DOCSLIB.ORG

Chichester Site Allocation Proposed Submission Development Plan Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chichester Site Allocation Proposed Submission Development Plan Document Report Submitted to Submitted by Chichester District Council AECOM Scott House Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom Chichester Site Allocation: Proposed Submission Development Plan Document Habitat Regulation Assessment AECOM Chichester Site Allocation Proposed Submission Page i Development Plan Document Prepared by: Isla Hoffman Heap Checked by: Dr James Riley Ecologist Associate Director Approved by: Dr James Riley Associate Director Rev No Comments Checked Approved Date by by 0 First draft for comments JR TH 22/10/15 1 Update following client and Natural England comments JR TH 20/11/15 2 Further update following addition of sites at Camelsdale and JR TH 06/05/16 Bosham 3 Minor updates to reflect Proposed Submission Local Plan IH JR 12/10/16 Midpoint, Alençon Link, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 7PP, United Kingdom Telephone: 01256 310 200 Website: http://www.aecom.com Habitat Regulation Assessment 10/16 AECOM Chichester Site Allocation Proposed Submission Page ii Development Plan Document Limitations AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Chichester District Council Limited (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by AECOM has not been independently verified by AECOM, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between August and November 2015 and October 2016 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances. Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available. AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to AECOM’s attention after the date of the Report. Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward- looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. AECOM specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report. Copyright © This Report is the copyright of AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Habitat Regulation Assessment 10/16 AECOM Chichester Site Allocation Proposed Submission Page iii Development Plan Document Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background to the Project ..................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Legislation ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Scope of the Project .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 This report ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 HRA Task 1 - Likely Significant Effects (LSE) ....................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Other Plans and Projects That May Act In Combination ....................................................................................... 9 3 Pathways of Impact ................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Other Relevant Supporting Spatial Studies ................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Disturbance and Recreational Pressure .............................................................................................................. 10 3.2.1 Mechanical/abrasive damage and nutrient enrichment ............................................................................... 10 3.2.2 Disturbance ................................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3 Atmospheric Pollution .......................................................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Water Abstraction ................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.5 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.6 Coastal Squeeze ................................................................................................................................................. 15 3.7 Loss of Habitats Outside of European Sites ........................................................................................................ 16 3.8 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 16 4 Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar site/Solent Maritime SAC .............................................. 17 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Features of European Interest ............................................................................................................................. 17 4.2.1 Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA .................................................................................................. 17 4.2.2 Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar ............................................................................................. 18 4.2.3 Solent Maritime SAC ................................................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Historic Trends and Current Conditions............................................................................................................... 19 4.4 Key Environmental Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.5 Potential effects of the Plan ................................................................................................................................. 20 4.5.1 Proposed housing sites ............................................................................................................................... 20 4.5.2 Proposed employment sites ........................................................................................................................ 28 5 Pagham Harbour SPA and Ramsar .......................................................................................................................... 35 5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 35 5.2 Features of European Interest ............................................................................................................................. 35 5.3 Historic Trends and Current Pressures ............................................................................................................... 36 5.4 Key Environmental Conditions ...........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Annex 14: SEA Main Report
    Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Annex 14: SEA Main Report Appendix A: Consultee responses to the scoping report and amendments made as a consequence November 30, 2017 Version 1 Appendix A Statement of Response Southern Water issued its Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Scoping Report for its Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 for public consultation from 28th April 2017 to 2nd June 2017. Comments on the SEA Scoping Report were received from the following organisations: Natural England Environment Agency Historic England Howard Taylor, Upstream Dry Fly Sussex Wildlife Trust The Test & Itchen Association Ltd Wessex Chalk Stream Rivers Trust Forestry Commission England Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Longdown Management Limited Amanda Barker-Mill C. H. Layman These comments are set out in Table 1 together with Southern Water’s response as to how it intends to take account of them in developing the SEA of the Draft Water Resources Management Plan. Table 1 Draft Water Resources Management Plan: SEA Scoping Report – responses to comments received How comments have been addressed in the Ref Consultee Comment Draft Water Resources Management Plan Environmental Report Plans programmes or policies I recommend you add the following to your list of plans programmes or policies: National. - Defra strategy for the environment creating a great place for These policies, plans and programmes have Natural living. been included in the SEA Environmental Report 1 England - The national conservation strategy conservation-21 and considered in the assessment of potential effects of the WRMP. - The 5 point plan to salmon conservation in the UK National Nature Reserve Management Plans (though you may not be able to, or need to, list all of these, please just reference them as a source of information for assessment of any relevant options).
