DOCSLIB.ORG

The South Downs National Park Inspector's Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The South Downs National Park Inspector's Report Report to the Secretary of State The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House for Environment, Food and 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Rural Affairs GTN 1371 8000 by Robert Neil Parry BA DIPTP MRTPI An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Date: Food and Rural Affairs 28 November 2008 THE SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARK INSPECTOR’S REPORT (2) Volume 1 Inquiry (2) held between 12 February 2008 and 4 July 2008 Inquiry held at The Chatsworth Hotel, Steyne, Worthing, BN11 3DU Temple Quay House 28 November 2008 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS2 9DJ To the Right Honourable Hilary Benn MP Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sir South Downs National Park (Designation) Order 2002 East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Revocation) Order 2002 Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Revocation) Order 2002 South Downs National Park (Variation) Order 2004 The attached report relates to the re-opened inquiry into the above orders that I conducted at the Chatsworth Hotel, Worthing. The re-opened inquiry sat on 27 days between 12 February 2008 and 28 May 2008 and eventually closed on 4 July 2008. In addition to the inquiry sessions I spent about 10 days undertaking site visits. These were normally unaccompanied but when requested they were undertaken in the company of inquiry participants and other interested parties. I held a Pre- Inquiry meeting to discuss the administrative and procedural arrangements for the inquiry at Hove Town Hall on 12 December 2007. The attached report takes account of all of the evidence and submissions put forward at the re-opened inquiry together with all of the representations put forward in writing during the public consultation period. This ran for 12 weeks from 2 July 2007 to 24 September 2007. Over 2000 representations were submitted from local authorities, organisations and private individuals. With the agreement of Natural England I have also taken account of the small number of representations submitted after the consultation period had closed. The list of all of those who submitted representations and/or appeared at the re-opened inquiry is attached to the report. Also attached are lists of core documents and other inquiry documents. A separate volume contains maps showing the boundaries that I now recommend for any new National Park. The terms of reference for the re-opened inquiry were as follows: 1. To consider any implications for the South Downs National Park Designation Order 2002 (as varied by the South Downs Variation Order 2004) arising directly as a result of the revised National Parks legislation – namely the amendments to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 made by the National Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; 2. To consider any implications for the same Designation Order (as varied by the Variation Order) arising directly as a result of the High Court and Court of Appeal judgements in the challenge by Meyrick Estate Management Ltd relating to the New Forest National Park; 3. To consider the possible alternative boundary line running north and east of Petersfield produced by Natural England at Defra’s request, based on a recommendation in the South Downs Inquiry Report, Volume 1, Part 2 (para. 2.71); and 4. To consider any objections to the additional areas of land recommended in the South Downs Inquiry Report for inclusion within the proposed South Downs National Park. 5. I was also asked to indicate if any other points raised during the further public consultation cause me to change any of the recommendations set out in my previous report (#CD3). That report was in 2 parts. Part 1 considered whether there were any overriding “in-principle” objections to a new National Park. Part 2 looked at the land that might be included and the way the boundary should be drawn. The attached report begins with a preamble, to set the scene so to speak, and then considers items 1 to 4 above as discrete topics. The report then looks at the implications for land having AONB status in the event that the designation order is confirmed (or not) together with “new” evidence brought to my attention. This material was not to-hand when #CD3 was written and many claim that the evidence is material to the decisions to be taken on the respective orders. As mentioned in the preamble, I agreed at the outset of the re-opened inquiry that “new” evidence should be heard to ensure that the decisions on the respective orders were based on the most up-to-date evidence. The preamble also indicates the circumstances in