop
Red Data Book status
Least concern
Senecio jacobaea
Common ragwort
Least concern
Senecio vulgaris
Groundsel
Least concern
Silene latifolia
White campion
Least concern
Sisymbrium officinale
Hedge mustard
Least concern
Sonchus asper
Prickly sow-thistle
Least concern
Sonchus oleraceus
Smooth sow-thistle
Least concern
Stachys sylvatica
Hedge woundwort
Least concern
Stellaria media
Common chickweed
Least concern
Taraxacum officinale
Dandelion
Least concern
Trifolium repens
White clover
Least concern
Ulmus sp.
Elm
-
Urtica dioica
Common nettle
Least concern
Verbascum thapsus
Great mullein
Least concern
Veronica chamaedrys
Germander speedwell
Least concern
Veronica persica
Common field-speedwell
Least concern
Viola arvensis
Field pansy
Least concern
Ecological Appraisal
36
Egmere LDO
Appendix 3: Data Search
Records supplied by Norfolk Environmental Records Service
Table 4: Species of Conservation Concern
Latin Name
Homoeosoma
nebulella
Common
Name
Large Clouded
Knot-horn
Grid
Reference
Blood-Vein
Dark-barred
Twin-spot
Carpet
Shaded Broadbar
Date
TF9236
Location Details
Pilgrim's Way, Little
Walsingham
Pilgrim's Way, Little
Walsingham
TF9236
Little Walsingham
03/08/2002
2 Count of Adult
TF9236
Little Walsingham
03/08/2002
2 Count of Adult
TF9236
Little Walsingham
03/08/2002
1 Count of Adult
Diarsia rubi
Small Phoenix
Small Squarespot
TF9236
Little Walsingham
03/08/2002
4 Count of Adult
Acronicta psi
Grey Dagger
TF9236
Little Walsingham
03/08/2002
1 Count of Adult
Amphipoea oculea
Ear Moth
TF9236
Little Walsingham
03/08/2002
1 Count of Adult
Hoplodrina blanda
Rustic
TF9236
Little Walsingham
03/08/2002
2 Count of Adult
Anser fabalis
Bean Goose
TF9037
Egmere
13/01/2003
1 Count
Anser fabalis
Bean Goose
TF9037
Egmere
18/01/2003
1 Count
Anser fabalis
Bean Goose
TF9037
Egmere
18/01/2005
3 Count
Anser fabalis
Bean Goose
TF8836
Waterden
22/01/2006
2 Count
Anser fabalis
Bean Goose
TF8836
Waterden
02/01/2004
3 Count
Anser fabalis
Anser fabalis subsp.
rossicus
Anser
brachyrhynchus
Anser
brachyrhynchus
Anser
brachyrhynchus
Anser
brachyrhynchus
Bean Goose
Tundra Bean
Goose
Pink-footed
Goose
Pink-footed
Goose
Pink-footed
Goose
Pink-footed
Goose
Pink-Footed
Goose
Pink-footed
Goose
Pink-footed
Goose
Pink-footed
Goose
Greater
White-fronted
Goose
Greenland
Greater
White-fronted
Goose
Greenland
Greater
TF9037
Egmere
12/01/2004
3 Count
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2007
2 Count
TF9037
Egmere
01/11/2003
10000 Count
TF9037
Egmere
29/10/2005
2000 Count
TF9037
Egmere
26/11/2004
10000 Count
TF9037
Egmere
07/02/2011
TF8936
Egmere
31/10/2000
15000 Count
5000 Count of
Adult
TF9037
Egmere
12/01/2008
4000 Count
TF8836
Waterden
22/01/2006
4000 Count
TF8836
Waterden
18/01/2004
35000 Count
TF8836
Waterden
23/01/2006
4 Count
TF9037
Egmere
13/01/2003
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
13/01/2004
1 Count
Timandra comae
Xanthorhoe
ferrugata
Scotopteryx
chenopodiata
Ecliptopera silaceata
