DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan A framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife Produced by Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group © Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, 1997 c/o Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX. Tel: (01622) 221537 CONTENTS 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN 1 1.1 Conserving Biodiversity 1 1.2 Why have a Kent Biodiversity Action Plan? 1 1.3 What is a Biodiversity Action Plan? 1.4 The approach taken to produce the Kent Plan 2 1.5 The Objectives of the Kent BAP 2 1.6 Rationale for selection of habitat groupings and individual species for plans 3 2. LINKS WITH OTHER INITIATIVES 7 2.1 Local Authorities and Local Agenda 21 7 2.2 English Nature's 'Natural Areas Strategy' 9 3. IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.1 The Role of Lead Agencies and Responsible Bodies 10 3.2 The Annual Reporting Process 11 3.3 Partnerships 11 3.4 Identifying Areas for Action 11 3.5 Methodology for Measuring Relative Biodiversity 11 3.6 Action Areas 13 3.7 Taking Action Locally 13 3.8 Summary 14 4. GENERIC ACTIONS 15 2.1 Policy 15 2.2 Land Management 16 2.3 Advice/Publicity 16 2.4 Monitoring and Research 16 5. HABITAT ACTION PLANS 17 3.1 Habitat Action Plan Framework 18 3.2 Habitat Action Plans 19 Woodland & Scrub 20 Wood-pasture & Historic Parkland 24 Old Orchards 27 Hedgerows 29 Lowland Farmland 32 Urban Habitats 35 Acid Grassland 38 Neutral & Marshy Grassland 40 Chalk Grassland 43 Heathland & Mire 46 Grazing Marsh 49 Reedbeds 52 Rivers & Streams 55 Standing Water (Ponds, ditches & dykes, saline lagoons, lakes & reservoirs) 58 Intertidal Mud & Sand 62 Saltmarsh 65 Sand Dunes 67 Vegetated Shingle 69 Maritime Cliffs 72 Marine Habitats 74 6. SPECIES ACTION PLANS 77 6.1 Species Action Plan Framework 77 6.2 Species Action Plans 78 Water Vole 79 Otter 82 Dormouse 84 Serotine Bat 86 Nightingale 88 Great-crested Newt 90 Allis and Twaite Shad 92 White-clawed Crayfish 94 Heath Fritillary 97 Pearl-bordered Fritillary 99 Silver Spotted Skipper 101 Early Gentian 103 Late Spider-orchid 105 7. REFERENCES 107 ABBREVIATIONS 109 GLOSSARY 110 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Species of Conservation Concern in Kent Appendix 2: Proposed Group Structure for Implementation Phase Appendix 3: Distribution of Agricultural Land Classes 4 and 5 in Kent Appendix 4: Location of Nationally Rare Plant Species in Kent Appendix 5: Methodology for Determining Relative Biodiversity Across Kent Appendix 6: Summary of 10 and 50 year targets for all habitat and species covered by action plans Appendix 7: List of organisations consulted 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN Biodiversity is simply "the Variety of Life". It encompasses the whole range of animals, plants and micro organisms on earth, from the tiniest bug to the mightiest oak, along with the ecosystems in which they live. 1.1 CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY This was the start of the UK Government's commitment to biodiversity and since then there have Conserving biodiversity is not just about rare and been a number of key stages in taking forward threatened species and habitats, but the common-place biodiversity issues in the UK: as well. All those who care about the countryside are appreciating biodiversity. It is important for First edition of "Biodiversity Challenge" issued by maintaining the quality of our lives and is intimately voluntary conservation sector as a discussion bound up with it. document (December 1993) ê Although the countryside may still appear visually UK Government published "Biodiversity: The UK attractive, it has become apparent that much of its Action Plan" (January 1994) and the UK BAP Steering richness and diversity has already been lost, and more Group was set up to prepare costed action plans for is disappearing each year; some plants and animals animals, plants and habitats. that were once familiar are now rare, others have become extinct altogether. This century the UK has ê lost over 100 species including 7% of our dragonflies, Voluntary conservation sector published 5% of our butterflies and more than 2% of our fish and "Biodiversity Challenge - an agenda for action in the mammals. Many more are in danger of disappearing, UK" especially at the local level. Nature has an in-built (January 1995) propensity to change, continually evolving new ê variants and new species, but all of this occurs Publication of "Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group naturally over a length of time. The world is losing Report" which includes costed targets and proposed species at a faster rate now than ever before, as a result actions for over 100 species and 14 habitats of human activity; evolution cannot compensate for (December 1995) losses at anything like the current rate and so ê biodiversity is declining fast. UK Government endorses report (May 1996) ê There are many other reasons why we should conserve Publication of "Biodiversity Action Plan for Kent" biodiversity: (November 1997) · In the context of sustainability we should be handing on to future generations a world The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is the first that is richer than the one we inherited; step in the County's response to these national · Species which evolved over thousands of initiatives and is an important milestone for the years may be lost very quickly, and cannot County and its wildlife. It is a chance to set out what be re-created; is of regional, national and international importance · Natural processes help to protect our planet, in Kent and is intended to take the UK Plan forward at e.g through regulating climate and air a local level, addressing many of the challenges set by quality; the national plan, drawing on local experts across the · In maintaining the productivity of our crops conservation spectrum. It is hoped that it will make a we rely upon a reservoir of their wild visionary but practical contribution to the relatives and the pool of genetic material implementation of the UK Plan. that they hold; · In conserving the biodiversity of Kent not 1.3 WHAT IS A BIODIVERSITY ACTION only will we be taking responsibility for the PLAN? quality of our local environment, we will be contributing to global biodiversity. The primary aim of this plan is to enable the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Kent 1.2 WHY HAVE A BIODIVERSITY ACTION and so contribute to the maintenance of national and PLAN? global biodiversity. This Local BAP identifies where action needs to be taken to implement national targets In June 1992 more than 150 heads of government for habitats and species, and it also identifies attended the "Earth Summit" (United Nations appropriate delivery mechanisms. Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio de Janeiro. One important outcome of this gathering The Kent BAP summarises the information which is was the Convention on Biological Diversity, signed currently available regarding the county's by 153 countries including the UK and the EC. biodiversity and the areas of deficiency in our knowledge. The Plan identifies those species and 1 habitats most under threat, and sets out an agenda for There is a long history of successful partnership action. It takes all habitats and some of the most action in Kent and the BAP builds upon this tradition. important species in Kent and sets out targets for the Following the successful model partnership which future, with proposed monitoring to assess results and undertook the Kent Wildlife Habitat Survey between record progress. 1990 and 1995, the information from which largely underpins this document, a similar approach has been There are four key elements in the preparation of a adopted for the development of the Kent BAP. BAP: The partnership which convened to prepare and · Audit - to assess which species and habitats are implement this plan includes members of all most significant for nature conservation in Kent organisations which are key players with a and establish their current status responsibility for the conservation of biodiversity · Defining goals - objectives for species and within Kent, including representatives of land habitats, and measurable targets for their managers. The partnership was established at the conservation outset to encourage the development of a shared vision, and to encourage full commitment to the · Deciding priorities - identifying specific targets development and implementation of the plan. and defined areas for action (accepting that there are limitations, in terms of finance and time, to The partnership process is essential to generate a what can be achieved). sense of ownership of the plan. If all organisations · Implementation - requires member groups in the and individuals, for whom this is a responsibility, Partnership to take responsibility for work together, real and measurable improvements can implementing the actions identified in the plans, be achieved. including the monitoring and review process. The partnership currently includes: The Kent BAP includes targets which are based on the Government bodies: English Nature, Environment range of local conditions and thereby reinforce local Agency, Forestry Authority, MAFF, GOSE. distinctiveness - promoting the conservation of Local Government: Kent County Council, Dover, species and habitats characteristic of the local area. Tonbridge & Malling, Swale and Canterbury District This approach complements the 'Natural Areas Councils (nominated by KPOG to represent all Kent Strategy' currently being developed by English Local Authorities). Nature, consolidating existing character. Independent wildlife organisations: Kent Wildlife Trust, RSPB Many of the proposed actions also complement the Land owners and managers: Country Landowners landscape guidelines for the different character areas Association, National Farmers Union in the county and the aims of heritage conservation, since biodiversity, landscape and heritage are all Representatives from these bodies formed a steering inextricably linked.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • QQR 7 Information Pack
    7th Quinquennial Review of Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) Information Pack (version 2.21) 14 May 2021 1 Version 2.2: Four reptiles and two seals removed from the EPS list (Annex 1); one EPS amphibian and two EPS reptiles that are all Endangered removed from Annex 2 – these species were included in Version 2 and/or 2.1 in error. See Annex 1 and Annex 2 for further information. 1. Introduction Every five years, the country nature conservation bodies (Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and NatureScot), working jointly through the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), review Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981. The review will provide recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to Ministers for the Environment in the Scottish Government and Welsh Government for changes to these schedules2. This is known as the Quinquennial Review (QQR). As part of the QQR, stakeholders are provided with the opportunity to propose changes to the species on the schedules. This Information Pack has been produced for the 7th QQR (QQR 7). It is important to note that this QQR differs from previous ones. The Information Pack explains the new selection criteria, provides a timetable, and explains the process to be used by stakeholders. Contact details of the QQR Inter-agency Group who are managing QQR 7, are listed in Section 5. In addition, the Information Pack provides details of how to complete the online survey through which stakeholders propose new species for inclusion on, or removal of existing species from Schedules 5 and 8, or propose a change to how species are protected on the schedules.
