St Mary Redcliffe Project 450 RIBA 2 Stage End Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Eurasian Badger Meles meles Mammals (bats) The Protection of badgers Act 1984 1,620m West Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 3.4 A visual representation of the results from the Phase 1 Habitat Survey with colour coded habitat labels can be found in Appendix 3, target notes are given in Appendix 4 Serotine Eptesicus serotinus Habitats Directive Annex 4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.4b NERC Act Section 41 United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan - Priority Species 1,200m West 3.5 The habitats within the Site include: approximately 185m 2 amenity grassland is present in the north and south; three rows of trees; ornamental planting with a mixture of native and non-native species; and hardstanding surrounding the church and forming various paths. 3.6 Amenity grassland consisted of perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne (D), white clover Trifolium repens (D), daisy Bellis perennis (F), ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolate (O), creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens (O). Bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteinii Habitats Directive Annex 4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Schedule 5) Section 9.4b 910m South 3.7 Three rows of trees, delineated as: treeline 1 comprising 9 trees of small-leaved lime Tilia cordata with a single silver birch Betula pendula; treeline 2 comprising 13 trees of small-leaved lime; and treeline 3 comprising 5 trees small-leaved lime with a single horse chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum at the eastern boundary. All trees were semi-mature or mature with large crowns. Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii Habitats Directive Annex 4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.4b 1,600m South-east 3.8 An area of ornamental planting, consisting of mainly native, non-mature specimens was present along the south-west boundary. Species included: elder Sambucus nigra (O), yew Taxus baccata (O), wild cherry Prunus avium (R), bramble Rubus fruticosus (R), buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica (R), ash Fraxinus excelsior (R), small-leaved lime (A) and ivy Hedera helix (A). Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri Noctule Nyctalus noctula Habitats Directive Annex 4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.4b NERC Act Section 41 United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan - Priority Species Habitats Directive Annex 4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.4b NERC Act Section 41 United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan - Priority Species 1,520m West 1,730m South-West Bats Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) 3.9 A search took place of the exterior of the church (areas within proximity of the proposals) as well as a small, brick walled, outbuilding with a corrugated roof, located on the eastern boundary of the Site next to Pump Lane. No evidence of bats was observed on the exterior of the buildings or the interior of the outbuilding and no features with the potential to support bat roosts were observed on either building. The stonework of the church in good repair with no cracks or cavities present and limited other features or materials were present. The exterior of the church was assessed as having negligible suitability to support bat roosts. The outbuilding was assessed as having negligible suitability to support a bat roost. Common Pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Soprano Pipistrelle Pipestrellus pygmaeus Reptiles Grass Snake Natrix Helvetica Adder Vipera berus Slow worm Anguis fragilis Habitats Directive Annex 4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.4b Habitats Directive Annex 4 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.4b NERC Act Section 41 United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan - Priority Species Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.1 & 9.5 NERC Act Section 41 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.1 & 9.5 NERC Act Section 41 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Schedule 5) Section 9.1 & 9.5 1,780m South-West 1,600m South-east 1,400m North-west 1,520m West 1,020m South-west Preliminary Hibernation Survey 3.10 All underground areas: the cellar, the vault and third underground space, were searched. No evidence of bats was found in any of the areas. All the vents were sealed with shutters and no other potential access points for bats to enter the underground areas were observed. The underground areas were assessed as having