Anser brachyrhyncus
Anser
brachyrhynchus
Anser
brachyrhynchus
Anser
brachyrhynchus
Anser albifrons
Anser albifrons
subsp. flavirostris
Anser albifrons
subsp. flavirostris
TF9236
Count
03/08/2002
03/08/2002
Ecological Appraisal
37
Egmere LDO
Common
Name
White-fronted
Goose
Greenland
Greater
White-fronted
Goose
Greenland
Greater
White-fronted
Goose
Greenland
Greater
White-fronted
Goose
Greenland
Greater
White-fronted
Goose
Greenland
Greater
White-fronted
Goose
Grid
Reference
Location Details
Date
Count
TF9037
Egmere
09/01/2003
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
08/01/2003
2 Count
TF9037
Egmere
19/01/2005
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
26/11/2004
1 Count
TF8836
Waterden
22/01/2006
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
12/01/2008
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
23/12/2004
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
11/01/2003
2 Count
TF9037
Egmere
30/12/2006
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
12/01/2004
1 Count
Branta leucopsis
Snow Goose
Barnacle
Goose
Barnacle
Goose
Barnacle
Goose
Barnacle
Goose
Barnacle
Goose
TF9037
Egmere
22/04/2009
Branta bernicla
Brent Goose
TF9037
Egmere
26/11/2004
1 Count
Branta bernicla
Brent Goose
TF9037
Egmere
12/01/2004
1 Count
Perdix perdix
Grey Partridge
TF9037
Egmere
Perdix perdix
Grey Partridge
TF9037
24/04/2009
December
2001
12 Count of
present
Perdix perdix
Grey Partridge
TF9037
01/11/2003
8 Count
Perdix perdix
Grey Partridge
TF9037
17/10/2010
7 Count
Perdix perdix
Grey Partridge
TF9037
30/05/2010
2 Count
14/06/2004
1 Count
15/04/2008
1 Count
13/06/2007
1 Count
Latin Name
Anser albifrons
subsp. flavirostris
Anser albifrons
subsp. flavirostris
Anser albifrons
subsp. flavirostris
Anser albifrons
subsp. flavirostris
Anser albifrons
subsp. flavirostris
Anser caerulescens
Branta leucopsis
Branta leucopsis
Branta leucopsis
Branta leucopsis
Egmere
Egretta garzetta
Little Egret
TF8838
Egretta garzetta
Little Egret
TF8838
Milvus migrans
Black Kite
TF8836
Milvus milvus
Red Kite
TF8838
Milvus milvus
Red Kite
TF8838
Milvus milvus
Red Kite
TF8836
Holkham Quarles
Farm
Holkham Quarles
Farm
South Creake
Waterden
Holkham Quarles
Farm
Holkham Quarles
Farm
South Creake
Waterden
Milvus milvus
Red Kite
TF8836
South Creake
13/03/2009
11/10/2008
1 Count
12/09/2007
2 Count
13/06/2007
2 Count
Ecological Appraisal
38
Egmere LDO
Common
Name
Grid
Reference
Red Kite
Milvus milvus
subsp. milvus
Milvus milvus
subsp. milvus
Milvus milvus
subsp. milvus
Milvus milvus
subsp. milvus
Milvus milvus
subsp. milvus
Eurasian Marsh
Harrier
Eurasian Marsh
Harrier
Eurasian Marsh
Harrier
TF925387
Circus aeruginosus
Marsh Harrier
Eurasian Marsh
Harrier
Eurasian Marsh
Harrier
Eurasian Marsh
Harrier
Eurasian Marsh
Harrier
Circus cyaneus
Latin Name
Milvus milvus
Milvus milvus
milvus
Milvus milvus
milvus
Milvus milvus
milvus
Milvus milvus
milvus
Milvus milvus
milvus
subsp.
subsp.
subsp.
subsp.
subsp.
