DOCSLIB.ORG

S O U T H D O W N S N a T I O N a L P a R K H E a T H L a N D V I S I T O R S U R V E Y

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
S O U T H D O W N S N a T I O N a L P a R K H E a T H L a N D V I S I T O R S U R V E Y South Downs National Park H e a t h l a n d V i s i t o r Survey 2014 South Downs National Park H e a t h l a n d V i s i t o r Survey 2014 Date: 3rd December, 2014 Version: FINAL Recommended Citation: Lake, S. & Liley, D. (2014) South Downs National Park Heathland Visitor Survey 2014. Unpublished report by Footprint Ecology for the South Downs National Park Authority. Front cover: Iping Common by Chris Gunn licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic South Downs National Park H e a t h l a n d V i s i t o r Survey 2014 Summary This report was commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority in order to understand access patterns and visitor use of heathland areas within the National Park, focussing on the area approximately lying between Petersfield, Liphook, Haslemere and Pulborough. The survey included fieldwork to map the distribution of all car-parks and access points; counts of parked vehicles; counts of people and visitor interviews. A total of 224 access points were identified and mapped, 89 of which provided informal parking with a further 25 formal car-parks and 110 pedestrian access points. In total there were estimated to be 661 car-parking spaces. Six transects were undertaken counting all parked vehicles in the mapped parking locations. These counts covered a range of times of day and both weekdays and weekend days. Counts ranged from 79 to 114 vehicles, with a mean of 93.2. Accurate counts and face-face interviews were undertaken at a sample of nine access points, covering a range of different sites and different types of access points, including formal car-parks, informal parking locations and foot only access points. In total 306 groups were counted entering sites from the access points; these groups included 470 people and 422 dogs, giving an average group size across all survey points of 1.5 people and 1.4 dogs. This is equivalent to 0.89 dogs for each person counted. The survey point at Chapel Common was the busiest location. Across all sites combined and for four individual sites, early morning (0700-0900) on weekdays was the busiest survey session. In total, 242 interviews were conducted. Most interviewees were on a day trip/short visit and had travelled from home. The majority (78%) were dog walking. Other activities included walking (12%), wildlife watching (3%) and cycling (2%). The proportion of interviewees who were dog walking compared to other activities was particularly high at Chapel Common and Lord’s Piece. Ninety-six percent of interviewees with dogs said that they had (or intended to) let their dog off the lead on their visit. Most interviewees had spent or were planning to spend between 30 minutes and one hour on site and visited regularly (74% visited at least weekly). Chapel Common and Lord’s Piece had the greatest proportion of daily (or almost daily) visitors – corresponding to the sites with a high proportion of dog walkers. A high proportion of interviewees (86%) visited the site throughout the year. Most interviewees (85%) arrived by car, with only small numbers arriving on foot (12%), bicycle (2%) or horse (1%). People had chosen to visit the site where their interview took place for a range of reasons including habit or familiarity (44% responses), quality of the area (38%), scenery/views (30%), or it being good for the dog (28%). Most interviewees perceived access exclusions to protect wildlife, byelaws to limit BBQs, fines for not collecting dog waste and penalties to enforce anti-social behaviour as being positive measures, while a requirement to keep dogs on leads, the site being busy with lots of other people, and the provision of a cafe were perceived of as negative or unnecessary features. Interviewees’ routes (mapped as part of the interview) ranged from 50m to over 6km, with most between 2km and 3km. The mean route length for dog walkers was 2.19km. The median distance between the start of the route and the midpoint (measured ‘as the crow flies’) for all mapped routes 1 South Downs National Park H e a t h l a n d V i s i t o r Survey 2014 was 562m, indicating the distance that the majority of visitors ‘penetrated’ into the site. Most (83%) interviewees did not/were not intending to leave the path or trail during their visit. A total of 225 interviews (93%) generated valid, full postcodes that could be plotted within a GIS. The distribution of interviewee postcodes shows a wide scatter. Many were residents at local settlements but there were a range of visitors from further afield including a scatter of locations along the south coast. The median distance from home postcode to survey point was 3.47km and the third quartile (i.e. the distance from which 75% of visitors had originated) was 6.68km. 2 South Downs National Park H e a t h l a n d V i s i t o r Survey 2014 Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 5 Heathlands Reunited .............................................................................................. 5 Importance of Access .............................................................................................. 5 Nature conservation impacts of access ................................................................... 6 Aims of this report .................................................................................................. 6 2. Methods .............................................................................................. 9 Distribution of car-parks and access points ............................................................. 