Contact Sussex Ecology
/
Case Studies
/

Case Study 1

Location: Kent

When: March - September 2011

Scale of development
To demolish one derelict building and the construction of a replacement dwelling on a similar footprint, with underground basement at the rear of the building. major construction work/ground clearance work, new access, reversion to garden habitat.

Surveys undertaken
Phase 1 Ecology survey, iniitlal building inspection for bats followed by 2 dusk and 1 dawn emergence surveys, reptile survey of whole site, great crested newt survey on adjacent ponds within 500 m radius of proposed development and nesting bird survey.

Protected species found:
Reptiles - 1 species found
Small bat roost
Nesting birds
Likely absence of great crested newt within 250 m - 500 m of proposed development

Impacts on protected species in the absence of appropriate mitigation
Damage and loss of a bat roost,
Killing and injury and disturbance to bats
Killing and injury of reptile populations
Loss of 80% habitat including key features (hibernatiion sites, egg laying sites)
Net loss of local reptile conservation status predicted

 

Mitigation carried out:
New bat roost through the provision of a new roost in new building
Reptile translocation to adjacent receptor area
Long-term monitoring to ensure that project had been successful
Reasonable measures in line with best practice in regards to great crested newt
Creation of new habitats adjacent to proposed development

 

Case Study 2

Location: Southern England

When: May - September 2012

Scale of development:
To demolish 2 existing buildings, and 1 outbuilding. Construction of 3 new residential buildings in a similar footprint to existing buildings. Landscaping, ground clearance, re-levelling of site, modified access, reversion to garden habitat.

Surveys undertaken
Phase 1 Ecology Survey, initial building inspection for bats on all buildings, followed by 2 dusk and 1 dawn survey, reptile survey, nesting bird survey, badger survey.

Protected species found:
Reptiles - 2 species
Bat roost in 1 building (summer roost of common species)

Impacts on protected species in the absence of appropriate mitigation:
Loss and damage to a bat roost
Disturbance of bats, killing and injury of bats
Killing and injury of 2 reptile species
Loss of good quality habitat
(approximately 50%) currently occupied by 2 reptile species
Fragmentation of populations
Loss of key features for reptiles
Net loss of local reptile conservation status predicted

Mitigation carried out:
Translocation of reptiles
Bat mitigation included new roost within adjacent building
Soft-demolition approach on buildings with no roosts present
Long-term monitoring measures put in place to ensure that project has been successful

 

Case Study 3: Code for Sustainable Homes

Location: Sussex

When: 2012

Scale of development:
Creation of a new dwelling in a rear garden together with a basement level, new landscaping to replace existing plant species present. No work proposed to existing dwelling adjacent to the development, but within the ownership of the client.

The client also wanted to achieve credits up to level Code 4.

Surveys undertaken:
Phase 1 Ecology Survey
Ecological Assessment for the Code for Sustainable Homes


Ecological Assessment Findings
The assessment revealed that 5 credits would be available to the client, based on the following:

Eco 1: 1 credit
Eco 2: 1 credit
Eco 3: 1 credit
Eco 4: 2 credits

The assessment was based on the fact that the habitats within the construction work zone (and 1 m beyond) was of a low ecological value, enhancement measures would be possible, and there would be Neutral change in plant species (Eco 4).

The number of credits was approved by the Code Assessor, and by the appropriate planning authority.

 

Findings of the Phase 1 Ecology Survey
The site was noted to be predominately closely-mown grass surrounded by a flowerbed with non-native species (predominately conifers). The adjacent habitats were also considered to be of a low ecological value and habitats in the wider landscape were not connected to the proposed development site. Therefore, it was considered that the site was isolated. The existing building adjacent to the proposed development, but within the ownership of the client, was considered to be of a low potential for bats, based on the fact that it lacked suitable roosting opportunities (eg no gaps in soffits etc) and the fact that it was modern and regularly maintained. In addition, the building would not be further development or impacted by the proposed works.

Recommendations in the Ecology report included restricting the use of external lighting in the future, and the planting of native species to replace the non-native plants.

 

MORE CASE STUDIES  FROM 2010 - 2012 TO BE ADDED SHORTLY.

WATCH THIS SPACE FOR UPDATES.

Sussex Ecology News
Ecologists required for the 2013 season
Photo Gallery
Sussex Ecology Galley