| The following colour scheme applies to docs on this site |
Word Docs | PDF Docs | HTML Docs |
PROOF OF EVIDENCE
VANESSA HALL - ECOLOGY
ON BEHALF OF SWAN
PLANNING APPEAL No app/n4205/a/99/1033664
Industrial development (B1, B2 & B8)
Land South Park Road, Westhoughton
My name is Vanessa Hall. I have a Bachelor of Science with Honours in environmental Biology. I am giving evidence on ecology on behalf of the No Xanadu Campaign. I have worked in the environmental sector and in nature conservation since 1993. During this time I have worked with a variety of local groups around the country on various projects including managing a team in Liverpool which worked extensively with the Merseyside Ranger Service and also at locations in Wales and Scotland.
I am the Chair of Manchester Green Party, Village Green Co-ordinator for CfPS (Campaign for Planning Sanity). I have recently presented an ecological appraisal to the Xanadu Public Inquiry at Leigh, and have worked closely on other similar projects in the North West.
My evidence is concerning the ecology of the site, the environmental impact of the development both on the site and the wider than local. However it is somewhat limited due to not being able to gain access to the site to carryout a field study. The report is thus based upon a perusal of the various documents produced for both the present application and the withdrawn mixed housing and business use application, coupled to the report by the LOS (Leigh Ornithological Society). I have also visited the locality and walked the footpaths and other public access points such as the recreation ground.
It must be stressed that planning application 54859/99 makes much use of previous reports for Lee Hall under planning applications 53975/98 and 54859/99, which have subsequently been withdrawn. As the developer refers to them, they have been taken into account within this proof.
I find it incredible that a development that has by the developers own admission protected species (Great Crested Newts & Kingfishers) has not been the subject of a formal Environmental Statement. The fact that these species are on the site is a clear indication that there is a significant impact on the environment from the development of this site, this impact should rightly be taken on board in the planning process.
A number of bird species use the site (see appendix ‘A’ proof Dave Fearnley). It is used by skylarks as a nesting site. The skylark is more than of strictly local consequence in this case since they will form just a part of a greater population across a greater area. (See metapopulation dynamics below.)
A similar point applies to the kingfishers. Aside to the physical disturbance to the birds there is the question of their food supply being disrupted. The fish that they eat will need to eat invertebrates present in the stream. Invertebrates are small creatures and their ecology can therefore operate at a small scale. The island habitat effects that I outline below can operate over much smaller distances than with larger animals.
I find it disappointing to learn that it is proposed to move some plants from areas where they now occur to make way for the development. This is a gardening effort rather than sound conservation practice. The plants are growing where they are because the ecological conditions are correct for them. These ecological conditions are governed by a large number of variables including soil type, soil microorganisms, tiny variations in microclimate the presence of other plants and the effects these have on the other parameters. In scientific terms even modelling the interactions a few species mathematically becomes extremely complicated. Recreating these conditions is difficult at best.
Even moving larger pieces of habitat is rarely successful. By moving larger pieces there should be a greater chance of minimising the disruption of the more delicate parts of the ecosystem the question of habitat translocation is a complex one. The Selar SSSI in South Wales was destroyed a few years ago and its grassland habitats translocated in an operation that cost perhaps as much as £500,00. At Brocks Farm near Newton Abbot in Devon where an area of species rich mesotrophic grassland was translocated in 1988 and monitored for 10 years. English Nature has said that this translocation failed. Their grassland specialist Richard Jefferson said about this case "Developers have increasingly proposed habitat transplantation as a viable alternative to conservation in situ. Examination of the evidence suggests otherwise. You cannot move a grassland without changing its environment." If you cannot move a grassland ecosystem you cannot move individual plants that add to that system.
Island Biogeography and Metapopulation dynamics
Habitat islands are often compared to oceanic islands and the theory and mathematics of island biogeography can apply equally well to urban habitat islands surrounded by a sea of development as to oceanic islands surrounded by water.
The principles of island biogeography predict the number of species that will occur in a particular habitat island based on immigration and extinction rates. The theory predicts a dynamic equilibrium number of species in the area, which is determined by the competing factors of immigration and extinction.
Island biogeography applies to landscape fragmentation and indicates that the smaller a habitat island is the less wildlife it can hold. The principles are important in the design of nature reserves as they provide guidelines for reserve size and connecting corridors between neighbouring reserves.