9 Counts of parked vehicles ....................................................................................... 9 Counts of People and Visitor Interviews ................................................................ 11 Counts of people ............................................................................................................ 11 Face-face interviews ...................................................................................................... 11 Analysis and Data Presentation ............................................................................ 12 3. Results ............................................................................................... 15 Driving Transects .................................................................................................. 15 Tally Data ............................................................................................................. 17 Questionnaires ..................................................................................................... 20 Visitor interviews ........................................................................................................... 20 Type of visit ................................................................................................................... 20 Activities ....................................................................................................................... 21 Duration, frequency and timing of visit ........................................................................... 22 Transport to site ............................................................................................................ 26 Reasons for visiting the site/area ................................................................................... 27 Visitor perceptions of specific site features and how they might enhance their enjoyment ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Dogs .............................................................................................................................. 34 3 South Downs National Park H e a t h l a n d V i s i t o r Survey 2014 Other sites visited .......................................................................................................... 36 Routes .................................................................................................................. 38 Postcodes ............................................................................................................. 42 4. Discussion .......................................................................................... 48 Limitations............................................................................................................ 48 6. References ......................................................................................... 49 7. Appendices ........................................................................................ 52 Appendix 1: Summary of survey dates and rainfall ................................................ 52 Appendix 2: Questionnaire ................................................................................... 53 Appendix 3: Reasons for visiting ........................................................................... 59 Appendix 4: Reasons why visitors chose the site where they were interviewed to visit ...................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix 5: The importance of measures on site .................................................. 63 Appendix 6: Features that would enhance enjoyment .......................................... 64 Appendix 7: Other sites ........................................................................................ 65 Appendix 8: Choice of route
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE SERPENT TRAIL11.3Km 7 Miles 1 OFFICIAL GUIDE
    SOUTH DOWNS WALKS ST THE SERPENT TRAIL11.3km 7 miles 1 OFFICIAL GUIDE ! HELPFUL HINT NATIONAL PARK The A286 Bell Road is a busy crossing point on the Trail. The A286 Bell Road is a busy crossing point on the Trail. West of Bell Road (A286) take the path that goes up between the houses, then across Marley Hanger and again up between two houses on a tarmac path with hand rail. 1 THE SERPENT TRAIL HOW TO GET THERE From rolling hills to bustling market towns, The name of the Trail reflects the serpentine ON FOOT BY RAIL the South Downs National Park’s (SDNP) shape of the route. Starting with the serpent’s The Greensand Way (running from Ham The train stations of Haslemere, Liss, 2 ‘tongue’ in Haslemere High Street, Surrey; landscapes cover 1,600km of breathtaking Street in Kent to Haslemere in Surrey) Liphook and Petersfield are all close to the views, hidden gems and quintessentially the route leads to the ‘head’ at Black Down, West Sussex and from there the ‘body’ finishes on the opposite side of Haslemere Trail. Visit nationalrail.co.uk to plan English scenery. A rich tapestry of turns west, east and west again along High Street from the start of the Serpent your journey. wildlife, landscapes, tranquillity and visitor the greensand ridges. The trail ‘snakes’ Trail. The Hangers Way (running from attractions, weave together a story of Alton to the Queen Elizabeth Country Park by Liphook, Milland, Fernhurst, Petworth, BY BUS people and place in harmony. in Hampshire) crosses Heath Road Fittleworth, Duncton, Heyshott, Midhurst, Bus services run to Midhurst, Stedham, in Petersfield just along the road from Stedham and Nyewood to finally reach the Trotton, Nyewood, Rogate, Petersfield, Embodying the everyday meeting of history the end of the Serpent Trail on Petersfield serpent’s ‘tail’ at Petersfield in Hampshire.