negligible potential to support bat roosts. Preliminary Ground Level Roost Assessment (GLA) 3.11 All trees within the Site were assessed for their potential to support bat roosts. One tree was assessed as having the potential to support bat roosts. The remaining trees did not support PRFs, with the majority of the trees being of a smaller size and in good health. Two PRFs were found on the mature small-leaved lime (T5). The PRFS were vertical splits with cavities extending up into the trunk. The first was at a height of one metre from the ground, the second at two metres from the ground. Both were facing north-east and exhibited good space for flight from the tree and sufficient shelter from weather and light as a result of the large tree crown. Images of both features can be found in Appendix 5. These two PRFs were assessed as having high suitability to support a bat roost. Endoscope Survey 3.12 Both PRFs were examined. The first feature opened immediately into a wide cavity that extended approximately 12cm back into the trunk, average diameter 8cm. The cavity then extended upwards 120cm with a slight right inclination tightening towards the top. The interior of the feature was smooth, with no debris or detritus found as the camera moved through the cavity. Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 15 September 2019 Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 16 September 2019
Approximately 90% of the cavity was searched with no signs of bats found. The second feature, found at 2m from the ground, travelled straight up for approximately 100cm, exhibiting a cylindrical spire extending back 5cm at the opening with an average diameter of 4cm. Smooth textures recorded, no debris or detritus. Unlike the first, the top of the cavity was reached and there was no evidence to suggest presence of bats. 4 Discussion Birds 3.13 All areas were assessed for their suitability to foraging and nesting birds. The trees and shrubs have the potential to support nesting birds during the nesting bird season. Within the area of shrub on the eastern side of the southern lawn there are a number of existing bird boxes present on the row of trees. Therefore, the Site is likely to support nesting and foraging of low numbers of common and widespread birds. Badgers 3.14 No evidence of badgers was observed within the Site. The desk study returned results of badgers, but at a distance of 1,620m to the west of the Site, and no latrines, setts or other evidence of badgers was found. The Site is located in a highly urban area and therefore it is highly unlikely that badgers are present within the local landscape surrounding the Site. Badgers will not be discussed any further within this report. Other Notable Species 3.15 Other species searched for during the extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey were dormice, GCN and reptiles. No evidence or suitable habitat was found within the Site to consider these species relevant to the development proposals. In relation to GCN and reptiles, lawns were kept tidy through regular mowing regimes, free from refuge piles, and other suitable terrestrial habitat for these species. Furthermore, the closest records of GCN and reptiles species were recorded over 1,000m away and no records of dormice were present. As a result, there will be no further mention of dormice, GCN, or reptiles throughout the remainder of the report. 4.1 Relevant legislation afforded to protected species, habitats and designated sites is detailed in Appendix 2. Statutory Designated Sites and Non-Statutory Designated Sites 4.2 A number of statutory and non-statutory designated sites are located within the wider landscape. These include three SSSIs: Ashton Court, Avon Gorge, and Quarry Steps Durdham Downs; one NNR; four LNRs and seven SNCI were also located nearby Site. The nearest designated site is located over 900m from the Site boundary. Habitats within the designated sites include: seminatural broadleaf woodland, including patches of ancient woodland, ancient pollards, species-rich neutral grassland and patches of calcareous grassland. 4.3 It is not considered that the proposals will result in any impacts on the statutory designated sites and non-statutory designated sites within the wider area as: the Site is spatially separated from the designated sites, the proposals are small in scale; and any impacts as a result of the proposal will be contained to within and adjacent to the Site. In addition, the proposals do not relate to residential development and therefore will not result in increased recreational pressure on the designated sites within the wider area. Habitats 4.4 The proposals will result in the loss of all the amenity grassland in the north of the Site and approximately 45m 2 of amenity grassland in the south of the Site. The ornamental planting and shrubs, and one mature tree along the tree line (T5 - the tree identified to have two BRP features) will be removed. The habitats to be removed are of negligible – low ecological value. The value of the tree in relation to bats is discussed below. 