Comments – 15 June 2024

2

the natural and local environment by... minimising impacts on and providing net gains

for biodiversity..". And, the Environment Act (2021) requires habitats to be

maintained for 30 years after development is completed (schedule 7A, Part 1,

paragraph 9) to secure net gains for biodiversity.

There is no Schedule 7A in the Environment Act 2021. We assume that the reference should be

to Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.1 However, paragraph 9 does not

apply in this context because the LEMP relates to proposed offsite biodiversity mitigation, not

to onsite mitigation. The reference should be to paragraph 10 (and others).

The LEMP Land

The offsite ‘LEMP Land’ is located just to the south of the South Stand of the Memorial Ground.

The site is effectively landlocked by the Memorial Grounds to the north and by residential

housing along the remaining boundaries. The site is defined as ‘offsite’ because it falls outside

the redline boundary of the approved development, 23/03826/F.

Figure 1: The LEMP land is outlined in yellow with the proposed habitat enhancement area shaded green.

The biodiversity gain proposals define the LEMP Land as offsite Woodland and forest – Other

1 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/schedule/7A

Comments – 15 June 2024

3

woodland; broadleaved habitat covering 0.0951hectares. It was assessed as being in poor

condition with medium strategic significance located within Bristol. It has a biodiversity value

of 0.42 habitat units. 0.011 hectares will be retained, with the remaining 0.084 hectares being

enhanced to medium condition. This will deliver 0.63 biodiversity habitat units after 10 years.2

Once approved, the LEMP will form part of the Unilateral Undertaking (s106 Agreement3), a

deed signed by the applicant on 07 December 2023.4 This undertaking obliges Bristol Rovers

(1883) Limited and their successors in title (the Owner), to ‘monitor and manage the LEMP

Land in accordance with the approved LEMP in perpetuity’, despite the fact that the LEMP plan

is only designed to run for 30 years.

Following the recent development, the site has been left in a seriously degraded state. Two

trees have been removed, contrary to the grant, and a large amount of builder’s spoil and other

waste has been left behind and ground levels altered. The photograph in Figure 2, taken in late

March 2024, shows the state of the site at the time. Other parts of the site are also likely to

have been contaminated as a result of the development, as our 31 March 2024 comments on

application 24/00685/COND made clear.5

Figure 2: Part of the LEMP Land just behind the toilet block.

2 23_03826_F-BIODIVERSITY_METRIC_4.0_CALCULATION_TOOL-3543420 3 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/106 4 23_03826_F-UNILATERAL_UNDERTAKING-3585473 5 https://bristoltreeforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/24_00685_COND-BTF-Comments.pdf

Comments – 15 June 2024

4

Before the proposed LEMP works can be started, this degradation of the site will need to be

remediated. We recommend that this be done as part of the approved LEMP.

We note that the fencing between the LEMP Land and the neighbouring houses will need to be

properly secured. We recommend that this too be done as part of the approved LEMP.

No LEMP funding

This LEMP fails to demonstrate how ‘management of the site will be resourced’, as required by

condition 11. It has not been costed over its lifetime, nor is any payment schedule proposed.

No proposals are made for securing the funding needed to deliver the LEMP. The s106

Agreement imposes no obligation on the Owner to provide the necessary funding or to secure

those funds against other possible calls on the company’s finances.

The draft LEMP

Apart from the matters cited above, we make the following observations on the draft LEMP

which, we suspect, has been based on a template which is not always appropriate for the type

of habitat being created: a native species broadleaved woodland in moderate condition.

1. The LEMP commencement and completion dates need to be given. As the development

giving rise to it has been completed and the site has been occupied, the commencement

date should be the date of approval. While the Owner has covenanted to monitor and

manage the approved LEMP in perpetuity, there is nothing in the Grant6 or the s106

Agreement which triggers the LEMP requirements.

2. The name of the person or organisation responsible for creating or enhancing the habitats

needs to be given.

3. We welcome the plan to dig over the subsoil to remove the recent likely compaction caused

during the construction of the stands. We also endorse the plan to import 450 mm of topsoil

(Prescription O1-3). However, the scrap and other rubbish that has been fly-tipped across

the site both historically and more recently need firstly to be removed. The original ground

levels also need to be restored.

4. The boundary fences need to be secured, but in such a way that wildlife can still access

local green spaces and wildlife corridors (see point 14 below).

5. We are also pleased to see that the plans for tree and shrub planting aftercare will adhere

to the principles detailed in BS8545:2014 (Trees: From Nursery to Independence in the

Landscape) and according to the Committee for Plant Supply and Establishment (CPSE,

1995) - ‘Handling and establishing landscape plants’ (Prescription O2-3), given that most

tree planting fails in the early years while the tree is establishing. Weekly watering of new

standard-sized trees should be undertaken in the first year after planting from May to

September, then fortnightly in the second year. Might the local community be invited to

6 23_03826_F-GRANTED-3585495

Comments – 15 June 2024

5

help water?