    [Show full text]
  • The Serpent Trail 2 the SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE the SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE 3
    The Serpent Trail 2 THE SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE THE SERPENT TRAIL GUIDE 3 Contents THE SERPENT TRAIL The Serpent Trail ...........................................3 6. Henley to Petworth, via Bexleyhill, Explore the heathlands of the South Downs National Park by Wildlife ..........................................................4 River Common and Upperton ............. 22 Heathland timeline .......................................8 7. Petworth to Fittleworth ........................ 24 following the 65 mile/106 km long Serpent Trail. Heathland Today ........................................ 10 8. Hesworth Common, Lord’s Piece and Discover this beautiful and internationally The name of the Trail reflects the serpentine Burton Park ........................................... 26 Heathland Stories Through Sculpture ....... 10 rare lowland heath habitat, 80% of which shape of the route. Starting with the serpent’s 9. Duncton Common to Cocking has been lost since the early 1800s, often head and tongue in Haslemere and Black 1. Black Down to Marley Common ......... 12 Causeway ............................................. 28 through neglect and tree planting on Down, the ‘body’ turns west, east and west 2. Marley Common through Lynchmere 10. Midhurst, Stedham and Iping previously open areas. Designed to highlight again along the greensand ridges. The Trail and Stanley Commons to Iron Hill ...... 14 Commons ............................................. 30 the outstanding landscape of the greensand ‘snakes’ by Liphook, Milland, Fernhurst, 3. From Shufflesheeps to Combe Hill hills, their wildlife, history and conservation, Petworth, Fittleworth, Duncton, Heyshott, 11. Nyewood to Petersfield ....................... 32 via Chapel Common ............................ 16 the Serpent Trail passes through the purple Midhurst, Stedham and Nyewood to finally Heathlands Reunited Partnership .............. 34 4. Combe Hill, Tullecombe, through heather, green woods and golden valleys of reach the serpent’s ‘tail’ at Petersfield in Rondle Wood to Borden Lane ...........
    [Show full text]
  • Storrington, Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood Plan
    Storrington, Sullington and Washington WASHINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Neighbourhood Plan Dear Sirs Storrington, Sullington & Washington Neighbourhood Plan: Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment Scoping Letter I set out below for your attention the proposed scope of the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment (SA/SEA) to accompany the forthcoming Storrington, Sullington & Washington Neighbourhood Plan (SSWNP). This letter and its appendices should be regarded as the Scoping Report of the SSWNP in accordance with Stage A of the provisions of the Environmental Assessment of Plans & Programmes Regulations 2004 (which implement EU Directive 2001/42). As a statutory consultee in the Regulations you are invited to comment on this report and I would be grateful for your comment by 26th September 2014. Background The SSWNP is being prepared by the Storrington & Sullington Parish Council and Washington Parish Council as qualifying bodies under the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations. In accordance with the 2004 Regulations 2004, the local planning authority, Horsham District Council, issued its formal screening opinion on 20 May 2014, concluding that an SEA is required and that it would prefer this is undertaken as part of a wider Sustainability Appraisal (SA/SEA). In its decision, the District Council has not made its reasons explicit for reaching this conclusion, but it is understood that the likely intention of the SSWNP to contain policies allocating land for development is the primary reason. A third of the designated area lies within the South Downs National Park and there are no European sites within the area, although the area does lie within the 15km buffer zone of the Arundel Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar site.