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer.Doc Revised from 10/03/02
    Save No. 91 Printed 10/03/02 10:33 AM Gazetteer.doc Revised From 10/03/02 Gazetteer compiled by E J Wiseman Abbots Ann SU 3243 Bighton Lane Watercress Beds SU 5933 Abbotstone Down SU 5836 Bishop's Dyke SU 3405 Acres Down SU 2709 Bishopstoke SU 4619 Alice Holt Forest SU 8042 Bishops Sutton Watercress Beds SU 6031 Allbrook SU 4521 Bisterne SU 1400 Allington Lane Gravel Pit SU 4717 Bitterne (Southampton) SU 4413 Alresford Watercress Beds SU 5833 Bitterne Park (Southampton) SU 4414 Alresford Pond SU 5933 Black Bush SU 2515 Amberwood Inclosure SU 2013 Blackbushe Airfield SU 8059 Amery Farm Estate (Alton) SU 7240 Black Dam (Basingstoke) SU 6552 Ampfield SU 4023 Black Gutter Bottom SU 2016 Andover Airfield SU 3245 Blackmoor SU 7733 Anton valley SU 3740 Blackmoor Golf Course SU 7734 Arlebury Lake SU 5732 Black Point (Hayling Island) SZ 7599 Ashlett Creek SU 4603 Blashford Lakes SU 1507 Ashlett Mill Pond SU 4603 Blendworth SU 7113 Ashley Farm (Stockbridge) SU 3730 Bordon SU 8035 Ashley Manor (Stockbridge) SU 3830 Bossington SU 3331 Ashley Walk SU 2014 Botley Wood SU 5410 Ashley Warren SU 4956 Bourley Reservoir SU 8250 Ashmansworth SU 4157 Boveridge SU 0714 Ashurst SU 3310 Braishfield SU 3725 Ash Vale Gravel Pit SU 8853 Brambridge SU 4622 Avington SU 5332 Bramley Camp SU 6559 Avon Castle SU 1303 Bramshaw Wood SU 2516 Avon Causeway SZ 1497 Bramshill (Warren Heath) SU 7759 Avon Tyrrell SZ 1499 Bramshill Common SU 7562 Backley Plain SU 2106 Bramshill Police College Lake SU 7560 Baddesley Common SU 3921 Bramshill Rubbish Tip SU 7561 Badnam Creek (River
    [Show full text]
  • BLS Bulletin 111 Winter 2012.Pdf
    1 BRITISH LICHEN SOCIETY OFFICERS AND CONTACTS 2012 PRESIDENT B.P. Hilton, Beauregard, 5 Alscott Gardens, Alverdiscott, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 3QJ; e-mail [email protected] VICE-PRESIDENT J. Simkin, 41 North Road, Ponteland, Newcastle upon Tyne NE20 9UN, email [email protected] SECRETARY C. Ellis, Royal Botanic Garden, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR; email [email protected] TREASURER J.F. Skinner, 28 Parkanaur Avenue, Southend-on-Sea, Essex SS1 3HY, email [email protected] ASSISTANT TREASURER AND MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY H. Döring, Mycology Section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, email [email protected] REGIONAL TREASURER (Americas) J.W. Hinds, 254 Forest Avenue, Orono, Maine 04473-3202, USA; email [email protected]. CHAIR OF THE DATA COMMITTEE D.J. Hill, Yew Tree Cottage, Yew Tree Lane, Compton Martin, Bristol BS40 6JS, email [email protected] MAPPING RECORDER AND ARCHIVIST M.R.D. Seaward, Department of Archaeological, Geographical & Environmental Sciences, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, email [email protected] DATA MANAGER J. Simkin, 41 North Road, Ponteland, Newcastle upon Tyne NE20 9UN, email [email protected] SENIOR EDITOR (LICHENOLOGIST) P.D. Crittenden, School of Life Science, The University, Nottingham NG7 2RD, email [email protected] BULLETIN EDITOR P.F. Cannon, CABI and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew; postal address Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, email [email protected] CHAIR OF CONSERVATION COMMITTEE & CONSERVATION OFFICER B.W. Edwards, DERC, Library Headquarters, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset DT1 1XJ, email [email protected] CHAIR OF THE EDUCATION AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE: S.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission Draft Core Spatial Strategy