MacArthur and Wilson, who are regarded as the founders of island biogeography, showed that the relationship between island size and number of species present was governed by the following equation.
- S = C Az
where:
S is the number of species present,
C and z are constants, which vary with the taxonomic group under study
A is the area of the island
From the mathematics above it follows that the area of a habitat island is important to the number of species that it contains. The larger the area the more species. This has particular consequences for the Lee Hall SBI adjoins the site.
Since the development would reduce the area of the habitat island that includes Lee Hall SBI it follows logically as a consequence of the mathematics of island biogeography that there would eventually be a decrease in the biodiversity of Lee Hall SBI. This is to say that the development would adversely affect the SBI.
Another factor which comes into the discussion with relation to habitat islands is the concept of a "Metapopulation". This is a linked group of colonies of a given where they periodically become extinct and are recolonised from nearby. The simplest mathematical model of metapopulation, dynamics derived by the originator of the theory Richard Levins in the late 1960’s, is:-
dP = cP(1-P) –eP dt
Where P is the fraction of occupied habitat islands, e is the extinction rate and c is the colonisation rate per empty patch.
It can be seen from the terms used in the construction of this equation such as "fraction of occupied habitat islands" that the concept of empty but necessary habitat is fundamentally inherent to the concept of metapopulations. In short, within any metapopulation complex, by definition there will be unoccupied habitat. It can be demonstrated mathematically, using models which are extensions of the equation above and other standard population dynamic models, that the conservation of empty but suitable habitat is crucial to the preservation of the metapopulation.
A metapopulation may be seen as a population of populations where the value of the whole system exceeds the sum of its parts. The mistake is often made in considering the elements of metapopulations that smaller habitat islands are unimportant and can therefore be destroyed. This is not true they form an integral part of the habitat as a whole.
It is often mistakenly assumed that a wildlife corridor is merely a place through which wildlife moves. A place that mammals walk through or birds fly along. This is not the case it is an area that all types of wildlife can use in order to move. Some of these will to use stepping stones (metapopulation islands) to colonise their way slowly across a site.
By sides the site itself we have a number of Wildlife Corridors that feed into the area containing the site, wildlife corridors are important in ensuring that species are able to travel and expand populations. It is clear from the way in which Bolton has organised its wildlife corridors, primarily showing they exist through already urbanised areas, while allowing the wildlife to naturally flow in the rural areas, that they perceived in their policy structure that all the rural aspects of the borough were in effect acting as natural wildlife corridors, and therefore it was not necessary to specifically draw them in on the map. However to ensure that all the designated wildlife corridors are able to operate efficiently would require the mental drawing of natural routes by which the many species reliant upon these corridors can travel unhindered.
On page 4 environmental statement paragraph 15, it states " the majority of the landscape on the site is of no recognised interest". The entire site is a valuable open green space with diverse Flora and Fauna, with an SBI site linked to and adjoining. It is regarded by Bolton Planning as a green field site when other heavy Industrialised areas are now green belt status. The site need protection against Industrial Development (ref.: Planning spokesman April 99).
The following reference occurs in ( Bolton Env forums, publicity brochure December 1998) as distributed at the Climate Change Conference December 1998. It reads "Open green space is an essential part of sustainable urban life. It creates recreational opportunities, is visually attractive, a haven for wild life and absorbs noise. By preserving and increasing green space we can enhance economy of our towns as users enjoying a more welcoming environment".
The ecologist report for mixed use development (now withdrawn) was conducted in a very piecemeal fashion by walking down footpaths and using binoculars, whilst due to the restrictions placed upon my access to the site by the Appellants my own report is based on the same procedure, it must be emphasised that a credible assessment cannot be carried out unless full a full field study is completed. Little reliance can then be placed upon the ecological study. All that can be said is what has been observed, not what has been missed by not studying the site, as only a field study can achieve.
It is clear that the landowner intends to expand development of the site, most likely with a similar application to the withdrawn housing development. If this is a correct assumption it follows that there will a knock on effect from such a housing development. It would appear from the very approach of the developer that he is acting in manipulative and slanted manner from the start: thus ecological mitigation and enhancement should actually read ‘what are we going to trash, now how can we make it appear that we are benefiting nature’. Whereas the reality is that mitigation packages that involve translocation do not work, it not only endangers the species to be moved but upsets the environment of existing species on the relocated site.
