cover.qxp 1/11/06 12:52 pm Page 1
The Greensand Trust The Forest Office, Maulden Wood Haynes West End, Bedfordshire MK45 3QT Tel: 01234 743666 Fax: 01234 743699 email: [email protected] The Natural Environment www.greensandtrust.org
Indicators of sustainable development in Bedfordshire - July 2006
A report prepared by Sue Raven of the Greensand Trust for Bedfordshire County Council
Registered in England 3702419 Registered Charity 1077055 Contents
Introduction
Summary
A. River and canal water quality
Indicator 1 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of good quality Indicator 2 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of high nutrient status Indicator 3 Distribution of otters
B. Condition of important wildlife and geological sites
Indicator 4 Area of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and % in favourable condition Indicator 5 Area of County Wildlife Sites, % monitored and % in favourable condition
C. Condition of the wider countryside
Indicator 6 Area of land under Stewardship agreements Indicator 7 Area of organic holdings Indicator 8 Area of woodland within Woodland Grant Scheme Indicator 9 Populations of wild birds
D. Access to the countryside
Indicator 10 Area of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation per 1000 people
Acknowledgements
Appendices
Appendix 1.1 Environment Agency General Quality Assurance Scheme Appendix 1.2 Environment Agency guidelines for the use of EA data Appendix 2.1 Condition data for Bedfordshire SSSIs Appendix 2.2 Condition data for Bedfordshire CWSs Appendix 3 Sites managed for nature conservation with public access in Bedfordshire
Introduction
In 2001 the Greensand Trust was commissioned to investigate and develop a set of indicators which would give a broad picture of the health of the natural environment of Bedfordshire. Baseline data for an initial set of indicators was produced in 2003. These indicators were updated and added to in 2005, and the current report forms the latest update to this work. With this third update, trends are now beginning to become apparent.
The indicators are considered in four main sections; the water quality of rivers and canals, the condition of the county’s most important wildlife and geological sites, the condition of the wider countryside and the accessibility of land of wildlife value to the county’s residents.
Since the last report, the UK Government has brought out ‘Securing the future – the UK government sustainable development strategy’. This revises its 1999 strategy and the set of indicators which accompanied it. There is now a set of 68 national indicators, 20 of which are Framework Indicators designed to give an overall indication of the health of the environment and reported on regionally as well as nationally. The Bedfordshire indicators include two of these Framework Indicators, water quality and wild bird populations. The remainder are local to the county although several are reported on nationally and regionally by other organisations.
Summary
River and canal water quality The biological and chemical water quality of rivers and canals in Bedfordshire rose considerably during the period 1990 – 2000 due to improvements in the treatment of sewage discharges. It has since remained relatively stable and in 2004 the percentages of length of good quality stood at 70% and 57% respectively – broadly similar to that seen over England as a whole. Quality can be poorer in some of the county’s smaller rivers as they have less capacity to dilute pollution.
Of concern however, due to the problems of eutrophication, is the fact that the high levels of nutrients in the county’s running waters have not decreased over the same period. In 2004, 80% of the length of rivers and canals had high nitrate levels and 94% had high phosphate levels - percentages higher than those found regionally or nationally.
Monitoring during 2004/05 showed that the county’s otters are maintaining the increase in their distribution seen over the previous ten year period – indicative of the fact that the county’s waterways now provide suitable habitat for this species once again.
Condition of important wildlife and geological sites The area of the county designated as Site of Special Scientific Interest remains the same at 1411ha (40 sites), and the gradual increase in the proportion of SSSI area in favourable condition seen over recent years has continued so that in 2005 it had reached 86%, compared to 78% in 2001. This is a higher proportion than that seen regionally or nationally. If this rate of improvement can be continued it is possible that Bedfordshire may reach the Government’s PSA target of 95% of SSSIs in favourable condition by 2010. Improvements recorded over the last year were most marked for chalk grassland habitats however there is cause for concern for bog, heathland, acid grassland, fen/marsh/swamp and neutral grassland – of which a low proportion are currently in favourable condition.
The area of land designated as County Wildlife Site remained stable at 7161ha (excluding SSSI land), with the loss of one site, new designation of another, and slight boundary modifications over the past year. The programme of monitoring the condition of these sites continued - by 2005, 32% of sites (24% by area) had been monitored since 2002. Of the CWS area now monitored, 58% was found to be in favourable condition. Concerns over the condition of the county’s heathland, neutral grassland and acid grassland are again highlighted by this work.
Condition of the wider countryside The introduction of new agri-environment and woodland grant schemes over the past year has meant that data has not been available to report on the area of land under these schemes in the county. It is hoped to report on them again next year.