    [Show full text]
  • Blattkäfer (Coleoptera: Megalopodidae, Orsodacnidae Et Chryso- Melidae Excl
    Blattkäfer (Coleoptera: Megalopodidae, Orsodacnidae et Chryso- melidae excl. Bruchinae) Bestandssituation. Stand: März 2013 Wolfgang Bäse Einführung Exkremente zum Schutz vor Feinden auf dem Rücken. Nur wenige Blattkäfer-Arten sind durch ihre wirt- Zu den Blattkäfern gehören nach Löbl & Smetana schaftliche Bedeutung allgemein bekannt. Hierzu gehö- (2010) drei Familien. So werden die ehemaligen Un- ren der Kartoffelkäfer, der Rübenschildkäfer (Cassida terfamilien Zeugophorinae als Megalopodidae und die nebulosa), Vertreter der Kohlerdflöhe (Phyllotreta spp.) Orsodacninae als Orsodacnidae interpretiert. Die ur- und die Spargel-, Getreide- und Lilienhähnchen (Crio- sprüngliche Familie der Samenkäfer (Bruchidae) zählt ceris spp., Oulema spp. und Lilioceris spp.). Viele Arten jetzt als Unterfamilie (Bruchinae) zu den Chrysomelidae. sind jedoch durch die Zerstörung naturnaher Standorte In dieser Arbeit fehlen die Samenkäfer, da die Datenlage gefährdet. So waren die Schilfkäfer ursprünglich an die momentan als nicht ausreichend angesehen wird. dynamischen Auenbereiche der Bäche und Flüsse gebun- Zu den größten Käferfamilien der Welt gehörend, sind den. Durch Grundwasserabsenkungen, Uferzerstörung die Blattkäfer ohne Berücksichtigung der Samenkäfer in und intensive Freizeitnutzung wurden viele ursprüng- Deutschland mit 510 Arten (Geiser 1998) vertreten. liche Lebensräume zerstört. Weniger spezialisierte Arten Der Habitus der Blattkäfer ist nicht einheitlich. Ne- sind vielfach noch ungefährdet, da sie auf sekundäre ben dem typischen gewölbten bis eiförmigen Habitus, Lebensräume wie Teiche oder Gräben ausweichen kön- wie er vom Kartoffelkäfer (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) nen. Die seltener nachgewiesenen Arten sind oft hoch- bekannt ist, gibt es bockkäferähnliche Formen bei den spezialisiert. So ist Donacia obscura nur in Mooren zu Schilfkäfern (Donaciinae), flachgedrückte Vertreter bei finden, während Macroplea mutica im Binnenland an den Schildkäfern (Cassida spp.), die eher zylindrisch ge- Salzseen gebunden ist.
    [Show full text]
  • Dave Brown by Dave Brown, 12-May-10 01:22 AM GMT
    Dave Brown by dave brown, 12-May-10 01:22 AM GMT Saturday 8th May 2010. One look out of the window told me today was not the day for butterflies or dragonflies. A phone call from a friend then had us heading to my favourite place. Good old Dungeness. Scenery not the best in the world but the wildlife exceeedingly good. Thirty minutes later we were watching a Whiskered Tern hawking insects over the New Diggings, showing from the road to Lydd. Also present were a few hundred Swifts, Swallows, House and Sand Martins, together with a few Common Terns. A quick chat with Dave Walker (very friendly Observatory Warden) and his equally friendly assistant confirmed that the recent weather there meant little or no Butterfly or moth activity. With the rain falling harder it was time to leave Dunge and head inland. The Iberian Chifchaf at Waderslade had already been present over a week so it was time to catch up with it. On arrival at the small wood of Chesnut Avenue the bird showed and sang within a few minutes of our arrival. This is still a scarce bird in Britain so where was the crowd. In 30 minutes the maximum crowd was five, and that included 3 from our family. It sang for long periods of time and only once did it mutter the usual Chifchaf call, otherwise it was Iberian Chifchaf all the way. It also look slighlty diferent in structure and colour. To my eyes the upper parts were greener, the legs were a brown colour and the tail appeared longer.
