Cross Counties Development Trust

Contents

1.0 Introduction

An Environmental Statement was produced by the environmental consultancy group Michael Hughes Associates which was commissioned on behalf of their clients Watts, Blake, Bearne and Company Plc (W.B.B.). W.B.B. have submitted a planning application for a quarry extension and tip site which would involve the re-direction of almost 1km of the rivers Teign and Bovey at Teigngrace, Devon. Planning permission has since been granted.

The Environmental Statement was produced following two surveys:

(i) River Corridor Baseline surveys - Rivers Teign and Bovey, Devon (during the period 10th-25th August 1995). Involving a Phase 1 Habitat survey, a survey of macrophyte (wetland plants) and aquatic invertebrate species, as well as a less detailed survey of fish, terrestrial plants, mammals, birds and terrestrial invertebrates.

(ii) Brocks Lane, Teigngrace, Devon - Habitat survey (on the 26th and 29th of May 1996 and 27th June 1996). Involving a Phase 1 habitat survey, with communities defined to National Vegetation Classification (NVC) level and a less detailed survey of plants and fauna.

This report will highlight the discrepancies in the above mentioned Environmental Statement, thus proving its inadequacy to be used as a document to support W.B.B.'s planning application. Below is a summary of the points raised .

(i) Insufficient survey data - mammals, fish, invertebrates flora and birds.

(ii) Relevant European legislation - otters, badgers and kingfishers.

2.0 Improper Surveying

2.1 Insufficient Survey Data

Both surveys were carried out during the summer months, the River Corridor Survey over fifteen days in August 1995 and the Habitat Survey on three days during May and June 1996. When carrying out surveys of flora and fauna it is essential to make sure it is at the right time of year. For example bird surveys should be carried out during the breeding season in the spring, this would provide information on the number of breeding pairs as well as the subsequent number of offspring, bird numbers are also affected by migration. It is mentioned in the Environmental Statement that it was recognised that the timing if the survey was inappropriate in a number of cases:

"During this survey the Plecoptera (stonefly) families recorded were as predicted, however, individual species were rather poor, a matter which can almost certainly be attributed to summer sampling" (Section 4.4)

This indicates that the surveying of aquatic invertebrates was carried out at a time of year when the researchers knew a true picture of population numbers could not be gathered. Also the Environmental Statement says that there was no quantitative data for numbers of waterbirds because:

"the time of year of the survey preculed censuring of the species" (Section 4.6)

It was also mentioned in the Environmental Statement that there was no bird survey undertaken as their research was carried out outside of the breeding season. A number of important birds have been sighted within the proposed area of application, a number of these are Red Data Book species (Red Data books list vertebrates that are at risk), as well as being included under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; for example sand martin, dipper and kingfisher.

The other concern towards the time span of both surveys is that there was no indication that either of them was repeated. Therefore there is no indication of seasonal change or annual fluctuation. In any scientific or research discipline it is common practice to repeat the exercise in order to account for inaccuracies or fluctuations.

2.1.2. Survey Location

The Environmental Statement, in regards to the aquatic invertebrate survey, states that:

"Populations of all species were, however, recorded from outside of the proposed development area." (Section 8.3.4.)

This indicates that the aquatic invertebrate species were recorded from outside of the area concerned with the application, why was the survey not carried out within the application area as well?

2.2 Inadequate Species Survey

It has been identified that a number of the surveys were not carried out or were done to an inadequate standard.

2.2.1 Mammals

There was no structured survey of mammals, although their presence was noted if a sighting was made or tracks, droppings etc were identified.

(i) Bats (Chiroptera)

There was no survey carried out on bats, even though large numbers of bats have been sighted in the area. If there are bat roosts within the area, especially hibernation roosts, the application could have a detrimental effect on the bat population present. Bats are mentioned in the Environmental Statement:

"loss of extensive riverine feeding habitat in the short-term and possible roosting habitat in the long-term" (Section 8.3.4)

"bats follow travel routes using linear features for navigational purposes. The loss of hedgerows and other linear landscape features, may in the short term, result in their difficulty in commuting between roosts and feeding areas" (Section 8.3.4)

Both of these statements indicate that essential elements of bat existence will be lost definitely in the short-term, if not in the long-term. There has been no proposal for the reroosting of the bat population, or any of the features used by them for navigation. What do they believe will happen to the bat population in the short-term? (the short-term being defined as anything up to five years). Also the population will only return to the area if there are adequate navigation routes and roosting sites.