    • the business does not provide, or have potential to have strengthened their retail “offer”. In the City, provide, the high quality job opportunities in it is essential that the correct balance be struck appropriate locations promoted in the Economic between allowing more retail development where Development Strategy; and appropriate and protecting and enhancing the • there is no demand for employment use on the historic character and environment as highlighted site, based on a detailed marketing assessment. in the recent Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The Retail Study forecast a demand for Proposals for the redevelopment to non-employment up to 47,760sq.m. of comparison floorspace and uses of existing employment sites will be refused up to 3,790sq.m. of convenience floorspace in the unless the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction District up to 2017. It would not be possible to of the local planning authority, that there is no demand accommodate all this demand in an acceptable for employment use on the site, based on a detailed way . While some renewal and extension of marketing assessment. buildings might be possible, few sites are likely to be suitable for significant redevelopment. Equally, Retailing and retail centres edge-of-centre opportunities are likely to be limited. Any large-scale expansion of retailing in 307. Chichester District has a relatively affluent, but Chichester City is only likely to be possible older age profile when compared to the national through the planned expansion of out-of-town average. This means that there is a strong provision, but extensive out-of-centre available retail spend, although the highly mobile development could damage the centre.
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Sincs Hampshire.Pdf
    Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within Hampshire © Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre No part of this documentHBIC may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recoding or otherwise without the prior permission of the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Central Grid SINC Ref District SINC Name Ref. SINC Criteria Area (ha) BD0001 Basingstoke & Deane Straits Copse, St. Mary Bourne SU38905040 1A 2.14 BD0002 Basingstoke & Deane Lee's Wood SU39005080 1A 1.99 BD0003 Basingstoke & Deane Great Wallop Hill Copse SU39005200 1A/1B 21.07 BD0004 Basingstoke & Deane Hackwood Copse SU39504950 1A 11.74 BD0005 Basingstoke & Deane Stokehill Farm Down SU39605130 2A 4.02 BD0006 Basingstoke & Deane Juniper Rough SU39605289 2D 1.16 BD0007 Basingstoke & Deane Leafy Grove Copse SU39685080 1A 1.83 BD0008 Basingstoke & Deane Trinley Wood SU39804900 1A 6.58 BD0009 Basingstoke & Deane East Woodhay Down SU39806040 2A 29.57 BD0010 Basingstoke & Deane Ten Acre Brow (East) SU39965580 1A 0.55 BD0011 Basingstoke & Deane Berries Copse SU40106240 1A 2.93 BD0012 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood North SU40305590 1A 3.63 BD0013 Basingstoke & Deane The Oaks Grassland SU40405920 2A 1.12 BD0014 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood South SU40505520 1B 1.87 BD0015 Basingstoke & Deane West Of Codley Copse SU40505680 2D/6A 0.68 BD0016 Basingstoke & Deane Hitchen Copse SU40505850 1A 13.91 BD0017 Basingstoke & Deane Pilot Hill: Field To The South-East SU40505900 2A/6A 4.62
    [Show full text]
  • Wealden Heaths and Shortheath Common 2018 Visitor Surveys
    Wealden Heaths and Shortheath Common 2018 Visitor Surveys Chris Panter FOOTPRINT ECOLOGY, FOREST OFFICE, BERE ROAD, WAREHAM, DORSET BH20 7PA WWW.FOOTPRINT-ECOLOGY.CO.UK 01929 552444 Footprint Contract Reference: 477 Date: 16th November 2018 Version: Final Recommended Citation: Panter, C. 2018. Wealden Heaths and Shortheath Common 2018 Visitor Surveys. Unpublished report. 1 2018 Wealden Heaths Visitor Survey Summary This report provides the results of a visitor survey at a number of heathland sites in East Hampshire, part of the Wealden Heaths, including the nearby Shortheath Common. These surveys update a previous survey undertaken in 2012. Surveys covered five separate heathland sites (using 23 survey locations), and involved face-to-face interviews and tally counts of passing people between 9th June and 21st July 2018. 16 hours of surveys were undertaken at each survey point (368 hours of survey in total). We recorded a total of 1,370 groups, consisting of 2,012 people, entering the sites. The mean group size across all survey sites was 1.5 people with 1.3 adults, 0.2 minors and 1.0 dogs per group. The busiest site was by far Ludshott & Bramshott, with an average of 11 people entering per hour, compared to just 2.3 at Shortheath. At individual survey points, the number of people per hour ranged from 26 at Ludshott, Waggoner’s Wells to 0.3 at Woolmer, Hollywater layby. Numbers of dogs were also counted: there were 10 survey points where the number of dogs exceeded the number of groups, and therefore on average, more than 1.0 dogs per group.