    [Show full text]
  • Scarabaeidae) in Finland (Coleoptera)
    © Entomologica Fennica. 27 .VIII.1991 Abundance and distribution of coprophilous Histerini (Histeridae) and Onthophagus and Aphodius (Scarabaeidae) in Finland (Coleoptera) Olof Bistrom, Hans Silfverberg & Ilpo Rutanen Bistrom, 0., Silfverberg, H. & Rutanen, I. 1991: Abundance and distribution of coprophilous Histerini (Histeridae) and Onthophagus and Aphodius (Scarabaeidae) in Finland (Coleoptera).- Entomol. Fennica 2:53-66. The distribution and occmTence, with the time-factor taken into consideration, were monitored in Finland for the mainly dung-living histerid genera Margarinotus, Hister, and Atholus (all predators), and for the Scarabaeidae genera Onthophagus and Aphodius, in which almost all species are dung-feeders. All available records from Finland of the 54 species studied were gathered and distribution maps based on the UTM grid are provided for each species with brief comments on the occmTence of the species today. Within the Histeridae the following species showed a decline in their occurrence: Margarinotus pwpurascens, M. neglectus, Hister funestus, H. bissexstriatus and Atholus bimaculatus, and within the Scarabaeidae: Onthophagus nuchicornis, 0. gibbulus, O.fracticornis, 0 . similis , Aphodius subterraneus, A. sphacelatus and A. merdarius. The four Onthophagus species and A. sphacelatus disappeared in the 1950s and 1960s and are at present probably extinct in Finland. Changes in the agricultural ecosystems, caused by different kinds of changes in the traditional husbandry, are suggested as a reason for the decline in the occuJTence of certain vulnerable species. Olof Bistrom & Hans Si!fverberg, Finnish Museum of Natural Hist01y, Zoo­ logical Museum, Entomology Division, N. Jarnviigsg. 13 , SF-00100 Helsingfors, Finland llpo Rutanen, Water and Environment Research Institute, P.O. Box 250, SF- 00101 Helsinki, Finland 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a Resource for Taxonomy and Biodiversity Conservation in the Mediterranean Region
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 597:Barcoding 27–38 (2016) Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation... 27 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.597.7241 RESEARCH ARTICLE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region Giulia Magoga1,*, Davide Sassi2, Mauro Daccordi3, Carlo Leonardi4, Mostafa Mirzaei5, Renato Regalin6, Giuseppe Lozzia7, Matteo Montagna7,* 1 Via Ronche di Sopra 21, 31046 Oderzo, Italy 2 Centro di Entomologia Alpina–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 3 Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, lungadige Porta Vittoria 9, 37129 Verona, Italy 4 Museo di Storia Naturale di Milano, Corso Venezia 55, 20121 Milano, Italy 5 Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources–University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran 6 Dipartimento di Scienze per gli Alimenti, la Nutrizione e l’Ambiente–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy 7 Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali–Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy Corresponding authors: Matteo Montagna ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Santiago-Blay | Received 20 November 2015 | Accepted 30 January 2016 | Published 9 June 2016 http://zoobank.org/4D7CCA18-26C4-47B0-9239-42C5F75E5F42 Citation: Magoga G, Sassi D, Daccordi M, Leonardi C, Mirzaei M, Regalin R, Lozzia G, Montagna M (2016) Barcoding Chrysomelidae: a resource for taxonomy and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean Region. In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay J, Schmitt M (Eds) Research on Chrysomelidae 6. ZooKeys 597: 27–38. doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.597.7241 Abstract The Mediterranean Region is one of the world’s biodiversity hot-spots, which is also characterized by high level of endemism.