4.5 As compensation for the loss of amenity grassland, a green roof and an area of terrace planting has been proposed in the northern area of the Site and a wildflower meadow and wildflower green roof have been proposed in the southern area of the Site. To replace the value of the loss of mature trees within the Site, a formal line of trees will be planted along the northern perimeter of the Site. Overall, these habitats will provide a significant increase in the ecological value of the Site. Bats 4.6 The buildings within the Site have negligible suitability to support roosting bats. 4.7 One tree within the Site has the potential to support a bat roost (T5, small-leaved lime). The tree has been subject to a single endoscope survey which confirmed that bats were not present during the survey and that the PRFs can be suitably surveyed using an endoscope as opposed to requiring emergence surveys. 4.8 Tree T5 will be removed as a result of the proposals. Therefore, further surveys are required to determine if this tree supports a bat roost. The further surveys can either be emergence/re-entry surveys or endoscope surveys. The surveys should be undertaken during the bat survey season (May - September, with September being sub-optimal). 4.9 All bats and their roosts are subject to the highest level of protection afforded to species in the UK as European Protected Species (EPS), regardless of the number or species of bats affected. A bat Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 17 September 2019 Ecological Impact Assessment for St.Marys Church, Redcliffe 18 September 2019
Page 1 and 2:
ST MARY REDCLIFFE PROJECT 450 RIBA
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT TEAM 2.0 INTRO
Page 5 and 6:
2.0 INTRODUCTION Funded jointly by
Page 7 and 8:
Project 450 Board Review Instructio
Page 9 and 10:
4.1 STRUCTURES Undertaken by Integr
Page 11 and 12:
s dopted e, whilst A full CCTV surv
Page 13 and 14:
3.2 Existing Trees There are a larg
Page 15 and 16:
Stability can be provided by reinfo
Page 17 and 18:
1563.R1 - Stage 2 report Page 5 of
Page 19 and 20:
LEGEND 40-60 W/m 2 HEAT GAINS - NAT
Page 21 and 22:
LEGEND 40-60 W/m 2 HEAT GAINS - NAT
Page 24 and 25:
4.3 LANDSCAPE Introduction The purp
Page 26 and 27:
Historical Context The southern chu
Page 28 and 29:
Landscape Concept The diagram adjac
Page 30 and 31: Response to Site The ANGULAR framew
Page 32 and 33: Sketch Plan: North Churchyard 3 The
Page 34 and 35: Sketch Ideas Red cliff - continuati
Page 36 and 37: NORTH CHURCHYARD Simple high-qualit
Page 38 and 39: SOUTH CHURCHYARD Mown paths/ margin
Page 40 and 41: 4.4 SCHEME UPDATES ARCHITECTURAL PR
Page 42 and 43: FFL 12.00 FFL 10.36 FFL 10.36 FFL 1
Page 44 and 45: FFL 12.00 FFL 10.36 FFL 10.36 FFL 1
Page 46 and 47: 4.5 CURRENT PROPOSALS 11 13 3 9 10
Page 48 and 49: 27 29 28 A Concept Image for the Ne
Page 50 and 51: 31 32 The Chancel South Aisle & Pri
Page 52 and 53: 4.6 MATERIALITY The design team hav
Page 54 and 55: PROPOSED OPENING TO NORTH AISLE
Page 56 and 57: Former Opening to South Porch Stair
Page 58 and 59: 4.8 AREAS OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION
Page 60 and 61: 5.0 CONSULTATION In order to ensure
Page 62 and 63: 6.0 COST PLAN Throughout RIBA Stage
Page 64 and 65: 7.0 RISK REGISTER To ensure the eff
Page 66 and 67: SMR - PROJECT 450 - RISK REGISTER R
Page 68 and 69: 8.0 PROGRAMME The below-listed prog
Page 70 and 71: 10.0 APPENDICES Endnotes 1 Sampson,
Page 72 and 73: St Mary Redcliffe Appendix B BS 583
Page 74 and 75: 10.2 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Contents
Page 76 and 77: 2 Method 2.8 A list of other specie
Page 78 and 79: 3 Results with some parts ancient w
Page 82 and 83: oost is defined as any structure or
Page 84 and 85: Appendix 2 Policy & Legal Considera
Page 86 and 87: A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Page 88 and 89: 10.3 MEP STRATEGY 4 Site Infrastruc
Page 90 and 91: 5 Proposed infrastructure This opti
Page 92 and 93: 1563.R1 - Stage 2 report Page 12 of
Page 94 and 95: 9 Mechanical Services Strategy 9.1
Page 96 and 97: In some public areas low surface te
Page 98 and 99: Drainage is provided to the existin
Page 102 and 103: Flexible conduits will be used for
Page 106: 35 HYB ASS'D ROU 1 x 75 35 Hyb AR T
show all

St Mary Redcliffe Project 450 RIBA 2 Stage End Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?