    [Show full text]
  • WOOLMER FOREST LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (WFLD)1 COMMENTS on COMMISSION’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS (V1.4) General 1
    WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW 2017 WOOLMER FOREST LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (WFLD)1 COMMENTS ON COMMISSION’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS (V1.4) General 1. This is WFLD’s response to the Commission’s draft recommendations on Liphook, Headley Whitehill Chase, Whitehill Hogmoor & Greatham wards. We accept the recommendations on Grayshott, Lindford and the single-councillor wards in Whitehill & Bordon. 2. We are disappointed by the Commission’s decision to create yet more, multi-councillor wards, especially after most respondents stated their preference for retaining the existing ward structure with its single-councillor wards. As we stressed in our earlier submission, these give an electoral advantage to the biggest party, make it exceedingly difficult for independent candidates and smaller parties to stand and discourages large swathes of the electorate from voting, as can be seen by the poor turnout in local elections. 3. Our experience, from talking to thousands of voters on the doorstep, confirms this discouraging trend. Where there are single-councillor wards most voters tend to get to know the candidates, read their policies and ask questions; in multi-councillor wards most just vote along tribal lines on the assumption that ‘their party has selected the best candidates.’ Indeed, in these larger wards voters seem to lose interest in both the candidates and their policies. This trend is borne out by the consistent party vote ratio in most district elections. Giving voters’ more than one vote does not create electoral equality, it just leads to one party rule which isn’t good for democracy. 4. As we explained, in our initial proposals, we had provided maps on splitting the wards within the existing boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora of the Hampshire Downs
    Flora of the Hampshire Downs Naturetrek Tour Report 10 - 12 June 2011 Fly Orchid Narrow leaved Marsh Orchid White Fragrant Orchid Report and images compiled by Jon Stokes Naturetrek Cheriton Mill Cheriton Alresford Hampshire SO24 0NG England T: +44 (0)1962 733051 F: +44 (0)1962 736426 E: [email protected] W: www.naturetrek.co.uk Tour Report Flora of the Hampshire Downs Tour Leader: Jon Stokes (Naturetrek Leader & Naturalist) Participants: Gill Wright Jane Hughes Maureen Reynolds Valerie Storey Alison Barclay Chris Piper Day 1 Friday 10th June The group arrived at the hotel for dinner, after which we set off on our first outing. As the evening drew in we headed east towards Petersfield seeing a Roe Deer bounding down the road in front of us, before arriving at Coulters Dean Bank. Here Greater Butterfly Orchids were flowering and their faint perfume could be smelt on the damp evening air. Common Spotted Orchids and Wild Columbine were also part of the downs riches. Overhead bats flew and a Robin sang from the bushes but all too soon darkness set in, so we headed back to the hotel and bed. Day 2 Saturday 11th June The morning dawned bright and clear and we set off for our first visit of the day. Arriving at a small wet meadow, the first plants to be seen were Southern Marsh and Narrow Leaved Marsh Orchids, but unfortunately the meadow had been cut, so many of the other flowers were not visible. We therefore set off for Odiham Common, stopping briefly to look at a native Black Poplar.