The number and area of organic holdings in the county has dropped considerably over the past year – the current 579ha of land (within 8 holdings) that is being farmed organically is 25% lower than that in 2001 and represents only 0.65% by area of the county’s agricultural land – a lower percentage than that found regionally and nationally.
During the period 1970 – 2004 bird populations in the East of England region, representative of the changes seen in Bedfordshire, were found to have dropped considerably; 21% for all species, 44% for farmland birds and 20% for woodland birds. The worst of these declines occurred in the period up to the early/mid 1990s; from 1994 to 2004 populations did not change significantly, suggesting that hopefully the worst of the decline has halted. No significant recovery is yet apparent however. The Government has a PSA target to reverse the declines in farmland and woodland birds by 2020.
Access to the countryside By April 2006 the area of land in Bedfordshire managed for nature conservation and accessible to the public for them to visit and enjoy, stood at 7.05ha per 1000 people – or 2.3% of the area of the county. This area has risen by approximately 17% since 2002 – due predominantly to more land coming into conservation management and the take up of grant packages encouraging permissive public access on to private land.
Indicator Who else uses? Bedfordshire Regional/national comparisons trends Percentage of rivers and canals of good water quality UK Government Great improvements 1990 – Biological quality similar to In 2004, 70% of rivers and canals had good biological water quality, 57% had good Framework 2000, relatively stable since national figures but lower than chemical water quality Indicator regional. Chemical quality higher than regional figures but lower than national Percentage of rivers and canals of high nutrient status - No real improvement over Higher levels of nutrients than In 2004, 80% of rivers and canals had high nitrate levels, 94% had high phosphate last 15 years those seen regionally and levels nationally
Distribution of otters - Recovery appears to be Similar recovery being seen No new full survey since last report but developing monitoring scheme May 04-Oct continuing regionally and nationally 05 starting to produce data on frequency of usage
Area of SSSIs and % in favourable condition - No change in area; area in A higher % in favourable condition In 2005, 1411ha of land was designated as SSSI, 86% of this was in favourable favourable condition than regionally or nationally but a condition increased by 8% since 2001 smaller % of the county’s area is designated as SSSI Area of CWSs, % monitored and % in favourable condition - No net change in number of No equivalent data In 2005, 7161ha of land was designated as CWS; 24% of this, by area, had been sites or area; one quarter of monitored, 58% of which was in favourable condition. Work is now underway to CWS area monitored since develop a suite of sites of equivalent geological interest, RIGS. start of monitoring programme in 2002. Area of land under Stewardship agreements UK Government Land under CSS increased In 2003, % of county area under Data unavailable at present due to launch of new scheme Core Indicator steadily 1991 – 2004 Stewardship was similar to that regionally but lower than national figures Area of organic holdings Area of holdings dropped by % of county area farmed In 2005, 579ha of land farmed organically (8 holdings); 0.65% of the county’s area - 25% since 2001 organically is lower than both regional and national figures Area of woodland under Woodland Grant Scheme - No clear trends as Unknown Data unavailable at present due to launch of new scheme information not available
Populations of wild birds UK Government Regionally - decline in Nationally - farmland and Survey data too sparse to calculate county indicator for 2004; regional figures are Framework woodland and farmland woodland birds relatively stable felt to be represent of the situation in Bedfordshire Indicator (slightly birds is levelling off but no now but populations approx 40% different measure) significant recovery yet. and 25% lower than in 1970 Area of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation per 1000 - Area increasing steadily – Unknown people estimated 17% rise 2002-06. In 2006, 7.05ha available per 1000 people; 2.32% of the county’s area. 0.76ha of No change in LNRs LNR available per 1000 people
A. River and canal water quality
Background The Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment [GQA] scheme monitors the chemical and biological quality and nutrient status of running waters across England and Wales. In Bedfordshire all the major rivers, canals and tributaries (a length of 233km) are covered by the GQA scheme and so it provides a good indication of the quality of running water throughout the county.
Chemical quality is assessed on levels of dissolved oxygen, ammonia and biological oxygen demand – good indicators of the extent to which rivers are affected by the commonest types of pollution; sewage and the runoff and drainage from farms. Biological quality is assessed on the range of macro- invertebrates present in a stretch of water, compared with the number expected for the physical condition of that stretch. It gives a more integrated picture of the situation and can detect infrequently occurring pollution incidents that may be missed by the spot sampling techniques used in the chemical assessment. For both chemical and biological quality, stretches of rivers and canals are classified into six grades; Grade A (very good), Grade B (good), Grade C (fairly good), Grade D (fair), Grade E (poor) and Grade F (bad).
