"I understand that two solar panel experts have objected to the application saying this is just the sort of development which gives the industry a bad name,"
via www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk
Ouch.
This story about a proposed solar farm on the Wiltshire/Gloucestershire border hit the news last month and resulted in quite a flurry of social networking comments. What is particularly interesting about this proposed development is how and why Wiltshire Wildlife Trust recently acquired the site. There are certainly many questions that need answering.
News reports back in 2011 described a project in Essex involving the translocation of several thousand reptiles. You read that correctly, Essex - not Wiltshire. However, the animals did not stay in Essex. Apparently the developer of the London Gateway Port and their consultants were unable to find suitable local receptor sites, so some of the animals were translocated to, you guessed it, a site on the Wiltshire/Gloucestershire border.
To "take on board the extra reptiles" a large additional area of land was purchased for the trust by the developers of the £1.5bn London Gateway port to meet the developer's obligations under EU law...
..."The area of land links up four of the trust's neighbouring reserves including Clattinger Farm, Lower Moor Farm, Oaksey Meadow and Sandpool," said Magz Knight from the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust.
So land has been purchased to link several Wildlife Trust reserves specifically for the translocation of reptiles (from Essex). And now Wiltshire Wildlife Trust want to develop some of that land?
Identifying and securing a suitable receptor site can be both expensive and time consuming. Sites need to be chosen with care. In 2005 Natural England produced some useful guidelines for developers.
You should take into account a number of factors when selecting sites, including agreement from the landowner and local interest groups, site safeguard, assurance of long-term favourable management, and access for monitoring.
What impact will the proposed new development have on protected species? How does the new development fit in with Natural England's recommended site safeguard? Presumably the presence of large numbers of translocated reptiles has been considered by the trust and appropriate mitigation proposed to minimise impacts?
Wiltshire Wildlife Trust have commissioned an ecological appraisal of the land proposed for the new solar array. After reviewing available historical records the ecological appraisal reports:
Great crested newt, grass snake and common lizard have been recorded at Clattinger Farm, Lower Moor Farm, SwillBrook Reserve and directly adjacent to the study area on Sandpool Farm Nature Reserve.
A European protected species is present directly adjacent to the study area. No mention of the thousands of reptiles translocated to the site? Don't Wildlife Trusts send records of species translocated onto their land to local recording centres? If not, then presumably they could have supplied their consultants with all necessary background information? After all, didn't the original Essex consultants undertake three year's monitoring?
"We've got another three years of monitoring the reptiles in Wiltshire to go,"
After assessing the quality of available habitat for reptiles, the recent ecological appraisal concludes that:
The study area provides good habitat for reptiles...
...This is combined with knowledge that reptiles (grass snake and common lizard) have been introduced to the site.
Indeed, but no mention of how many. Didn't the BBC report claim it to be 'thousands'?
Where exactly were the reptiles released? Was it on this proposed development site or somewhere else? The consultants claim the reptiles were released at the 'site'. But after all, what does site name really mean...
Apparently the grassland sward where the solar panels are proposed is
of low botanical species diversity
and
of low ecological value
But I thought thousands of reptiles were released at this site? Back to Wiltshire Wildlife Trust's Magz Knight to describe the translocation exercise:
"But it's been a great success, they all seem to have settled in very well and are breeding."
I also thought the site was bought by a developer specifically for the translocated reptiles? Well according to the current ecological appraisal:
Much of the grassland sward is very short, maintained through cattle and rabbit grazing, and has an open sward.
So a site bought specifically for the release of thousands of reptiles from a major development site in Essex, is being managed in a way that does not appear to promote high quality reptile habitat?
Can that be right? Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. Perhaps the grazing has been put in place as part of a long term management objective to increase biodiversity interest? Not to create habitat of 'low ecological value'? I thought Magz Knight from the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust told the BBC:
"Before any translocation is done the receptor sites are checked because obviously you don't want to bring a load of new reptiles in if there's already a population there that is the maximum amount you should have for that kind of habitat."