(ii) Otters (Lutra Lutra)

No otters were spotted during the survey period but spraints (droppings) and hovers (used by the otter as places of safety while travelling up and down the river) were identified, although no holts (otter dens) were found. As there is solid evidence that otters are present in the area, a careful surveillance of the area would have located any would have located any holts, identified otter numbers and movements within the area, this was not done.

Otters are very sensitive to human disturbance and over recent decades their numbers have been in decline. They are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and Annex II of the E.U. Habitats directive 92/43/EEC. Devon is a county where there has been a significant presence of otters in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom, thus underlining the importance of the protection of their habitats in this part of the countryside. Also otters do not solely rely on the river, they utilise the river banks and immediate countryside as well. The implementation of the application plans would not only affect the otters' use of the river but the countryside as well.

The Environmental Statement recognises the effect on otters by saying:

"the effect of the proposal will be to remove river reaches supporting optimum otter habitat" (Section 8.3.4)

"Disruption to the particular reaches may also possibly inhibit movement of the animals further downstream during the construction" (Section 8.3.4)

As stated above otters are very sensitive to disruption and that of construction work and excavation could be detrimental to them. If so, the removal of the optimum habitat could have a serious effect on their numbers in the area especially if they are likely to be restricted from moving elsewhere. The Environmental Statement does not account for the movement of the otters during construction, and the only major provision to be made for them is to be the introduction of an artificial holt. Where are the otters expected to go during the time of construction (estimated to be between Spring 1998 and Spring 1999), and how likely is it that the otters will return and rehabilitate in the artificial holt?

(iii) Badgers (Meles meles)

The Environmental Statement identified one badger sett, which was described as a 'satellite' sett and so not the sett of permanent use by the badger(s), no badgers were sighted but there were signs of recent occupation of the sett and badger trails. Badgers are protected under Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and the Badger Protection Act 1992. A member of the Dartmoor Badgers Protection League has produced a report on the badger setts within the site and has identified a main badger sett, an annex sett and two satellite setts, as well as several indications of active badger use of the area. The report states that:

"Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of badgers would be able to locate them quite easily."

This indicates that those carrying out the survey on behalf of W.B.B. were not familiar with identifying the location of badger setts. Badgers are a nationally important species and time and effort should have been taken to certify the precise numbers of setts within the area and their status.

2.2.2 Fish

The data for fish used in the Environmental Statement was taken from the National Rivers Authority's records of surveys of Trout (Salmo truta) and Salmon (Salmo salar) they have carried out in the area between 1963 and 1993. The last comprehensive survey by the N.R.A. was in 1990 when numbers of trout and salmon were said to be good. The survey carried out in 1993 by the N.R.A. is described as semi-quantitive. The term semi-quantitive was defined by the Environmental Statement as:

"a quicker assessment method but are not an indicator of true population density" (Section 4.5)

Therefore no complete survey of salmon and trout populations has been carried out in seven years, for a project in the proportions of the application it should be essential to up to date data when considering the possible effects on fish populations. In addition to this the presence of other fish species were only recorded if they were netted during the aquatic invertebrate survey. This represents an unsystematic method of survey, especially in the light of the existence of three species of fish that are protected under Annex IIa of E.U. Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna Directive. The species in question are Sea Lamprey (Petromyzan marinus), Atlantic Salmon (Salmo spp) and Bullhead (Cottus gobbio).

2.2.3 Birds

There was no bird survey carried out as the surveying for the environmental assessment was done outside of the bird breeding season. Conclusions in the Environmental Statement were drawn from information provided by a local ringer, this information should have been used in concurrence with their own survey, not, as the case was, solely on its own. Three of the species that were identified in the report are covered by legislation, these are: Sand Martin (Riparia riparia) and Dipper(Cinclus cinclus), which are mentioned in the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 and the Red Data Book, and Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) which is protested by Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the E.C. Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and is listed in the Red Data Book. There are also birds that have been sighted in the area that have not been mentioned in the Environmental Statement, these include: Green Woodpecker and Spotted Woodpecker. These sightings highlight the fact that an incomplete survey has been carried out and thus an incomplete picture has been used.