Nutrient status is assessed by monitoring levels of nitrates and phosphates as these are the nutrients most likely to be directly influenced by human activities. Grades range from 1 (very low) to 6 (nitrates – very high, phosphates – excessively high). Unlike the chemical and biological grades these are descriptive and cannot simply be interpreted as good or bad. They reflect not only variation in agriculture and sewage, but local geology. A high level of phosphate (average concentration greater than 0.1mg/l) is that considered indicative of possible existing or future problems of eutrophication. A high level of nitrate (average concentration greater than 30 mg/l) roughly corresponds with the limits used in the EU’s Drinking Water and Nitrate Directives.
Further details of the GQA scheme, taken from the Environment Agency Public Water Quality Register, are given in Appendix 1.1.
The Water Framework Directive The introduction of the EU’s Water Framework Directive [WFD] is leading to objectives for water quality being broadened to focus more on ecological quality. The Directive aims to improve water quality, stop the deterioration of wetlands and improve aquatic habitats for wildlife, while reducing dangers such as flooding. It therefore means that a much wider set of factors will need to be taken into account in determining water quality than previously was the case, for example, abstraction, alien species, river straightening and flood defences.
New or changed national monitoring schemes will be needed to assess water quality for the WFD and these are currently being developed. It is aimed to have them in place by the end of 2006. The indicators of water quality will be reviewed in the light of the new monitoring plans. It is currently envisaged that there will be at least two further updates of the indicator using the present monitoring systems, however, the indicator of biological quality will be reported on first to reflect the change in emphasis brought about by the WFD (ONS statistical release, 15 August 2005).
Source of data Data for 2004 have been taken from the River Water Quality database for regional and local authority areas in England and Wales on Defra’s e-Digest of Environment Statistics. Data for past years are also available from this database and have been used in this report. In previous years the figures for Bedfordshire and districts had to be calculated from raw data provided by the Environment Agency. Any differences arising from this change are likely to be slight and not significant. Maps showing water quality in Bedfordshire were obtained from the Environment Agency. The Agency’s guidelines for the use of its data are given in Appendix 1.2. Indicator 1: Percentage of length of rivers and canals of good quality
Indicator results
County level In 2004, 70% of Bedfordshire’s rivers and canals, by length, were of good biological quality (grades A & B) while 57% were of good chemical quality. Further details are shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 and Maps 1.1 and 1.2.
% of length of rivers and canals
Beds Mid Beds South Luton Beds Beds & Borough Beds Borough Luton Biological Grade A 25 20.72 29.41 0 23.56 22.75 B 62.5 36.04 41.18 0 46.22 44.64 C 11.25 26.13 29.41 12.5 21.33 21.03 D 0 17.12 0 87.5 8.44 11.16 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0
% of good quality 87.50 56.76 70.59 0 69.78 67.38
Length sampled 80 111 34 8 225 233 (km)
Table 1.1: Details of biological water quality at county and district level, 2004 [data from Environment Agency]
% of length of rivers and canals
Beds Mid Beds South Luton Beds Beds & Borough Beds Borough Luton Chemical Grade A 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 70 45.95 64.71 0 57.33 55.36 C 23.75 37.84 26.47 12.50 31.11 30.47 D 0 10.81 5.88 100 6.22 9.44 E 6.25 5.41 0 0 4.89 4.72 F 0 0 0 0 0 0
% of good quality 70 45.95 64.71 0 57.33 55.36
Length sampled 80 111 34 8 225 233 (km)
Table 1.2: Details of chemical water quality at county and district level, 2004 [data from Environment Agency]
District level At the district level a similar pattern is seen for both biological and chemical water quality [Tables 1.1 & 1.2]. In general water quality is reduced by built up areas where there is a lot of industrial and urban runoff and habitat quality is poor. This explains the low water quality in Luton Borough where the short stretch of the River Lea runs through the heart of the urban area.
Water quality in Mid Beds appears to be lower than in the other two Bedfordshire districts. This is felt to be due to the smaller size of the rivers in this area, eg the Flit, Hiz and Ivel. Smaller rivers are more affected by low flow times and have less capacity to dilute discharges.
Trends
90
chemistry 80 biology
70
60 ty i l
d qua 50 goo f o
40 ngth e l
% of 30
20
10
0 1990121991 1992341993 1994561995 1996781997 19989199910200011200112200213200143 200154 Year
Figure 1.1: Biological and chemical water quality in Bedfordshire rivers, 1990-2004 [data from the Environment Agency]
Improvements to discharges between 1990 and 2000 mean that there was a significant increase in both biological and chemical water quality in Bedfordshire’s rivers during this period [Figure 1.1]. The drop in chemical water quality seen in 1997 is felt to be simply a result of the normal factors affecting water quality ie periods of dry weather and low flow when pollutants become more concentrated; it is not due to a particular pollution event. Since 2000 the percentage of river length of good quality has not shown a clear trend, remaining relatively stable.