    [Show full text]
  • CERTAIN INSECT VECTORS of APLANOBACTER STEWARTI ' by F
    CERTAIN INSECT VECTORS OF APLANOBACTER STEWARTI ' By F. W. Poos, senior entomologist, Division of Cereal and Forage Insects, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine; and CHARLOTTE ELLIOTT, associate pa- thologist, Division of Cereal Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry, United States Department of Agriculture ^ INTRODUCTION Bacterial wilt of corn (Zea mays L.) caused by Aplanobacter stewarti (E. F. Sm.) McC. was exceedingly destructive and more widely dis- tributed during 1932 and 1933 than during any previous time in the history of the disease. Since 1897, when it was first described by Stewart, it has been studied by a number of investigators whose work has pointed more and more toward insects as a means of dis- semination of the causal organism. Kand and Cash (7) ^ during 1920-23 found that bacterial wilt could be transmitted from diseased to healthy com plants by two species of flea beetles, Chaetocnema pulicaria Melsh. and C, denticulata (111.), and by the spotted cucum- ber beetle, Diabrotica duodecimpunctata (Fab.). IvanoíF (ö) reported transmission from diseased to healthy plants by the larval stage of the corn rootworm, Diabrotica longicornis (Say), as it attacked the roots of young seedling com plants. He also reported that the bac- teria of A. stewarti entered the corn plants through wounds made by white grubs, the larvae of Phyllophaga sp., feeding upon the roots in infested soil. A summary of this work, together with a brief review of the other literature on this disease, has recently appeared else- where (1), The results of experiments by previous investigators on soil trans- mission of the causal organism indicate that transmission through the soil to uninjured roots of com plants is exceedingly rare, if it ever occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2017 Ashford Borough
    ASHFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL EXAMINATION LIBRARY SD10 Ashford Borough Council INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN 2017 1 CONTENTS Introduction p3 Background and context p5 Prioritisation p7 Overview of Infrastructure p12 Theme 1: Transport p13 Theme 2: Education p24 Theme 3: Energy p28 Theme 4: Water p32 Theme 5: Health and Social Care p38 Theme 6: Community Facilities p43 Theme 7: Sport and Recreation p47 Theme 8: Green Infrastructure / Biodiversity p54 Theme 9: Waste and Recycling p64 Theme 10: Public Realm p66 Theme 11: Art and Cultural Industries p67 Appendix 1: Links to evidence and management plans Appendix 2: Examples of letters to stakeholders and providers Appendix 3 & 4: Responses from our requests for information Appendix 5: Liaison with key stakeholders Appendix 6: The growth scenarios tested 2 Introduction 1.1 This Infrastructure Plan has been produced by Ashford Borough Council (the Council). The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) provides: • background and context to key infrastructure that has been delivered recently or is in the process of being delivered, • an analysis of existing infrastructure provision, • stresses in the current provision, • what is needed to meet the existing and future needs and demands for the borough to support new development and a growing population, as envisaged through the Council’s emerging Local Plan 2030. 1.2 The IDP has been informed through discussion and consultation with relevant service providers operating in the Borough, alongside reviewing existing evidence and publications (such as management plans). 1.3 The IDP is supported by various appendices, as follows: • Appendix 1: Links to evidence and management plans – several stakeholders steered us towards their respective management plans and publications as a way of responding to our consultation and questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Awenda Provincial Park
    AWENDA PROVINCIAL PARK One Malaise trap was deployed at Awenda Provincial Park in 2014 (44.82534, -79.98458, 231m ASL; Figure 1). This trap collected arthropods for twenty weeks from April 29 – September 19, 2014. All 10 Malaise trap samples were processed; every other sample was analyzed using the individual specimen protocol while the second half was analyzed via bulk analysis. A total of 3029 BINs were obtained. Over half the BINs captured were flies (Diptera), followed by bees, ants and wasps (Hymenoptera), moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera), and true bugs (Hemiptera; Figure 2). In total, 595 arthropod species were named, representing 21.3% of the BINs from the Figure 1. Malaise trap deployed at Awenda Provincial site (Appendix 1). All the BINs were assigned at least Park in 2014. to family, and 54% were assigned to a genus (Appendix 2). Specimens collected from Awenda represent 214 different families and 705 genera. Diptera Hymenoptera Lepidoptera Hemiptera Coleoptera Trombidiformes Sarcoptiformes Psocodea Mesostigmata Araneae Entomobryomorpha Mecoptera Symphypleona Trichoptera Neuroptera Thysanoptera Dermaptera Pseudoscorpiones Stylommatophora Odonata Opiliones Orthoptera Figure 2. Taxonomy breakdown of BINs captured in the Malaise trap at Awenda. APPENDIX 1. TAXONOMY REPORT Class Order Family Genus Species Arachnida Araneae Agelenidae Agelenopsis Clubionidae Clubiona Clubiona kastoni Dictynidae Emblyna Emblyna sublata Linyphiidae Ceraticelus Ceraticelus atriceps Ceraticelus fissiceps Ceratinella Ceratinella brunnea Ceratinops