    [Show full text]
  • 184 KB 21St Nov 2017 SDS Comments on the South Downs
    South Downs Local Plan: Pre-submission Comments of the South Downs Society The South Downs Society has nearly 2,000 members and its focus is campaigning for the conservation and enhancement of the special qualities of the national park and its quiet enjoyment. Our objectives and geographical area of interest are in line with those of the park authority and, as the national park society for the South Downs National Park, we trust that our comments will be afforded appropriate weight. The Society has commented in detail at each previous stage of the plan’s preparation and at each stage we have enjoyed the benefit of our own meetings with the team responsible for drawing up the plan. This courtesy has been much appreciated. We welcome the overall structure of the plan and endorse the landscape-led approach and the emphasis on eco-system services. We have found the plan to be comprehensive, well thought through and appropriate in its structure and content to the particular circumstances of the national park. We note that the wording of the draft policies is essentially positive, in line with the intent behind the National Planning Policy Framework, albeit necessarily conditioned by the requirements of the park’s statutory purposes and duty. We endorse the Vision for the National Park and the Local Plan Objectives. Core policies SD1: Sustainable Development SD2: Ecosystems Services SD3: Major Development All supported. We welcome in particular the wording of SD3 on the definition of major development which reflects the Maurici opinion, the views of this organisation and the work carried out recently on behalf of CNP, CPRE and the National Trust into the workings of the “major development test” across the national parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2: Site Assessment Sheets
    APPENDIX 2: SITE ASSESSMENT SHEETS 1 SITE ASSESSMENT SHEETS: MINERAL SITES 2 1. SHARP SAND AND GRAVEL Sharp sand and gravel sites M/CH/1 GROUP M/CH/2 GROUP M/CH3 M/CH/4 GROUP M/CH/6 Key features of sharp sand and gravel extraction Removal of existing landscape features; Location within flatter low lying areas of river valleys or flood plains; Pumping of water to dry pits when below water table; Excavation, machinery and lighting, resulting in visual intrusion; Noise and visual intrusion of on-site processing; Dust apparent within the vicinity of sand and gravel pits; Frequent heavy vehicle movements on local roads; Mitigation measures such as perimeter mounding (using topsoil and overburden) and planting of native trees and shrubs; Replacement with restored landscape, potentially including open water (which may have a nature conservation or recreational value), or returning land to fields, in the long term. 3 GROUP M/CH/1 Figure A1.1: Location map of the M/CH/1 group 4 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER CONTEXT • Wealth of historic landscape features including historic parklands, many ancient woodlands and earthworks. National character area: South Coast Plain (126)1 • Area is well settled with scattered pattern of rural villages and „Major urban developments including Portsmouth, Worthing and Brighton farmsteads. linked by the A27/M27 corridor dominate much of the open, intensively • Suburban fringes. farmed, flat, coastal plain. Coastal inlets and „harbours‟ contain a diverse • Winding hedged or wooded lanes. landscape of narrow tidal creeks, mudflats, shingle beaches, dunes, grazing • Large scale gravel workings‟. marshes and paddocks. From the Downs and coastal plain edge there are long views towards the sea and the Isle of Wight beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Identification Plan