which I said I was prepared to hear arguments concerning the inclusion or otherwise of the so-called Western Weald in the PSDNP. The report then sets out my overall conclusions. This aims to bring the threads together. It sets out my assessment of the Western Weald, the A3 Corridor and the Lower Rother Valley and also addresses the “especially desirable” test. My recommendations in respect of the individual orders follow. The report concludes with a review of the detailed boundary recommendations which it is said are defective in the light of the Meyrick judgements, the NERC Act and so on. My earlier report, #CD3, accepted that the proposed South Downs National Park (PSDNP) contained extensive tracts of land that merited National Park status and deserved the additional resources, focus and integrated management that a National Park Authority (NPA) can provide. None of the written or oral evidence put before the re- opened inquiry claims that the Meyrick judgements, the NERC Act or any other matter undermine that conclusion. The attached report is written, therefore, on the premise that there are no overriding “in- principle” objections to the creation of a new South Downs National Park in the South-East of England. On the other hand the re-opened inquiry convinces me that some of the key conclusions and recommendations in Part 2 of #CD3 need to be reviewed. On occasions the new law or “new” evidence dramatically alters the balance of the arguments but often it simply tips the balance one way or the other. In the following few paragraphs I indicate briefly key changes to the conclusions and recommendations set out in #CD3. It seems to me that this is necessary to ensure a proper understanding of the differences between my earlier report, #CD3, and the attached report. While accepting that a new National Park was appropriate in principle, I separately recommended in paragraph 2.68 of Part 2 of #CD3 that any new National Park should be more closely focussed on the core Chalk hills, more precisely the ridge of Chalk that extends for about 110km from Winchester to Eastbourne. That recommendation took account of the advice offered by the Landscape Assessor appointed to the earlier sessions of the South Downs Inquiry. It also, as I saw it, reflected the approach adopted by the Landscape Assessor appointed to the New Forest National Park, an approach accepted in that instance by the Inspector and Secretary of State in turn. If the new National Park is more closely focussed on the core Chalk hills a significant amount of land subject to the 2002 designation order would not be part of any new National Park. In particular an extensive tract of Wealden landscape generally situated to the east of the A3 corridor and north of the Lower Rother Valley would be excluded. Much of this area, commonly identified as the Western Weald, enjoys, and continues to deserve, AONB status. In the light of the Meyrick judgements and the NERC Act I am no longer persuaded that the new National Park should be more closely focussed on the core Chalk hills. Both matters were appraised in detail at the re-opened inquiry. I now accept that in the wake of the judgements and the NERC Act that the inclusion or otherwise of land in a National Park should not depend on the presence of characteristic natural beauty. Put another way there is no need for a National Park to display a distinctive and coherent identity. The Western Weald should not be excluded simply because its characteristic natural beauty is decidedly different to that of the core Chalk hills. In the face of the new law introduced by the NERC Act I also attach far less weight to the presence of traditional or hallmark National Park qualities such as ruggedness, tranquillity, wildness and remoteness in the assessment of the statutory criteria. They are not irrelevant for assessment purposes but land should not be excluded because it lacks one or more hallmark qualities. It also follows, it seems to me, that the presence of hallmark qualities is not a pre-requisite for satisfaction of the recreational opportunities test. Many claim that the Western Weald exhibits hallmark qualities in any event and a mass of material was put before the re-opened inquiry in support of the contention. Conversely, the NERC Act clarifies that cultural heritage and wildlife qualities are relevant to an assessment of the statutory natural beauty criterion. These matters were not ignored when #CD3 was written but I am conscious that they may not have been given appropriate weight. The NERC Act also provides some additional discretion when applying the recreational opportunities discretion. It allows for the potential to provide enhanced recreational opportunities to be taken into account. #CD3 also emphasised the importance of consistency in the interpretation and application of policy decisions. In particular I said that it was important for the PSDNP to be consistent with the approach adopted in the New Forest National Park, unless there were convincing grounds for not doing so.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Landscape Character Types
    Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their gratitude to the various people and organisations that have assisted with the preparation of this landscape character assessment. Particular thanks are due to the members of the Steering Group at Findon Council, Peter Kirk, and Richard Bell. We are grateful for permission to include material from the South Downs National Park Geographic information System (GIS), and our thanks are due to colleagues at South Coast GIS (Paul Day and Matt Powell) who have assisted with this element of the project. Findon Parish Council would also like to gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance from the South Downs National Park Authority, provided to support the preparation of the neighbourhood plan. This study included two workshop sessions, and we are very grateful to the representatives of the Parish Council and neighbourhood planning group who gave up their time to attend the workshops and make helpful comments on the drafts of the study. We have endeavoured to faithfully include relevant suggestions and information, but apologise if we have failed to include all suggestions. The copyright of the illustrations reproduced from other sources is gratefully acknowledged; these are either the British Library (figure 8 ) or Bury Art Museum (figure 10). Whilst we acknowledge the assistance of other people and organisations, this report represents the views of David Hares Landscape Architecture alone. David Hares Lynnette Leeson April 2014 "Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors." (European Landscape Convention, 2000) 1 CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Hinton Ampner Archaeological Survey Report, 2007
    WA Heritage THE NATIONAL TRUST ESTATE AT HINTON AMPNER, HAMPSHIRE Archaeological and Historical Survey Volume 1: Historical Text & Appendices Prepared for The National Trust Thames & Solent Region Stowe Gardens Buckingham MK18 5EH by WA Heritage Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park SALISBURY Wiltshire SP4 6EB Report reference: 67660.01 January 2008 © Wessex Archaeology Limited 2008 all rights reserved Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 National Trust Estate WA Heritage Hinton Ampner, Hampshire THE NATIONAL TRUST ESTATE HINTON AMPNER HAMPSHIRE Archaeological and Historical Survey CONTENTS Summary …………..………………………………………………………………...…………iii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….….v 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 1.1 Project Background.................................................................................................1 1.2 Survey and Report Standards.................................................................................1 2 STRATEGY..............................................................................................2 2.1 Survey methodology ...............................................................................................2 2.2 Time expenditure ....................................................................................................2 2.3 Limitations to background research ........................................................................3 2.4 Limitations of the field
    [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]
  • State of the South Downs National Park 2012 Cover and Chapter Photos, Captions and Copyright (Photos Left to Right)
    South Downs National Park Authority State of the South Downs National Park 2012 Cover and chapter photos, captions and copyright (photos left to right) Cover Old Winchester Hill © Anne Purkiss; Steyning Bowl © Simon Parsons; Seven Sisters © South of England Picture Library Chapter 1 Adonis Blue © Neil Hulme; Devil’s Dyke © R. Reed/SDNPA; Walkers on the South Downs Way above Amberley © John Wigley Chapter 2 Black Down ©Anne Purkiss; Seven Sisters © Ivan Catterwell/PPL; © The South Downs National Park Authority, 2012 Amberley Wild Brooks © John Dominick/PPL The South Downs National Park uniquely combines biodiverse landscapes with bustling towns and villages, covers Chapter 3 The river Cuckmere © Chris Mole; Butser Hill © James Douglas; Sunken lanes © SDNPA 2 2 an area of over 1,600km (618 miles ), is home to more than 110,000 people and is Britain’s newest national park. Chapter 4 River Itchin © Nigel Ridgen; Beacon Hill © Nick Heasman/SDNPA; The South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) is the organisation responsible for promoting the purposes Emperor moth on heathland © NE/Peter Greenhalf of the National Park and the interests of the people who live and work within it. Our purposes are: Chapter 5 Plumpton College Vineyard © Anne Purkiss; Meon Valley © Anne Purkiss; 1. To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. Chanctonbury Ring © Brian Toward 2. To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Chapter 6 Cuckmere Haven © www.cvcc.org.uk; Devil’s Dyke © David Russell; Park by the public. Butser Ancient Farm © Anne Purkiss Our duty is to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of the local communities within the National Park Chapter 7 The Chattri © SDNPA; Zig Zag path © SDNPA; Cissbury Ring © WSCC/PPL in pursuit of our purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • View Characterisation and Analysis
    South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis Final Report Prepared by LUC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority November 2015 Project Title: 6298 SDNP View Characterisation and Analysis Client: South Downs National Park Authority Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by Director V1 12/8/15 Draft report R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern Swann V2 9/9/15 Final report R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern Swann V3 4/11/15 Minor changes to final R Knight, R R Knight K Ahern report Swann South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis Final Report Prepared by LUC on behalf of the South Downs National Park Authority November 2015 Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street London Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Bristol Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Glasgow 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 Edinburgh London NW1 1JD Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper LUC BRISTOL 12th Floor Colston Tower Colston Street Bristol BS1 4XE T +44 (0)117 929 1997 [email protected] LUC GLASGOW 37 Otago Street Glasgow G12 8JJ T +44 (0)141 334 9595 [email protected] LUC EDINBURGH 28 Stafford Street Edinburgh EH3 7BD T +44 (0)131 202 1616 [email protected] Contents 1 Introduction 1 Background to the study 1 Aims and purpose 1 Outputs and uses 1 2 View patterns, representative views and visual sensitivity 4 Introduction 4 View
    [Show full text]
  • East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove, Local Aggregate
    East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Local Aggregate Assessment December 2016 East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove, Local Aggregate Assessment, December 2016 Contents Executive Summary 2 1 Introduction 7 2 Geology and mineral uses 9 3 Demand 11 4 Supply 17 5 Environmental constraints 29 6 Balance 31 7 Conclusions 35 A Past and Future Development 37 B Imports into plan area 41 Map 1: Geological Plan including locations of aggregate wharves and railheads, and existing mineral sites 42 Map 2: Origin of aggregate imported, produced and consumed in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove during 2014 44 Map 3: Sand and gravel resources in the East English Channel and Thames Estuary (Source: Crown Estate) 46 Map 4: Recycled and secondary aggregates sites 48 2 East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove, Local Aggregate Assessment, December 2016 Executive Summary Executive Summary Executive Summary The first East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Local Aggregate Assessment (LAA) was published in December 2013. The LAA has been updated annually and is based on the Plan Area for the East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste & Minerals Plan which was adopted in February 2013. This document represents the fourth LAA for the mineral planning authorities of East Sussex County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council and the South Downs National Park Authority and examines updates to the position on aggregates supply and demand since the time of last reporting in 2015. The first three LAAs concluded that a significant proportion of local consumption was derived from either marine dredged material, crushed rock or land won aggregates extracted from outside the Plan Area.
    [Show full text]
  • Jan to Jun 2011
    Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Isle of Wight Branch Page 1 of 18 Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Saving butterflies, moths and our environment Isle of Wight Branch HOME ABOUT US EVENTS CONSERVATION HANTS & IOW SPECIES SIGHTINGS PUBLICATIONS LINKS MEMBER'S AREA Thursday 30th June Christine Reeves reports from Ash Lock Cottage (SU880517) where the following observations were made: Purple Emperor (1 "Rather battered specimen"). "Following the excitement of seeing our first Purple Emperor inside our office yesterday, exactly the same thing happened again today at around 9.45am. The office door was open and we spotted a butterfly on the inside of the window, on closer inspection we realised it was a Purple Emperor. It was much smaller than the one we had seen the day before and more battered. However we were able to take pictures of it, in fact the butterfly actually climbed onto one of the cameras and remained there for a while. It then climbed from camera to hand, and we took it outside for more pictures before it eventually flew off. It seemed to be feeding off the hand.". Purple Empeor Purple Empeor Terry Hotten writes: "A brief walk around Hazeley Heath this morning produced a fresh Small Tortoiseshell along with Marbled Whites, Silver- studded Blues in reasonable numbers along with Meadow Browns, Ringlets and Large and Small Skippers." peter gardner reports from highcross froxfield (SU712266) where the following observations were made: Red Admiral (1 "purched on an hot window "). Red Admiral (RWh) Bob Whitmarsh reports from Plague Pits Valley, St Catherine's Hill (SU485273) where the following observations were made: Marbled White (23), Meadow Brown (41), Small Heath (7), Small Skipper (2), Ringlet (2), Red Admiral (3), Small Tortoiseshell (4), Small White (2), Comma (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty EAST HAMPSHIRE
    Appendix 2 – Letter from the East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Beauty East Hampshire AONB Office Queen Elizabeth Country Park Gravel Hill Area of Waterlooville Hampshire P08 OQE Outstanding Natural Beauty Telephone: (023) 9259 1362 EAST HAMPSHIRE Fax: (023) 9259 2409 Mobile: 07710 590863 E-mail: [email protected] FAO Guy Riddoch East Hampshire District Council Penns Place Petersfield Hampshire GU34 11 February 2004 Dear Sir Petersfield Project for Integrated Renewable Energy Deployment – Wind Turbine on Butser Hill As a follow up to the report by Econergy on the results of the Petersfield Study, it has come to our attention in the EHAONB office that your Council’s Development Panel will be considering a report that includes a proposal to erect a single wind turbine on top of the South Downs, possibly on Butser Hill. As I have yet to see the agenda I cannot confirm this myself, but in the meantime I have been asked by members of the Planning Panel to write and inform of their concerns on such a proposal. The East Hampshire Joint Advisory Committee is fully supportive of the Government's policy to promote the growth of renewable energy production, and welcomes the general thrust of the draft policy document PPS 22. However, as pointed out to the ODPM's office, whilst renewable energy schemes can bring undoubted benefits, they can also have undesirable impacts that need to be balanced against these general benefits. The Planning Panel have asked me to clarify that a single wind turbine comparable to size of the ones erected at Swaffham in Norfolk would be extremely prominent and intrusive if located on Butser Hill.
    [Show full text]
  • Jul to Dec 2013
    Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Isle of Wight Branch Page 1 of 33 Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Saving butterflies, moths and our environment Isle of Wight Branch HOME ABOUT » EVENTS » CONSERVATION » SPECIES » SIGHTINGS » PUBLICATIONS » LINKS » ISLE OF WIGHT » MEMBERS » Wednesday 31st July Judith Frank reports from Byway stretch between Stockbridge and Broughton (SU337354) where the following observations were made: Holly Blue (2 "didn't settle long enough for me to be sure but seemed most likely to be hollies."), Peacock (1), Meadow Brown (2), Large White (9), Ringlet (9), Brimstone (1), Comma (2), Green-veined White (4), Gatekeeper (5). "On a day of only fleeting sunshine, I was interested to see what there might be on a section of byway through farmland not particularly managed for butterflies. A large patch of brambles yielded the most colour with the commas, gatekeepers and blues.". Speckled Wood Comma NT Owen reports from Roe Inclosure, Linwood (SU200086) where the following observations were made: Large White (2), Large Skipper (1), Gatekeeper (3), Small Skipper (1), Silver-washed Fritillary (4 "Including one Valezina form female"). Silver-washed Fritillary f. valezina Steve Benstead reports from Brading Down (SZ596867) where the following observations were made: Chalkhill Blue (5), Painted Lady (1), Clouded Yellow (1). "Overcast but warm". Gary palmer reports from barton common (SZ249931) where the following observations were made: Large White (2), Small White (3), Marbled White (3), Meadow Brown (20), Gatekeeper (35), Small Copper (1), Common Blue (1), vapourer moth (1 Larval "using poplar sapling"), peppered moth (1 Larval "using alder buckthorn"), buff tip moth (49 Larval "using mature sallow").