Circus aeruginosus
Circus aeruginosus
Circus aeruginosus
Circus aeruginosus
Circus aeruginosus
Location Details
Waterden
Date
Count
TF9037
Egmere
13/11/2003
1 Count
TF8839
New Holkham
05/04/2011
1 Count
TF8839
New Holkham
31/08/2011
1 Count
08/09/2010
1 Count
TF9037
TF9037
Egmere
20/06/2011
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
02/07/2011
2 Count
TF8836
Waterden
02/06/2004
TF9037
Egmere
29/10/2005
1 Count
TF8836
Waterden
26/06/2004
05/01/2006
4 Count
1 Count of
present
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
15/01/2003
TF9037
02/06/2004
TF8838
Egmere
Holkham Quarles
Farm
TF9037
Egmere
02/06/2003
Hen Harrier
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2002
1 Count
Circus cyaneus
Hen Harrier
TF9037
Egmere
03/12/2003
1 Count
Circus cyaneus
Hen Harrier
TF9037
Egmere
01/04/2008
Circus cyaneus
Hen Harrier
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
TF921377
05/01/2006
1 Count
1 Count of
present
22/01/2006
1 Count
TF8838
Waterden
Holkham Quarles
Farm
TF9037
Egmere
17/05/2003
TF9037
Egmere
29/10/2005
TF9037
Egrazing marshere
01/01/2010
TF9037
Egmere
South Creake
Waterden
01/01/2007
Waterden
Holkham Quarles
Farm
Holkham Quarles
Farm
Holkham Quarles
Farm
26/06/2004
Circus aeruginosus
Circus aeruginosus
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
TF8836
TF8836
TF8836
TF8838
TF8838
TF8838
01/06/2004
01/06/2004
2 Count
2 Count
01/06/2004
3 Count
01/07/2004
31/07/2005
3 Count
14/03/2009
Ecological Appraisal
39
Egmere LDO
Common
Name
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Common
Buzzard
Rough-legged
Buzzard
Rough-legged
Buzzard
Rough-legged
Buzzard
Eurasian
Oystercatcher
Grid
Reference
Location Details
Date
Count
TF8836
Waterden
17/01/2010
4 Count
30/05/2010
2 Count
10/01/2004
3 Count
TF8838
Egmere
Holkham Quarles
Farm
TF9037
Egmere
22/02/2011
1 Count
TF9037
Egmere
02/01/2005
1 Count
TF9037
07/02/2011
2 Count
TF8836
Egmere
South Creake
Waterden
TF9037
Egmere
12/04/2006
TF9037
Egmere
09/06/2005
Cuculus canorus
Ringed Plover
Northern
Lapwing
Eurasian
Woodcock
Mediterranean
Gull
European
Turtle Dove
European
Turtle Dove
European
Turtle Dove
Common
Cuckoo
Tyto alba
Latin Name
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo buteo
Buteo lagopus
Buteo lagopus
Buteo lagopus
Haematopus
ostralegus
Charadrius hiaticula
Vanellus vanellus
Scolopax rusticola
Larus
melanocephalus
TF9037
TF9037
01/06/2004
2 Count
30/05/2010
1 Count
03/03/2011
1 Count
20/05/2010
01/06/2007
1 Count
1 Count of
present
31/07/2010
1 Count
TF9037
30/05/2010
Barn Owl
TF921379
05/01/2006
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF922370
05/01/2006
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF923385
08/12/2005
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF922372
04/02/2006
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF921372
11/02/2006
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF912365
04/02/2006
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF914373
04/02/2006
2 Count
1 Count
present
1 Count
present
1 Count
present
1 Count
present
1 Count
present
1 Count
present
1 Count
present
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2005
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2007
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
25/04/2009
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2011
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2008
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
29/01/2006
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
24/04/2009
Streptopelia turtur
Streptopelia turtur
Streptopelia turtur
TF9037
31/05/2005
TF9037
Egmere
TF9037
TF9037
TF8838
Egmere
Holkham Quarles
Farm
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
1 Count of
present
01/01/2010
1 Count
Ecological Appraisal
40
Egmere LDO
Latin Name
Common
Name
Grid
Reference
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF8840
Location Details
Date
09/01/2004
Count
1 Count of
present
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF8838
Holkham Quarles
Farm
Tyto alba
Barn Owl
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2004
Athene noctua
Little Owl
TF8836
Waterden
01/01/2008
Strix aluco
Tawny Owl
TF909388
04/01/2005
Strix aluco
Tawny Owl
TF905386
03/02/2006
Strix aluco
Tawny Owl
TF911382
04/01/2005
Strix aluco
TF9037
Egmere
02/06/2003
TF9037
Egmere
01/01/2003
Picus viridis
Tawny Owl
Long-eared
Owl
Green
Woodpecker
TF9037
30/05/2010
Alauda arvensis
Skylark
TF9136
June 2005
Alauda arvensis
Skylark
TF9238
June 2005
Delichon urbicum
House Martin
TF9037
30/05/2010
30 Count
Motacilla cinerea
Grey Wagtail
TF9037
30/05/2010
1 Count
Turdus iliacus
TF9037
Pyrrhula pyrrhula
Redwing
Common
Whitethroat
Spotted
Flycatcher
Eurasian Tree
Sparrow
European
Goldfinch
Common
Linnet
Common
Crossbill
Common
Bullfinch
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF8941
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9240
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9239
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9040
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9141
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9041
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9140
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9141