During this period, an increase in the percentage of rivers of good biological and chemical quality has been seen in each of the districts except Luton [Table 1.3].
Map 1.1 Map 1.2
% of river length of good water quality
Area Biological Chemical % point % point 1990 2004 increase 1990 2004 increase
Beds Borough 64 88 24 0 70 70 Mid Beds 34 57 23 9 46 37 South Beds 0 71 71 0 65 65 Luton Borough 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bedfordshire 40 70 30 4 57 53
East of England 57 77 20 21 42 21
England 60 70 10* 43 62 19
Table 1.3: Improvements in biological and chemical river water quality, 1990-2004. [data from Env.Agency; Defra’s e-digest of Environmental Statistics, East of England Factsheet, 13.12.05 (www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/regional/documents/east_england.factsheet.pdf) and River Water Quality Framework Indicator for Sustainable Development;2004, ONS statistical release, 15.8.05]
National/regional comparisons River water quality is one of the Government’s 20 Framework Indicators and comprises indicators of good biological and chemical water quality. It has replaced the water quality Headline Indicator of the previous sustainable development strategy which showed rivers of good or fair water quality.
In terms of biological quality, the % of Bedfordshire’s rivers of good quality in 2004 was a little lower than that seen in the East of England region, but similar to that found in England as a whole. For chemical quality, Bedfordshire’s rivers were of a better standard than the East of England region but not quite as good as England as a whole [Table 1.3].
The improvement seen in the quality of Bedfordshire’s rivers from 1990-2004 was greater than that seen either regionally or nationally. The pattern of improvement seen in Bedfordshire [Figure 1.1] is similar to that reported for England as a whole during the period 1990-2004; a definite improvement from 1990-2000 followed by a period of relative stability (River Water Quality Framework Indicator for Sustainable Development; 2004, ONS statistical release, 15.8.05).
Indicator 2: Percentage of length of rivers and canals of high nutrient status
Indicator results
County level In 2004, 80% of Bedfordshire’s rivers and canals, by length, were classified as having high levels of nitrate (Table 2.1) while 94% had high levels of phosphate (Table 2.2). Further details are shown on Maps 2.1 and 2.2.
% of length of rivers and canals
Beds Mid Beds South Luton Beds Beds & Borough Beds Borough Luton Nitrate level A 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 8.82 12.5 1.33 1.72 D 23.75 11.71 29.41 100 18.67 21.46 E 75 11.71 2.94 0 32.89 31.76 F 0 76.58 58.82 0 46.67 45.06
% of high nutrient 75.0 88.29 61.76 0 79.56 76.82 status
Table 2.1: Details of nitrate level at county and district level, 2004 [data from Environment Agency]
% of length of rivers and canals
Beds Mid Beds South Luton Beds Beds & Borough Beds Borough Luton Phosphate level A 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 8.11 8.82 100 5.33 8.58 D 12.5 9.01 29.41 0 13.33 12.88 E 87.5 44.14 35.29 0 58.22 56.22 F 0 37.84 26.47 0 22.67 21.89
% of high nutrient 100 90.99 91.18 0 94.22 90.99 status
Table 2.2: Details of phosphate level at county and district level, 2004 [data from Environment Agency]
High levels of nutrients are felt to be the main water quality issue in the Ouse catchment, within which the majority of Bedfordshire’s rivers belong (The Upper Ouse and Bedford Ouse Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy, Environment Agency, March 2005). This is illustrated by the figures for Bedfordshire shown above. The entire county is within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone.
Map 2.1 Map 2.2 It is estimated that over 70% of nitrates and over 40% of phosphates in English waters are derived from agricultural inputs; sewage discharges are also a factor [Defra, e-digest of Environmental Statistics].
District level Once again there is a similar pattern through the districts for both nitrates and phosphates. The highest proportions of rivers with high nutrient levels are in Mid Beds and Bedford Borough; the proportion is slightly lower in South Beds, although it still has high levels, particularly of phosphates. This is possibly due to the more agricultural nature of the former districts. None of the River Lea running through the Luton Borough has high nutrient levels – this is perhaps not surprising given the urban nature of this stretch.