    [Show full text]
  • Winchester District Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Scoping Report
    Winchester City Council Winchester District Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Scoping Report Final report Prepared by LUC July 2020 Winchester City Council Winchester District Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Scoping Report Project Number 11113 Version Status Prepared Checked Approved Date 1. Draft for client comment K. Sydney T. Livingston T. Livingston 26.06.2020 2. Final for consultation K. Sydney T. Livingston T. Livingston 07.07.2020 Bristol Land Use Consultants Ltd Landscape Design Edinburgh Registered in England Strategic Planning & Assessment Glasgow Registered number 2549296 Development Planning Lancaster Registered office: Urban Design & Masterplanning London 250 Waterloo Road Environmental Impact Assessment Manchester London SE1 8UL Landscape Planning & Assessment Landscape Management landuse.co.uk 100% recycled paper Ecology Historic Environment GIS & Visualisation Contents Winchester District Local Plan HRA Scoping Report July 2020 Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 Background to the Local Plan 1 The requirement to undertake Habitats Regulations Assessment of Development Plans 2 Stages of HRA 2 Recent case law changes 4 Previous HRA work 5 Structure of this report 5 Chapter 2 Approach to HRA 6 Screening methodology 6 Appropriate Assessment 9 Chapter 3 Scope of HRA 11 European sites that may be affected by the Local Plan 11 Potential broad impacts from the Local Plan 18 Chapter 4 Next Steps 21 Appendix A Attributes of European Sites with the potential to be affected by the Local Plan A-1 Appendix B Other plans and projects with the potential for in-combination effects B-1 LUC I i -Chapter 1 Introduction Winchester District Local Plan HRA Scoping Report July 2020 Chapter 1 Introduction An introduction to Habitats Regulations Assessment and the Winchester District Local Plan LUC has been commissioned by Winchester City Council to carry out a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of its emerging Local Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Selborne Selborne
    Selborne Selborne 1.0 PARISH Selborne 2.0 HUNDRED Selborne 3.0 NGR 474100 133800 4.0 GEOLOGY Upper Greensand; Lower Chalk adjacent to the west. 5.0 SITE CONTEXT (Map 2) Selborne is situated on the B3006, south of its bridging point on the Oakhanger Stream and on the lower slopes (east) of Selborne Common. The Oakhanger Stream rises from springs on the lower slope of Noar Hill to the south of the settlement, and 1km west of the church below Selborne Common. The Common rises to 200m AOD, whilst the parish church is sited just above the Stream at c. 121m AOD. The settlement is linear in appearance spreading southwards from the church for almost a kilometre. To the south- east, C19 and C20 development has spread into the meadowland between the Selborne Road and the stream. 6.0 PLAN TYPE & DESCRIPTION (Maps 3, 4 & 5) Agglomeration + regular row + irregular rows + common edge Selborne is a settlement of many components. Within the whole it offers the greatest diversity of rural settlement type in East Hampshire District. 6.1 Agglomeration the parish church of St Mary is at the north end of Selborne, set back a little to the east of the principal thoroughfare known as Selborne Road. The church is in a commanding position, overlooking the Oakhanger Stream 100m north, whilst to the west it looks down upon a four-way junction on the Selborne Road. The association of church with road junction is typical of many East Hampshire settlements though in the case of Selborne at least two of these routes have been re-directed since the Medieval period.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Ponds for the Spangled Water Beetle Graphoderus Zonatus Freshwater Habitats Trust