Policy is changing regarding greenfield sites, the government has acknowledged that it is not right and redevelopment of brownfield sites including run down urban areas is now the preferred option. The LPA have in there first draft development plan acknowledged the importance of this site to the natural environment, by removing it as a development site. And in doing so they are fully in accord with latest government policy.
Much of the specifics and make up of the wildlife of the site is covered in the proof of David Fearnley, and I adopt that report, thereby the need to repeat this information in my own proof is lessened.
Upon reading this report it will become apparent that the area has great biodiversity with rare and protected wildlife and diverse flora and fauna. In addition it must be highlighted that the site is not sustainable for either the community or the environment under Agenda 21. The presence of a number of protected wildlife species plus the diverse concentration and delicate array of Ornithological, Mammalian, Botanical, Insecta and Lepidoptera species and their habitats must be protected.
The ecological survey of the land was carried out on the 25th August 1997. Many of the plant species flower far earlier in the season, with examples being bluebells or wood anemone. In addition some animals, birds or invertebrates may use the site on a seasonal or monthly basis. Nocturnal activities of birds such as owls are not taken into account. Therefore a few hours on a day late in summer does not make a rigorous report about species diversity on the given site.
Furthermore, the survey was undertaken through the use of binoculars from footpaths and roads. This again highlights the limitations of the survey. For a decision to be made on such a wide range of flora and fauna as that which exists at Lee Hall, without recourse to rigorous and conclusive research..
In the Supporting Statement in respect of the proposed development there is mention of a possibility of protected animal species being present on the site. This implies that the developers are unsure as to whether such species exist within Lee Hall. The legal consequences associated with the disturbance of these creatures, and that evidence of their existence has been found by both external bodies and also by HGP Planning, suggests a far more precise and accurate survey needs to be conducted.
In addition, the developers are aware of the needs for further survey work, as in their Supporting Statement (produced after the ecological survey submitted for a previous planning application, that was subsequently withdrawn) they state: -
‘Survey work has to be undertaken an appropriate time in the season and the results will be made available during the local planning authority’s consideration of this planning application.’
It has been shown that the Lee Hall survey carried out in 1997 on one day in August, was not the appropriate time in the season and so further ecological studies will no doubt be submitted by the developer.
Great Crested Newts
The report suggests that the fields are ‘species-poor semi-improved grassland which in parts has grown rank.’
Firstly, how can a survey that has been undertaken from footpaths and roads determine that the area is species poor. Secondly, what may appear to be poor, useless land to us makes the perfect habitat for fauna such as the great crested newt. Previous surveys undertaken by other bodies have found the presence of such amphibians. This species is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Great crested newts need a large habitat area of rank, marshy grassland and scrub in order to survive.
At first it may be thought that the solution would be to relocate, however, studies have shown that newt translocation is generally unsuccessful and would result in diminishing numbers of the population, greatly if not totally.
Bats and Badgers
In addition to great crested newts, both bats and badgers are also present within Lee Hall. The large areas of grassland are perfect for foraging badgers and track marks from such forages have been found on the site. Such open areas of grassland are rapidly decreasing across England and this has contributed to a decline in badger populations, thus leading to a need for protection.
The report also suggests that setts that may be present could be protected, however this is difficult to police and no consideration of post-building factors have been undertaken. Day-to-day life in an industrial development would obviously have a negative effect on a species that had already been severely constrained. Indeed, the report acknowledges that it is of: - ‘…concern if a large proportion of territory…[is] lost’.
Bats can form roosts in farming buildings or mature trees. The report acknowledges the importance of nursery roosts, but states that a survey needs to:- ‘..be carried out as early as possible so that the exclusion of the bats can be carried out.’
Essentially the bats would be eradicated through the loss of their roosts and feeding grounds. It would be naïve to assume that the bat population would move on; other surrounding areas may not have adequate roosts or feeding grounds. Again it is due to the loss of habitat that the bat has needed statutory protection. Furthermore, Bolton MBC would lose credibility if it was to allow the deliberate destruction of bat habitats and therefore bat colonies that have statutory protection.
Ornithology
The survey was undertaken well outside the ornithological breeding season. Within a very short time, 27 bird species were observed. Many if these species (e.g. skylark, yellow hammer etc.) are declining due to loss of habitat, such as that found on the site. Additionally, over a quarter of the found species are listed on the Red or Amber List of ‘Birds of Nature Conservation Concern’ (RSPB 1996). A much more rigorous survey would identify many more species, and could include more endangered species. The comprehensive list compiled by the Leigh Ornithological Society shows a more complete picture, compiled as it has been over the last 20 years.