Magz is informing us that we need to be aware of a site's carrying capacity. Receptor sites need to be sympathetically managed for reptiles, so the translocated reptiles can form sustainable breeding populations. Does grazing a site with cattle to within an inch of its life constitute sympathetic management? According to Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust (pdf download):
There is evidence for substantial negative impacts of grazing on some UK reptile populations.
Let's hope what good habitat remains outside of grazed areas will not be disturbed by the solar farm proposals. From the ecological appraisal:
The majority of adjacent scrub, and all adjacent hedgerows and wetlands will be retained and unaffected by the proposed development.
Well at least that's something. And what's this?
To ensure protection of great crested newt and reptiles, mitigation actions will be implemented pre-construction and during-construction.
Now we're getting somewhere. Ok the site was bought by a developer...
...and now some of that land is being proposed for development by the new landowner. But at least appropriate mitigation actions will be proposed by the wildlife trust's consultants.
The mitigation will ensure compliance with relevant wildlife legislation, and ensure the development does not require a Natural England European Protected Species (EPS) licence.
Emphasis their own. I'm now even more interested in seeing where this one goes...
To further deter great crested newt and reptiles from using the grassland within the development site, prior to construction the grass sward will be kept very short to remove areas of tussocky grassland and stop it developing further, which is the grassland type that provides better foraging habitat.
So no amphibian exclusion fencing. But potentially suitable habitat for a European protected species will be removed in advance of the development, without an EPS licence? Remember though, the ecological appraisal refers to habitat within the development area only as 'foraging habitat'.
How far is the proposed development from the great crested newt breeding ponds? The ecological appraisal doesn't specify a distance but does mention "immediately adjacent" and "within 500 m". Judging from the available site plan, breeding ponds appear to be well within 50 m of the proposed development. Indeed, the development looks like it is sandwiched between areas that the consultants acknowledge support breeding newts. So will animals disperse across the development site during construction works? Presumably it depends on the size of the local newt population. The larger the population, the greater the risk that animals will disperse across areas zoned for construction. Unfortunately the ecological appraisal doesn't recommended any survey work so we won't know how large the gcn population is...
What do Natural England state about terrestrial habitat close to breeding ponds (detailed in the EPS method statement form that can be downloaded as a spreadsheet) ?
..."Terrestrial habitat" here includes any land likely to be important to the local great crested newt population for foraging, resting, hibernating or dispersal. This means, for example, that even unvegetated or sparsely vegetated areas close to high quality newt ponds (within around 50m) should be included in impact assessments; this could apply to quarry floors, arable and amenity grassland. Areas may be excluded from calculations if you assess that they are substantially isolated by barriers to dispersal and therefore highly unlikely to be used by newts; this may even include apparently high quality areas. Areas may also be excluded if you believe for any other reason that they are highly unlikely to be used by newts.
The wildlife trust's consultants do believe that newts may use the development area (for foraging). They have argued that by removing tussocky vegetation, the risk of foraging newts entering the area is reduced and non-licensed mitigation methods can be deployed. For some schemes at some locations such an approach may be warranted. Small scale developments on non-sensitive sites are unlikely to significantly impact the local conservation status of small newt populations. However, the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust development covers 2 ha and based on the public outcry over the proposals, is clearly a sensitive site. Also, since no great crested newt survey work has been undertaken we don't know how important the breeding population is. The cap it all, the site was seemingly purchased as a receptor location for reptiles translocated from Essex. Yet no reptile survey work has been undertaken by the current consultants and none is proposed.
Perhaps a rethink of strategies is in order?
“We have today taken the decision to withdraw the planning application for a solar PV array at Sandpool. We believe we need to consult further with local people. We also intend to establish hedges which would shield the array from those who live near the site as well as provide additional wildlife habitat. We will then reconsider submitting the planning application next year.” Steve Webb, Strategic Projects Officer, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust.
One to watch...
Wiltshire Wildlife Trust were contacted before this article was written. To date no response or other acknowledgement of the request for information has been received.
Comments