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Importance of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
    Debate on 3rd April: Environmental Importance of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty This Library Note outlines the origins and development of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It provides a brief summary of the current role and funding of these areas with more detailed coverage of recent evaluations of their environmental importance. Elizabeth Shepherd Date 31st March 2008 LLN 2008/010 House of Lords Library Notes are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of the Notes with the Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. Any comments on Library Notes should be sent to the Head of Research Services, House of Lords Library, London SW1A 0PW or emailed to [email protected]. 1. Introduction The aim of this paper is to provide a summary of the key milestones in the development of policy on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and to present the recent evidence available on their significance in environmental terms. It does not cover perceived threats to AONBs, such as wind farm and road developments. AONBs include “some of our finest countryside … [t]hey are living and working landscapes protected by law. They are inhabited by thousands of people and are loved and visited by many thousands more” (Countryside Agency Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plans: A Guide, 2001, p. 9). Their primary statutory purpose is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape: The statutory definition of ‘Natural Beauty’ includes flora, fauna and geological and physiographic features.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation, Access and Recreation Annual Report 1997/98 Conservation, Access and Recreation Annual Report 1997/98 Contents
    flC-Cr^ci-bi on 2? N cwtg^fc ion. B o x 3 E n v ir o n m e i Ag e n c y 0 ) * s < \ Conservation, Access and Recreation Annual Report 1997/98 Conservation, Access and Recreation Annual Report 1997/98 Contents Introduction Summaries Conservaition Recreatio>n Navigat on Fisheries Examples of projects Anglian Region Midlands Region North East Region North West Region Southern Region South West Region Thames Region Environment Agency Wa Report data Site information Publications Management and contacts 1.0 o © Conservation, Access and Recreation Annual Report 1997/98 Introduction In its second year, the Environment Agency has been successful in integrating the work of its predecessor organisations and has taken an increasingly holistic approach to environmental protection and enhancement. In the fields of conservation and recreation, this has meant greater opportunities for partnerships and much closer liaison with, and ownership by, local communities in environmental projects. As a result, we have published many Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs), w hich have provided valuable information and acted as a catalyst for action throughout England and Wales. During the year, we have also responded to EU legislation and the UK's comm itm ent to habitat and species protection and biodiversity. Though it is not possible to describe in detail within dus report, all the Conservation and Recreation projects the Agency completed in 1997/98, we have selected a few from each of the Agency’s eight regions that typify the range o f work undertaken. The Agency would like to thank all its project partners for their support, commitment and involvement, and we look forward to working with many of them in the future to create a better environment for us all.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.2 Conservation Value of Scrub
    ••••••. a a a a a= 11111. a a aaaalaaaa JNCC Report No 308 The nature conservation value of scrub in Britain SR Mortimer.. AJ Turner' VK Brown', RJ Fuller'. JEG Goods SA Bell'. PA Stevens'. D Norris', N Bayfieldn, & LK Ward' August 2000 This report should be cited as: Mortimer. SR. Turner. Al. Brown, VIC,Fuller, RJ, Good. JEG, Bell, SA. Stevens. PA. Norris. D. Bayfield. N & Ward, LK 2000. TI The nature conservation value of scrub in Britain. JNCC Report No. 308. JNCC. Peterborough 2000 For further information please contact: Habitats Advice Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House. City Road. Peterborough PEI HY. UK ISSN 0963-8091 CYNCOI cm' CWLAD SCOTTISH CYMRU N=77-",\! NATURAL COUNMSIDI HERITAGE COUNCII Mt WU It ENGLISH NATURE 0-4^70, This report was produced as a result of a commission research contract for English Nature with contributions from Scottish Nature Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales CABI Bioseienee, Sik%ilod Park. A.eoi. Berks. SI.5 7TA 1- British Trust I-or Ornitholouy. The Nunnery. Thcilord. :Sorkin:. IP24 2PU Centre lor EcoioL:y and Hydoilou . Demo! 12ikid. Bangor. Gviy nedd. LL.57 2U1' II Centre tor licidoey and Ilydroloy. I lill uI Brathens. Glasse!. Banchory. Kincardineshire AB3 I 413Y + 53 Nide, Avenue. Sandtord. Wareham. Dorset. 131120 7AS 1 JOINT NATURE CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: REPORT DISTRIBUTION Report number 308 Report title: The nature conservation value of scrub Contract number: FIN/CON/VT998 Nominated Officer Jeanette Hall. Woodland Network Liaison Officer Date received: April 20110 Contract title: A review of the nature conservation value of scrub in the UK Contractors: CABI Bioscience.
    [Show full text]