The report leads one to assume that the hedges found on the site are of little consequence and have little biodiversity. It must be noted that latitudinal differences in the United Kingdom obviously mean less diversity the further north one goes. The Northumberland Wildlife Trust Conservation Officer has pointed out that any hedgerow is valuable to wildlife.
Hedges have a diverse importance, not only for particular species such as small mammalians and Lepidoptera, but in turn provide an important food source for owls, badgers and bats. Indeed owls have been sighted using the site as a feeding ground.
Wildlife Corridors
Bolton Metro’s Bolton’s Wildlife Strategy raises many Agenda 21, ecological and wildlife issues. But on a close inspection a major issue directly concerning the Westhoughton Greenfield/Greenbelt does arise.
On Map 3, Appendix 5 one can see that three wildlife corridors merge in the following areas: -
Chew Moor/Rumworth/Snydle
Hunger Hill/Chequerbent/Wingates
Lee Hall/Wingates
The Borsdane Wood Nature Reserve links up with the rest via: -
Hart Common/Daisy Hill/Lee Hall/Chequerbent
Fourgates/Wingates/Borsdane
The Hulton Park Estate is the final link in this complex, fragile and diverse ecological/wildlife chain.
As well as the Borsdane Nature Reserve, there are several SBI sites forming strategic links with endangered, scarce and common species alike. With all the SBIs there is one common bond; the waterways which flow through such sites and the fresh water springs/feeders which are located on/in the SBIs or on the local Greenfield and Greenbelt sites.
Chequerbent is actually at the centre of the areas strategically linked wildlife corridor and therefore could be classed as a ‘hot-spot’. Surely Bolton’s environmental policies/initiatives must protect such a site and protection of such a site would show that Bolton’s commitment to Agenda 21 is strong.
It must be considered as to what the effects of the proposed development will be to Chequerbent, Lee Hall and Hall Lee, including their water networks that flow into other sensitive areas. As well as the pollution risks mentioned earlier and later within this document, there is no doubt that: -
- important wildlife links will be severed
- important feeding and breeding habitats will be lost
- species such as badger, skylark, lapwing, hare, great crested newt etc. will be adversely affected
- prospective Greenbelt land will be lost (parts of Chequerbent near traffic island are afforded such protection)
- the loss of ‘Green Open Space’
- the loss/lowering of quality of life for people and for future generations to come.
The last Lee Hall/Chequerbent consultants’ reports did highlight much wildlife on the site for example 161 species of plant, both rare and common. One such rare plant that was found was the ‘Bog Pimpernel’ which is mentioned in the Bolton Wildlife Report (15/3/99) However, the report misses much detail.
In order to rectify this a much more rigorous survey needs to be undertaken for Ornithological, Mammalian, Botanical, and Insecta and Lepidoptera species. A full year round ornithological survey needs to be carried out in order to record all species present.
Furthermore, contrary to the report’s findings this site is of great ecological interest that warrants preservation. Indeed, any damage to wildlife is sufficient to warrant planning permission being refused.
Appendix 1
Strategic Links- whereby Greenfield/Greenbelt, Buffer Zones or SBIs etc are linked to each other.
Sites of Biological Importance
|
Name |
Grade |
Location/Area |
|
Borsdane Wood (east) |
A |
2.5 miles from Daisy Hill near Fourgates and Wingates |
|
Borsdane Wood (Nature Reserve Wigan MBC) |
Nature Reserve |
2.5 miles from Dobb Brow 3 miles from Daisy Hill |
|
Hart Common (Baldwins Farm) |
C |
Near Daisy Hill, Dobb Brow and Bowlands Hey |
|
Cunningham Brook |
C |
By Dobb Brow |
|
Hall Lee Bank Park |
B |
Near Chequerbent. Adjacent to Lee Hall linking Syndle/Rumworth, Chew Moor and Wingates |
|
New Park Wood |
B |
Part of Hulton Park Adjacent to Chequerbent site. Linking Rumworth, Lee Hall, Syndle and Daisy Hill etc. |
|
Hulton Park |
B |
|
Carr Brook Mire |
B |
|
Gorse Wood |
A |
|
Mill Dam Wood |
B |
Vanessa Hall
March 2000