Trends
100
nitrates 90 phosphates
80
70 us t a t nt s
e 60 i tr u
gh n 50 hi
th of 40 ng e
30 % of l
20
10
0 199011991219923199341994519956199671997819989199910201001120021 2001312 20034120045 Year
Figure 2.1: Trends in high nutrient levels, Bedfordshire, 1990 – 2004 [data from Environment Agency]
It can be seen from Figure 2.1 and Table 2.3 that there has been little real change in the percentage of Bedfordshire rivers with high levels of phosphates during the period 1990-2004. There has been a very slight drop in the percentage of those with high nitrate levels.
% of river length with high nutrient levels % point 1990 2004 change
Nitrates 86 80 -6 Phosphates 96 94 -2
Table 2.3: Changes in high nutrient levels in Bedfordshire’s rivers, 1990-2004 [data from the Environment Agency]
National/regional comparisons
Nutrient levels in rivers was formerly one of the Government’s national core indicators however this is no longer the case. National and regional figures are however reported by Defra [The environment in your pocket 2005, Defra & ONS].
Table 2.4 shows that in 2004, the proportion of Bedfordshire’s rivers with high nutrient levels was significantly higher than that seen in the Anglian region and very much higher than that seen over England as a whole.
In terms of nitrate levels, the Anglian region has by far the highest proportion of rivers with high levels of any of the English regions [The Environment in your pocket, 2005, Defra & ONS]. Between 2000 and 2004, this proportion dropped in the Anglian region, from 81% to 71%, however, the drop in Bedfordshire has not been quite so marked.
Area Nitrates Phosphates
Bedfordshire 80 94 Anglian EA region 71 78 England 32 58
Table 2.4: Percentage of river lengths of high nutrient status locally, regionally and nationally, 2004. [data from Environment Agency; local – e-digest; national and regional from The Environment in your pocket, 2005,Defra & ONS]
Indicator 3: Distribution of otters
Background The presence of otters as a predator at the top of the food chain provides an indication that the quality of wetland habitats within a river system is likely to be good. From the 1950s to the 1970s, otter populations underwent a steep decline over much of the UK, including Bedfordshire. Water pollution by organochloride pesticides is thought to have been a major contributory factor in this decline.
Records of otters in Bedfordshire over the period 1995 to 2002 suggested that otters had now returned to many of the county’s watercourses. Some of these otters may have been from re- introductions to the county in the mid-1990s, some may have been wild bred animals moving into the area.
Results of the 2003/04 otter survey of the whole county repeated a county-wide survey carried out in 1993/94, using identical methodology and survey sites. Between the two surveys there was a considerable increase in the number of survey sites at which signs of otters were found and also in the distribution. By 2003/04 they were found over much of the Ouse catchment but not in the south of the county where the watercourses are part of the River Lea’s catchment. This increase mirrored that seen over the East of England and England as a whole.
Source of data No new full survey has been carried out since the 2003/04 survey, however, an otter monitoring scheme for the county has now been developed by Amanda Proud, Bedfordshire Otters & Rivers Project Officer, who has kindly provided the initial monitoring results from this work. Survey work is carried out by a team of volunteers who each check one or more survey sites at monthly intervals. Survey sites are the same locations as those used for the full county survey, however, as yet not all of the sites from the full survey are monitored.
Indicator results Monitoring results show that otters were regularly using Bedfordshire’s rivers during the period May 2004 to October 2005 [see Map 3.1]. The heaviest usage was seen along the River Ivel, in the Marston Vale and along the River Ouse, particularly the Bromham area and the Great Barford to Priory Country Park stretch. Additional checks on the upper reaches of the Ouse, confirmed few signs of otters. Sites which were checked where no signs of otters were found are not shown on Map 3.1.
Trends From May 2004 to October 2005, 35 of the original 63 survey sites were monitored. Of these, 26 sites (74%) were found to show positive signs of otters. This figure should not be compared with the results of the 2003/04 survey as the 35 sites were not a random sample of the full survey sites, rather their distribution was determined by the locations convenient to volunteers who came forward. In addition, volunteers are probably easier to find and retain for those areas where positive signs are more likely and this is also likely to have influenced the distribution of sites surveyed so far.
However even if the monitoring results do not provide a trend figure for the county, they do show that otters are still regularly using our rivers, suggesting that there have been no major changes since the positive findings of the 2003/04 survey. They are also beginning to provide information on the frequency of use of different areas which cannot be obtained from occasional full surveys and on which it should be possible to comment in more detail as time progresses.
National/regional comparisons No new national survey has been carried out since the 2002-02 survey quoted in the last report.
Map 3.1
Frequency of spraint occurence
Frequencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - 10
5 B. Condition of important wildlife and geological sites
Background Sites of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI] and County Wildlife Sites [CWS] represent the best wildlife habitat in Bedfordshire. SSSIs are designated by English Nature, are of national importance and are statutorily protected; CWSs are of local importance and are designated by the Bedfordshire & Luton Biodiversity Forum. Together these sites cover about 7% of the area of the county.