2.2.4 Invertebrates

2.2.4.1 Aquatic Invertebrates

One of the comments made in the Environmental Statement in regards to aquatic invertebrates was:

"The figures produced only reflect the number of positively identified species" (Section 2.5)

This begs the question, how many species were not identified and why were they not done so? Surely an environmental impact survey should be comprehensive.

Out of the species identified there were seven rare or restricted aquatic invertebrates noted, two of which are Red Data Book Category 3 (these are vulnerable species which are not yet endangered, but which are at risk of being so) and 5 Nationally Notable species.

2.2.4.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates

In the course of surveying for the Environmental Statement only a casual observation of terrestrial invertebrates (e.g. butterflies, moths, dragonflies) was carried out, they were not systematically searched for. As a result a number of species were omitted, these include: Brown Hair Streak (Thecla betulae), Small Pearl Bordered Fritillary (Argynnis euphrosyme) - both of which are listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - White Admiral (Limenitis camilla), Silver Washed Fritillary (Argynnis pophia), Purple Hair Streak (Thecla quercus), Green Hair Streak (Callophrys rubi), Small Elephant Hawkmoth (Deilephila parcellus) and Puss Moth (Cerura vinula).

Although there is no S.S.S.I. (Site of Special Scientific Interest) designation in the application area, there is a S.S.S.I. site at near by Stover Country Park which was designated due to its dragonfly species and populations. There is an abundance of dragonflies within the application site, as there has been no systematic survey of dragonflies, or even terrestrial invertebrates, what is there to say the dragonfly species present at Stover Park are not present within the application site?

2.2.5 Flora

There appears to be a fairly comprehensive record of flora species in the area, both aquatic and terrestrial. With regard to hedgerows in and around the agricultural fields that were surveyed the Environmental Statement says:

"none of the flora and fauna species recorded are entirely restricted to hedges, though given the extremely limited range of other habitats in the site, the importance of the hedges for species is increased" (Section 5.0)

This implies that the hedgerows in the tip site, some of which will be removed as a result of the application, have flora and fauna importance. On the 1st June 1997 the Hedgerows Protection Act was implemented, under the guidelines of this act there are grounds for protection of some if not all of the hedgerows within the application site. Therefore it is likely that it would be time well spent if a survey was carried out of the hedgerows in terms of the Hedgerows Protection Act. Especially as there is possibly a medieval hedgerow present in the site.

2.2.6 Archaeology

The archaeological assessment in the Environmental Statement highlights several areas of concern. These include important paleoenvironmental deposits, the site of a pre-historic enclosure and possible, yet unidentified archaeological features. The archaeological assessment also lists a whole range of artefacts and sites that have previously been discovered in the area. Although my knowledge of archaeology is limited, from reading the archaeological assessment it appears that there are definite grounds to support, that an in-depth survey of archaeological features of the area, through field walking and geophysical survey, should have been carried out as part of the Environmental Statement.

3.0 Relevant English and European Legislation

As mentioned in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 of this report there is significant legislation of both English and European law involved in the protection of otters, badgers and kingfishers. Under the Badger Protection Act 1992 it is an offence to interfere with a badger sett that shows signs of current use. There is a high risk that if the application is carried out the setts in the area will be disturbed if not destroyed. E.U. directive requires member states to take special measures to conserve the habitat of rare breeding species. This is relevant in regards to Otter, Sea Lamprey, Atlantic Salmon, Bullhead and Kingfisher. There are also a number of species present within the site that are listed in the Red Data Books which highlights that they are at risk and should be considered in regards to the application. The Environmental Statement indicates insufficient surveillance of any of these species, and the conclusions it draws and the recommendations it makes, appear not to take this legislation and its implementation into serious regard, the fact that these species are under such legislation should indicate their importance.

4.0 Summary

To summarise, the Environmental Statement has insufficient data due to the fact that there were incomplete surveys of mammals, birds fish and invertebrates; surveying in a number of cases was carried out at the wrong time of year, the aquatic invertebrate survey was done outside of the application area and other data was entirely relied upon from other sources instead of complementing the survey team's work.

From the above information there is plenty of evidence to make it clear that an incomplete survey of the application area, for the river diversion and tip site, was carried out. How can County Councillors be expected to make an informed decision, in regards to granting planning permission, on an Environmental Statement whose conclusions were drawn from incomplete data?

Tell Watts-Blake-Bearne what you think: fill in their guest book.

AQUA Homepage	Trolls in Space

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page