    SITE IDENTIFICATION PLAN Note: In this paper: CLT = community land trust CDC = Chichester district council SIPC = Stedham with Iping parish council (PC); TCPC = Trotton with Chithurst PC RPC = Rogate PC; The foundation of any CLT is the identification of suitable sites or buildings for its purposes. Like most CLTs, START’s first priority is to provide affordable housing and the identification of suitable land or buildings for this can be an extensive and complicated process – often with no guarantee of success – so we have started the process already, even before putting time and resources into project planning. Context 1. An important element of creating a plan for site identification is to assess the level of need for affordable housing. RPC had been discussing this with CDC since late 2016 and CDC and they carried out a housing needs survey in March 2017, and this was built into the neighbourhood plan it is developing. Formal surveys have not yet been conducted in the other two parishes, but SIPC estimated its needs through a survey as part of the development of its neighbourhood plan and TCPC has a small enough parish to be able to estimate its needs quite easily. Full housing needs surveys will probably be needed in all 3 parishes before START makes any formal application for funding of new homes. 2. In the meantime, we are using the following estimates of probable need across the three parishes, figures in brackets were those that emerged from the RPC housing needs survey): • 15-25 affordable rented units (10-15) • Up to 15 shared ownership units (up to 10) • Up to 10 market rented units (up to 6) Factors in identifying suitable sites 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Community and Stakeholder Consultation FINAL
    Chichester District Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (2017) Community and Stakeholder Consultation FINAL Chichester Open Space Sport and Recreation Study - Consultation Report Contents Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 5 1.1 Study overview 5 1.2 The Community and Stakeholder Needs Assessment 6 2.0 General Community Consultation 8 2.1 Residents Household survey 8 2.2 Public Health 26 2.3 Key Findings 29 3.0 Neighbouring Local Authorities and Town/Parish Councils 32 3.1 Introduction 32 3.2 Neighbouring Authorities – cross boundary issues 32 3.3 Town and Parish Councils 37 3.4 Key Findings 49 4.0 Parks, Green Space, Countryside, and Rights of Way 51 4.1 Introduction 51 4.2 Review of local policy/strategy 51 4.3 Key Stakeholders: Strategic context and overview 53 4.4 Community Organisations Survey 61 4.5 Parks and Recreation Grounds 64 4.6 Allotment Provision 66 4.7 Natural Green Space, Wildlife Areas and Woodlands 67 4.8 Water/Coastal Recreation 70 4.9 Footpaths, Cycling and Equestrian Provision 72 4.10 Key Findings 74 5.0 Play and Youth facility provision 76 5.1 Review of Policy and Strategy 76 5.2 Stakeholder Feedback 79 5.3 Key Findings 83 6.0 Concluding remarks 85 Page | 2 Glossary of Terms Term Meaning ANGSt Accessible Natural Green Space Standard AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ATP Artificial Turf Pitch BOA Biodiversity Opportunity Area CDC Chichester District Council CIL Community Infrastructure Levy EA Environment Agency FLOW Fixing and Linking Our Wetlands GI Green Infrastructure GLAM Green Links across the Manhood
    [Show full text]
  • Representations Received at Proposed Submission Draft Stage
    Response ID ANON-NRVC-BRUF-8 Submitted to Proposed Submission Draft Soft Sand Review of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan - Representations Period Submitted on 2020-03-01 22:40:05 Consultation Response Survey Part A - Personal Information A1 Personal Details Job title (where relevant): Organisation or affiliation (where relevant): A2 Client Details if applicable Title: First name: Last name: Job title (where relevant): Resident Other: Part B - Representation B1 Which part of the Soft Sand Review does this representation relate to? SSR Reference No.: SSR 1 (Chapter 7); SSR 30; SSR SSR34 and SSR35. SSR27 B2 Do you consider the Soft Sand Review to be: (tick as appropriate) Legally compliant or sound? - B2.1 Legally compliant?: Yes Legally compliant or sound? - B2.2 Sound?: No B3 Do you consider the Soft Sand Review to be unsound because it is not: (tick as appropriate) B4 If you consider the Soft Sand Review to be be unsound and/or not legally compliant, please explain why in detail in the box below. Please be as precise as possible. Reasons why plan is believed to be unsound and/or not legally compliant.: The town and surrounding villages are acknowledged one of the most as beautiful and historic areas within West Sussex, positioned at the foot of the South Downs National Park. In common with many market towns the local economy is fragile and sensitive to change. Currently our High Street and surrounding area is bucking the national trend, businesses are choosing to come to Steyning and open. The site just outside Steyning’s inclusion could stop or alter this trend.