In 1997 English Nature began a monitoring programme for assessing the condition of SSSIs. Sites are divided into units, usually using physical rather than habitat boundaries. Each unit is assigned a habitat type, generally the most important one, although there may be other habitat types present in the unit. Each unit is classified as being in ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable’ condition. Condition is assessed according to both the condition of the habitats and species present and also the management in place to conserve, or recover, them. The category ‘unfavourable’ is further divided into ‘recovering’, ‘no change’ or ‘declining’ when compared to previous visits. English Nature aims to assess each SSSI every six years; more frequently if the site is perceived to be at risk.
A monitoring system for CWSs, based on the SSSI assessment method, has been developed for Bedfordshire and has been in use since 2002. To date 24% of the area of the county designated as CWS has been monitored.
The monitoring schemes for both SSSIs and CWSs allow the results to be broken down by broad habitat types.
Source of data Data on SSSI condition have been obtained from the English Nature website [www.english- nature.gov.uk] and are summarised in Appendix 2.1.
Data on CWS condition have been taken from the CWS monitoring reports 2002-2005 and are summarised in Appendix 2.2. Additional information has been obtained from the BRMC.
Indicator 4: Area (ha) of SSSI and % in favourable condition
Indicator results
County level The number of SSSIs in Bedfordshire remains 40. These cover an area of 1410.54ha and include 35 sites designated for their biological importance and five designated for their geological importance. The slight change in area since the previous report is due to slight changes in the calculations of area on the EN database, not actual changes on the ground.
Table 4.1 gives details of the condition of Bedfordshire’s SSSIs as at 1 November 2005; this incorporates the results of monitoring carried out between July 1997 and September 2005.
Condition Area (ha) % of total area % of total area in 2004
Favourable 902.16 64.0 64.8 Unfavourable – recovering 304.43 21.6 17.9 Unfavourable – no change 131.2 9.3 8.5 Unfavourable – declining 63.88 4.5 8.8 Part-destroyed 8.87 0.6 0
Total 1410.54 Table 4.1: Area and condition of Bedfordshire’s SSSIs, 1 November 2005 [data from English Nature]
For reporting purposes English Nature combines both the ‘favourable’ and ‘unfavourable – recovering’ categories to represent favourable condition. This convention is followed throughout this report. The category ‘unfavourable – recovering’ indicates that although the condition is currently unfavourable, management is in place to address the problems.
In 2005, 85.6% of Bedfordshire’s SSSIs, by area, were in favourable condition, compared to 82.7% in 2004. At a monitoring visit in 2005 part of Fancott Woods and Meadows SSSI was found to have been part destroyed (a 9ha unit), however this damage is recoverable and the area retains its SSSI status.
Habitat types
Table 4.2 shows the data broken down by broad habitat type. There is considerable variation in condition between habitats although it must be remembered that some habitat types are represented by only a very small number of sites, or small areas.
Woodland, earth heritage, calcareous grassland and standing water habitats appear to be doing best with around 80% or above of their area in favourable condition. Of more concern are neutral grassland, fen/marsh/swamp, acid grassland and heathland habitats where this figure drops to around 50-60%. Bog habitat, represented by only one small site in the county, is not in good condition.
Area of No of sites % of area in % of area in Broad habitat type habitat (ha) at which favourable favourable habitat condition condition in 2004 found
Bog 2.56 1 0 0 Lowland heathland 61.80 3 47.1 46.8 Lowland acid grassland 14.88 2 49.3 49.3 Fen/marsh/swamp 9.86 3 58.2 57.1 Lowland neutral grassland 56.07 11 59.6 87.7 Standing water 27.01 2 79.7 100.00 Lowland calcareous grassland 398.75 12 83.0 64.9 Earth heritage 155.68 5 86.8 86.6 Lowland woodland 683.93 10 94.1 95.8
Total 1410.54 Table 4.2: Details of SSSI condition in Bedfordshire by broad habitat type, 1 November 2005 [data from English Nature]
District level Table 4.3 shows the details of SSSI condition in the Bedfordshire districts. The numbers and areas of SSSIs remain the same in each of the districts. The percentage of SSSIs in favourable condition remains highest in Mid Beds, and lowest in South Beds. There are no SSSIs within Luton Borough.