    Creating ponds for the Spangled Water Beetle Graphoderus zonatus Freshwater Habitats Trust 1. The Spangled Water Beetle Key messages The Spangled Water Beetle Graphoderus zonatus is an impressive diving beetle, up to 15 mm in size. The elytra have an intricate pattern of black and • Locate ponds away from brown marks, coupled with a broad yellow band across the centre of the intensive landuse areas - pronotum and a further narrow yellow band behind the eyes (Figure 1). Two this species is intolerant other Graphoderus species have been recorded in this country - G. bilineatus of pollution and which is now extinct and G. cinereus which is also very rare. Careful eutrophication. identification is required to tell these three species apart. • Create large shallow This beetle has been found at only one site in the UK, Woolmer Forest, in ponds on acidic sandy north-east Hampshire which is also an important site for the Natterjack Toad soils on heathlands. (Figure 2). It is classified as Critically Endangered under the IUCN threat criteria. New ponds created at Woolmer Forest have been colonised by the • Create a complex of Spangled Water Beetle, which suggests that there is potential for it to different ponds with a disperse and use suitable habitat when it is available. range of different profiles. • Manage sites by grazing at moderate stocking densities to maintain a short turf and create patches of bare ground. • Monitor new ponds for Roger Key Roger Jonty Denton Jonty invasive non-native © © plants. Once established Figure 1. The Spangled Water Beetle Graphoderus zonatus and the large, they are difficult to shallow Woolmer Pond (right).
    [Show full text]
  • Download the South-East IAP Report Here
    Important Areas for Ponds (IAPs) in the Environment Agency Southern Region Helen Keeble, Penny Williams, Jeremy Biggs and Mike Athanson Report prepared by: Report produced for: Pond Conservation Environment Agency c/o Oxford Brookes University Southern Regional Office Gipsy Lane, Headington Guildbourne House Oxford, OX3 0BP Chatsworth Road, Worthing Sussex, BN11 1LD Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who took time to send pond data and pictures or other information for this assessment. In particular: Adam Fulton, Alex Lockton, Alice Hiley, Alison Cross, Alistair Kirk, Amanda Bassett, Andrew Lawson, Anne Marston, Becky Collybeer, Beth Newman, Bradley Jamieson, Catherine Fuller, Chris Catling, Daniel Piec, David Holyoak, David Rumble, Debbie Miller, Debbie Tann, Dominic Price, Dorothy Wright, Ed Jarzembowski, Garf Williams, Garth Foster, Georgina Terry, Guy Hagg, Hannah Cook, Henri Brocklebank, Ian Boyd, Jackie Kelly, Jane Frostick, Jay Doyle, Jo Thornton, Joe Stevens, John Durnell, Jonty Denton, Katharine Parkes, Kevin Walker, Kirsten Wright, Laurie Jackson, Lee Brady, Lizzy Peat, Martin Rand, Mary Campling, Matt Shardlow, Mike Phillips, Naomi Ewald, Natalie Rogers, Nic Ferriday, Nick Stewart, Nicky Court, Nicola Barnfather, Oli Grafton, Pauline Morrow, Penny Green, Pete Thompson, Phil Buckley, Philip Sansum, Rachael Hunter, Richard Grogan, Richard Moyse, Richard Osmond, Rufus Sage, Russell Wright, Sarah Jane Chimbwandira, Sheila Brooke, Simon Weymouth, Steph Ames, Terry Langford, Tom Butterworth, Tom Reid, Vicky Kindemba. Cover photograph: Low Weald Pond, Lee Brady Report production: February 2009 Consultation: March 2009 SUMMARY Ponds are an important freshwater habitat and play a key role in maintaining biodiversity at the landscape level. However, they are vulnerable to environmental degradation and there is evidence that, at a national level, pond quality is declining.
    [Show full text]