    [Show full text]
  • COUNTRYSIDE Page 1 of 16
    Page 1 of 16 COUNTRYSIDE Introduction 12.1 Shepway has a rich and diverse landscape ranging from the rolling chalk downland and dry valleys of the North Downs, through the scarp and dip slope of the Old Romney Shoreline, to Romney Marsh and the unique shingle feature of the Dungeness peninsula. This diversity is reflected in the range of Natural Areas and Countryside Character Areas, identified by English Nature and the Countryside Agency respectively, which cover the District. The particular landscape and wildlife value of large parts of the District is also recognised through protective countryside designations, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Heritage Coastline, as well as the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The countryside also plays host to a wide range of activities and it is recognised that the health of the rural economy and the health of the countryside are inter-linked. A function of the Local Plan is to achieve a sustainable pattern of development in the countryside. This involves a balance between the needs of rural land users and maintaining and enhancing countryside character and quality. 12.2 This balance is achieved in two main ways:- a. By focussing most development in urban areas, particularly on previously developed sites and ensuring that sufficient land is allocated to meet identified development requirements, thus reducing uncertainty and speculation on ‘greenfield’ sites in the countryside. b. By making firm policy statements relating to: the general principles to be applied to all proposals in the countryside; specific types of development in the countryside; and the protection of particularly important areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report
    EB 08.20 Shepway Local Development Framework Green Infrastructure Report Elham Park Wood Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 1 Contents 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 2. Components of GI 3. Functions and benefits of GI 4. GI policy context 5. The GI resource in Shepway 6. Biodiversity GI in Shepway 7. Linear Feature GI 8. Civic Amenity GI 9. Key issues and opportunities in relation to strategic development sites Shepway Green Infrastructure Report July 2011 2 1. Green Infrastructure - definitions 1.1 A number of definitions of Green Infrastructure (GI) are in use including:- PPS12 – “…a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities.” 1.2 South East Plan/South East GI Partnership – “For the purposes of spatial planning the term green infrastructure (GI) relates to the active planning and management of sub-regional networks of multi-functional open space. These networks should be managed and designed to support biodiversity and wider quality of life, particularly in areas undergoing large scale change.“ 1.3 Natural England – “Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.” 1.4 The common features of these definitions are that GI:- • involves natural and managed green areas in urban and rural settings • is about the strategic connection of open green areas • should provide multiple benefits for people 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Aylesford to Maidstone Walk
    Saturday Walkers Club www.walkingclub.org.uk Aylesford to Maidstone walk Ancient sites and a fine viewpoint on Kent's North Downs Length Main Walk: 19 km (11.8 miles). Four hours 45 minutes walking time. For the whole excursion including trains, sights and meals, allow at least 9½ hours. Circular Walk, returning to Aylesford: 17½ km (10.9 miles). Four hours 20 minutes walking time. OS Map Explorer 148. Aylesford, map reference TQ720587, is in Kent, 5 km NW of Maidstone. Toughness 5 out of 10. Features Although only a small village on the banks of the River Medway, Aylesford has a long history. In this area there are neolithic burial sites, memorials to battles from the Roman and Anglo-Saxon eras, a medieval bridge and many ancient buildings. There are also reminders of brick, tile and cement manufacturing, paper mills and quarrying, but many of these old industrial sites are being redeveloped for housing and the only significant blot on the landscape is a large paper recycling plant across the river in Snodland. Aylesford station is 1 km from the village centre and the walk starts with a fine view across the river to The Friars, a Carmelite priory which was dissolved by HenryⅧ and used as a private residence until the main house burnt down in the 20thC. The site was then bought back by the Carmelites and restored to its former use; it is open to the public daily (free entry) except on Christmas week. The route crosses the river on a new road bridge for a picture-postcard view of the village's medieval bridge and other historic buildings.
    [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]