    [Show full text]
  • Nov 2018 – Jan 2019 Walks, Strolls & Events
    Nov 2018 – Jan 2019 Walks, Strolls & Events South Downs Walks and Strolls Programme Registered Office: 2 Swan Court, Station Road, Pulborough, West Sussex RH20 1RL Tel: 01798 875073 Email: [email protected] www. southdownssociety.org.uk The Society is a limited company by guarantee, registered No. 319437 and is a registered charity No.230329 Dear Members This autumn/winter brings a fine range of walks and strolls. Thankfully as one or two leaders drop out, others return from sickness and injury. Thank you all leaders for your continuing efforts to fill our programme. As we write this letter, the weather is perfect for walking. We have recovered from the summer's heat, which was too much for some of us, but we now start to consider the possibility of mud! One strolls leader has entitled her mini-series 'On Sussex Hills' after the Sussex drinking song composed by Hilaire Belloc and sung frequently by the South Downs Folk Singers. Many other leaders have obviously been thinking the same, alert to the difficulties last winter and spring brought us - spot the hills in the titles! Some of you have been asking about numbers on walks. For the May to July programme the average was 6 or 7 per walk. Certainly in the very hot weather many stayed at home. Hopefully we shall see some of you at the Christmas lunch on 7th December and at the Christmas Walk and Stroll on 13th December with lunch at the The Shepherd and Dog, Fulking followed by Carols in Newtimber Church. Rosemary Warren (Walks co-ordinator).
    [Show full text]
  • Stedham with Iping Parish Council
    STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations are in force, giving a right to members of the public to record (film, photograph and audio-record) and report on proceedings at meeting of the Council and its Committees. The Council will make a recording of the meeting which will be made available on request. Summons to: Simon Barnard, Ruth Cooper, Neil Read, Amanda Hollingshead, Terry Stevens From: Morag Birch Clerk to the Council Subject: Parish Council Meeting To be held: 13th August 2020, 6:30pm by Video Conference PLEASE NOTE: This meeting will be held via a video conferencing tool. If members of the public wish to attend the meeting please contact the Clerk ([email protected]) for details on how to join. AGENDA 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE & RESIGNATIONS 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS - if any. Please advise of any changes to Register of Interests 4. REPORTS FROM CDC (JUDY FOWLER) AND WSCC (KATE O’KELLY) 5. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 6. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 6.1. Response to Council’s legal representative with regard to potential grounds for appeal 6.2. Inclusion of Council statement and associated documents in minutes of Council meeting 7. FINANCE & GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE 7.1. Elect new Chair of F&GP Committee 7.2. Financial Summary and Report 7.3. Approve Annual Accounts & Internal Audit Report 2019-2020 7.4. Expenditure requiring approval 7.5. Amendment of Approvals process 7.6. Recommendations for communal on-line drive 8. PLANNING COMMITTEE(SIMON BARNARD) 8.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Desktop Biodiversity Report
    Desktop Biodiversity Report Land at Balcombe Parish ESD/14/747 Prepared for Katherine Daniel (Balcombe Parish Council) 13th February 2014 This report is not to be passed on to third parties without prior permission of the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre. Please be aware that printing maps from this report requires an appropriate OS licence. Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre report regarding land at Balcombe Parish 13/02/2014 Prepared for Katherine Daniel Balcombe Parish Council ESD/14/74 The following information is included in this report: Maps Sussex Protected Species Register Sussex Bat Inventory Sussex Bird Inventory UK BAP Species Inventory Sussex Rare Species Inventory Sussex Invasive Alien Species Full Species List Environmental Survey Directory SNCI M12 - Sedgy & Scott's Gills; M22 - Balcombe Lake & associated woodlands; M35 - Balcombe Marsh; M39 - Balcombe Estate Rocks; M40 - Ardingly Reservior & Loder Valley Nature Reserve; M42 - Rowhill & Station Pastures. SSSI Worth Forest. Other Designations/Ownership Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; Environmental Stewardship Agreement; Local Nature Reserve; National Trust Property. Habitats Ancient tree; Ancient woodland; Ghyll woodland; Lowland calcareous grassland; Lowland fen; Lowland heathland; Traditional orchard. Important information regarding this report It must not be assumed that this report contains the definitive species information for the site concerned. The species data held by the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre (SxBRC) is collated from the biological recording community in Sussex. However, there are many areas of Sussex where the records held are limited, either spatially or taxonomically. A desktop biodiversity report from SxBRC will give the user a clear indication of what biological recording has taken place within the area of their enquiry.
    [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]