6. The proposed new planting density and tree sizes should be stated.

7. Pruning dead or dying branches (Prescriptions O2-5 & 7) should be kept to the minimum

necessary for public safety. Such features are part of the natural growth of trees and ought

to be retained where possible.

8. While dead or dying trees should be recorded, not all may need to be replaced

(Prescriptions O2-6 & 7). There is always a natural attrition rate in any woodland setting,

so tree replacement may only be needed to maintain the target woodland canopy cover as

per Prescription O2-8.

9. We agree that fallen and pruned wood should be left in situ or used to create log piles on

site. These will act as shelter for invertebrates and hibernating mammals as well as

improving overall biodiversity. Dead trees should be left where they stand (Prescription

O2-8).

10. Some of the works proposed and descriptions given suggest that this habitat will not be

allowed to develop into natural woodland; there are references to planting beds, tree pits

and unnecessary pruning. These ambiguities need to be resolved and the site needs to be

managed as a naturally evolving woodland, not as if it were a public park.

11. The species mix is all natives and capable of developing a storied canopy. However, a

balance would need to be struck not to overmanage the site in a way that undermines its

purpose or destroys the habitat envisaged.

12. The use of herbicides and artificial fertilisers is inimical to the sort of habitat envisaged

and should not be allowed. What may be considered to be weeds in a parkland setting are

not weeds (if properly managed) in a woodland setting - e.g. bramble and thistle.

13. Why is no pond proposed? Ponds help to increase and promote biodiversity and should

always be installed where possible.

14. There is a risk that the proposed installation of bat and hedgehog boxes may prove

ineffective if there is insufficient available habitat in which to forage (Prescription O3-1).

This site is just 951 square metres in area, and we estimate that the nearby gardens cover

only about 0.79 hectares. For hedgehogs to thrive here, a project will be needed to connect

these isolated habitats together to allow hedgehogs access to a larger habitat range.

The British Hedgehog Preservation Society advises that:

Hedgehogs are highly active and range widely. They need to be able to move freely through

a well-connected range of habitats to find food, mates and areas to nest. Radio-tracking

studies show that hedgehogs can travel around 2km in a night in urban areas, and up to

3km a night in rural landscapes, though distances differ between the sexes. A viable

population of urban hedgehogs is thought to need around 0.9km2 (90 hectares) of well-

Comments – 15 June 2024

6

connected habitat. 7

No evidence of hedgehogs or bats using the site has been produced. This evidence ought to

be obtained before these measures are introduced.

15. The proposed ecological monitoring set out in Objective 4 should be undertaken by named

independent professionals and all their reports made public.

16. All baseline habitats covered by this LEMP need to be stated, together with the parameters

used to value them. A copy of the biodiversity gain calculation upon which this is based8

should be annexed to the LEMP so that it is available for future reference. Information

setting out how the baseline condition of retained habitats will be maintained or protected

needs to be produced.

17. Prescription O4-01 requires a new survey of the LEMP land to be undertaken. This should

be used to inform a new biodiversity gain calculation using the now-obligatory Statutory

Metric. A copy of this survey and the Statutory Metric calculation should be annexed to the

LEMP.

18. Subsequent baseline surveys in Years 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 should also be used to inform a

new biodiversity gain calculation using the Statutory Metric. A copy of these surveys and

the Statutory Metric calculations should be annexed to the LEMP.

19. Ecological and arboricultural surveys should also be undertaken with the same frequency

to monitor the efficacy of the other mitigation proposals relating to bird, bat and hedgehog

boxes and ground flora (Prescription O4-3 & 4).

20. All these reports, as well as the monitoring report required by Prescription 04-5 and the

approved LEMP, should be made publicly available.

21. As the Owner’s s106 obligation is to monitor and manage the approved LEMP in perpetuity,

provision needs to be made for the maintenance of the LEMP land after the LEMP

termination date has passed.

Off-site compensation area Management Prescriptions - Table 6

Some of the proposals in this table are not appropriate for the type of habitat envisaged. The

following prescriptions need to be removed:

1. O1-3g - Planting areas within the Development Site to be maintained weed free by the use

of glyphosate herbicide until 100% canopy closure.

2. O1-3i - Planting beds will be mulched with 75 mm depth of composted wood bark of 5-75

mm size.

Failure to deliver the LEMP requirements

There are no actions required to be taken by the Owner if the proposed habitat enhancement

does not go as planned.

7 https://www.britishhedgehogs.org.uk/leaflets/HEMP-Leaflet.pdf 8 23_03826_F-BIODIVERSITY_METRIC_4.0_CALCULATION_TOOL-3543420

Comments – 15 June 2024

7

The proposed LEMP does not set out what actions the LPA can take if the Owner does not meet

its obligations or how these are to be triggered. This is a serious omission, potentially making

any failure to deliver the LEMP unenforceable.