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9040
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF8940
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF8840
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF884397
North Creake
20/08/2005
1 Count
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF882391
Wells
16/10/2005
1 Count
Asio otus
Sylvia communis
Muscicapa striata
Passer montanus
Carduelis carduelis
Carduelis cannabina
Loxia curvirostra
01/01/2005
1 Count of
present
1 Count of
present
1 Count of
present
4 Count
25/04/2009
TF8838
Egmere
Holkham Quarles
Farm
17/04/2005
1 Count
TF8836
Waterden
31/07/2011
TF9037
Egmere
01/06/2007
5 Count
1 Count of
present
TF9037
Egmere
Holkham Quarles
Farm
02/01/2005
4 Count
31/07/2010
226 Count
Egmere
Holkham Quarles
Farm
02/07/2011
8 Count
31/07/2010
2 Count
TF8838
TF9037
TF8838
Ecological Appraisal
41
Egmere LDO
Latin Name
Common
Name
Grid
Reference
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9039
2001
Erinaceus europaeus
Hedgehog
TF9140
2001
Micromys minutus
Harvest Mouse
TF8840
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9040
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9040
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9039
17/10/2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF904395
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF904395
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9039
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9141
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF8941
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9041
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9141
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF8840
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF904395
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF913379
11/02/2006
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9240
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9139
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9140
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9238
23/07/2005
11 Count of
present
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9138
26/02/2003
1 Count
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9138
26/02/2003
1 Count of Adult
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9137
02/04/2004
1 Count of Adult
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9137
Egmere
02/04/2004
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9238
Edgar
23/07/2005
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9037
27/03/2005
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF913376
03/02/2006
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF8940
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9138
09/02/2000
1 Count
11 Count of
present
30 Count of
present
4 Count of
present
abundant Count
of present
1 Count of
present
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9038
Egmere
06/09/2003
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9038
Egmere/Walsingham
06/09/2003
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9038
06/09/2003
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF907382
03/02/2006
1 Count
1 Count
1 Count
1 Count
present
2 Count
present
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9037
02/04/2004
1 Count
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9239
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9339
2001
Location Details
Crabbe Castle
North Holkham,
Crabbe Castle
Holkham
Egmere
Egmere/Little
Walsingham TF9188
Egmere
Date
20/07/2003
20/07/2003
20/07/2003
Count
1 Count
1 Count
present
1 Count
1 Count
of Adult
of
of Adult;
of dead
1 Count
2 Count of
present
of Adult;
of dead
of
of
Ecological Appraisal
42
Egmere LDO
Latin Name
Common
Name
Grid
Reference
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9140
2001
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF9037
26/02/2003
Lepus europaeus
Brown Hare
TF920376
05/01/2006
Pipistrellus
pipistrellus
Pipistrelle
TF9139
Location Details
All Saint's Church,
Wighton
Date
21/10/2003
Count
1 Count of
present
2 Count of
present
Large village
church, very high
interior spaces most bat activity
at high level.
Floors regularly
swept so full
extent of bat use
impossible to
quantify. Reroofing of north
aisle proposed.
This is the area
with least visible
evidence of bats
but the
Table 5: Non-native species
Latin Name
Heracleum
mantegazzianum
Common Name
Grid Reference
Location Details
Date
Giant Hogweed
TF9236
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF8840
Holkham Estate
2001
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF9141
Holkham Estate,
outside park
2001
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF9140
Holkham Estate,
outside park
2001
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF9041
Holkham Estate,
outside park
2001
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF9040
Holkham Estate,
outside park
2001
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF8941
Holkham Estate,
outside park
2001
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF9041
Muntiacus reevesi
Muntjac
TF8940
Count
01/07/2002
2009
Holkham Estate,
outside park
2001
Ecological Appraisal
43