Number of sites % in favourable % in favourable District (earth heritage) Area (ha) condition condition in 2004
Bedford Borough 8 (1) 166.73 87.2 87.5 Mid Beds 14 (0) 490.96 91.1 93.3 South Beds 18 (4) 752.85 81.5 74.7
Total 40 (5) Table 4.3: Details of number, area and condition of SSSIs within Bedfordshire, 1 November 2005 [data from English Nature]
Trends The area of SSSI in Bedfordshire has remained the same since 2001 however the proportion of this area which is considered to be in favourable condition has increased from 78% to 86% during this period (see Figure 4.1).
88
n 86 o i it d
84 le con
urab 82 avo f
n 80
78 SSSI area i of 76 %
74 201201 2002 200332004420055 Year
Figure 4.1: Change in % of SSSI area in favourable condition in Bedfordshire, 2001 – 2005 [data from English Nature]
Looking within the districts, since 2004 there has been little change in the proportion of SSSIs in favourable condition in Beds Borough and a small decrease in Mid Beds. Within South Beds however there has been a significant improvement. This is largely due to the improvement in condition of several of the chalk sites in the south of the county such as Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe & Sundon Hills
Sadly, calcareous grassland is the only habitat type to show an improvement in condition over the past year – with several units now classed as unfavourable recovering rather than no change or decline. The condition of most habitats remained about the same however there were worrying declines seen in standing water habitats (predominantly due to the condition of Houghton Regis Marl Lakes) and neutral grassland (Dropshort Marsh and Fancott Meadow).
National/regional comparisons The condition of SSSIs was one of the national core indicators within the UK Government’s first strategy for sustainable development, published in 1999. However, it is now not one of the 68 national indicators supporting the current strategy, produced in March 2005. There is however a Public Service Agreement target for 95% of SSSI land, by area, to be in favourable condition by 2010.
Table 4.4 shows the percentage of SSSI, by area, in favourable condition at local, regional and national level. Once again the condition of Bedfordshire’s SSSIs is better than that seen regionally and nationally, although it has not yet reached the level demanded by the PSA target. As noted in last year’s report, despite the good condition of the county’s SSSIs it should not be forgotten that the percentage of the county area that is designated as SSSI (1.2%) is considerably lower than that found regionally and nationally (6-7%).
Area % of SSSI area in favourable condition
England 68.5 East of England 77.8 Bedfordshire 85.6 Bedford Borough 87.2 Mid Bedfordshire 91.1 South Bedfordshire 81.5
Table 4.4: SSSI condition at national, regional and local levels, 1 November 2005 [data from English Nature]
Defra reported on SSSI habitats in favourable or recovering condition by sector in March 2005, however, these differ to broad habitat categories (eg local authority owned, towns & cities, farmland etc) and so cannot be easily compared [The Environment in your Pocket, 2005, Defra].
Indicator 5: Area (ha) of County Wildlife Sites, % monitored and % in favourable condition
Indicator results
County level There are currently 377 CWSs in Bedfordshire and Luton, covering an area of 7160.57ha (this excludes the SSSI land which is within some CWS boundaries). The slight changes in number and area since the last report are mostly due to slight boundary modifications and the amalgamation of a small number of adjacent sites, however, one small site has been now deleted from the register as it was found to have been destroyed during a monitoring visit in 2004 and one new site has been designated.
In 2005, an additional 39 CWSs were monitored; an area of 919.36ha. The total number of CWSs that has now been monitored between 2002 and 2005 is 121; an area of 1681ha. This figure does not include the site found to be destroyed in 2004 which has now had its designation removed. This represents 32% of the county’s CWSs by number, 23.5% by area.
As these are all still initial monitoring visits, no assessment can yet be made as to whether sites in the ‘unfavourable’ category are recovering, not changing or declining.
Condition Area monitored (ha) Percentage
Favourable 980.62 58.3 Unfavourable 699.98 41.7
Total 1680.60
Table 5.1: Area (ha) and condition of Bedfordshire’s monitored CWSs, 2002-2005
Of the area of land designated as CWS that was monitored between 2002 and 2005, 58% was found to be in a favourable condition [Table 5.1].
It is not yet possible to produce a map showing the location of the county’s CWS and their condition as the boundaries of monitoring units have not yet been digitised however this work could be done by the BRMC if such a map was required.
Within the county there are a number of CWSs that have been designated due to the presence of an important species, rather than habitat. Four such sites were monitored in 2005; two were found to be in favourable condition (Clinopodium ascendens, navelwort) and two in unfavourable condition (greater broomrape, proliferous pink).
16 Roadside Nature Reserves were also monitored in 2005 - a length of 14.75km of road verge. Of this, only 22% (3.2km) was assessed as being in favourable condition. The majority of these sites were neutral grassland.
No Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites [RIGS] have yet been officially designated however with the formation of the Bedfordshire & Luton Geology Group a suite of 18 potential RIGS sites has been identified and work is underway to define boundaries and liaise with landowners prior to official recognition of the designation.
District level Table 5.2 shows the data for CWS broken down by district. Sites crossing local authority boundaries have been allocated to the authority in which the majority of the sites falls.
District Total no. of Total area No. Area monitored % of area CWS of CWS monitored (ha) monitored in (ha) [% of total] [% of total] favourable condition
Bedford Borough 123 2259.60 18 [15%] 338.0 [15%] 86.2 Mid Beds 142 3599.68 80 [56%] 1207.8 [34%] 50.6 South Beds 89 1044.33 23 [26%] 134.8 [13%] 57.9 Luton Borough 23 256.96 - - -
Total 377 7160.57 121 1680.6 58.3 Table 5.2: Details of CWS and monitoring results within Bedfordshire & Luton districts, 2002 -2005
Most monitoring has been carried out in the Mid Beds area, with 56% of sites monitored; this represents 34% by area. Sites within Luton Borough are monitored, but a different system is used and so the area cannot be included within this indicator. CWSs in the Beds Borough area appear to be in the best condition however this is likely to be due to the fact that the sites monitored to date in this district are predominantly woodland sites and this habitat appears to be in generally good condition throughout the county.
Habitat types Table 5.3 shows the data broken down by broad habitat type.
Area of Estimated No. of % of habitat type area of % of area monitored monitored Habitat monitored habitat of habitat sites at area in to date within all monitored which favourable (ha) Beds to date habitat condition CWSs* found
Lowland heathland 4.0 47.08 8.5 1 0 Lowland neutral grassland 418.8 1285.55 32.6 34 5.7 Lowland acid grassland 137.5 176.4 77.9 15 10.0 Standing water 39.36 497.3 7.9 4 19.5 Fen/marsh/swamp 27.6 88.9 31.0 6 60.5 River 10.7 338.94 3.2 1 82.2 Lowland woodland 996.44 4182.3 23.8 67 87.2 Lowland calcareous grassland 46.2 534.95 8.6 7 88.5
Table 5.3 Details of CWS condition by broad habitat type, 2002-2005. *Areas of habitats within the county’s CWSs are preliminary estimates from ongoing work by the BRMC and include land within CWSs designated as SSSIs.
It is difficult to draw firm conclusions for several of the broad habitat types as to date only a few sites containing these habitats, a small proportion of the resource within CWSs, have been monitored – this particularly applies to heathland, standing water, rivers and calcareous grassland.
Almost a quarter of the area of the county’s woodland CWSs has now been monitored and a very high percentage (87%) of this is in good condition. Nearly one third of fen/marsh/swamp habitats have been monitored and 61% of this is in favourable condition. Of greatest concern however is the fact that 78% of the county’s CWS acid grassland has now been monitored and only 10% found to be in favourable condition. Only 6% of the neutral grassland monitored to date is in favourable condition – and this covers almost one third of the county’s CWS resource. The CWS which has been lost since the last report was neutral grassland.
Trends In recent years amendments to the boundaries and amalgamation of adjacent small sites has led to variation in the precise number and area of CWSs in the county. The only major change picked up to date by monitoring is the loss of one site reported on last time.
Figure 5.1 shows the increase in the percentage of CWSs monitored since 2002, by number and area.
35
30 number of CWS
area of CWS 25 d 20 tore i
15 % mon
10
5
0 201202 2003 2004342005 Year
Figure 5.1: Increase in the percentage of County Wildlife Sites monitored, by number and area, 2002-2005. A figure for the total area of CWS was not available in 2002
It is not possible to calculate trends for the percentage of CWSs, by area or number, that are in favourable condition as no sites have yet been monitored more than once. The 2005 figures are better estimates, based on a larger sample of sites, than those for 2004. The 2005 estimate of 58% in favourable condition is therefore a better estimate than that from 2004 (64.4%) not a drop in the condition of sites monitored.
National/regional Comparisons No equivalent national or regional figures have been found for the condition of CWSs.
Indicator 6: Area (ha) of land under Stewardship agreements
Background From 1991 to 2004, Countryside Stewardship was the government’s main agri-environment scheme, making payments to farmers, and other land managers, to manage their land in an environmentally beneficial way. During this period there was a steady increase in the land in England covered by these schemes to 1.2 million hectares by 2004. Bedfordshire also showed a similar steady increase as reported in March 2005.
In March 2005 a new scheme, Environmental Stewardship, was introduced. This includes Entry Level Stewardship, Organic Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship. Existing CSS agreements have continued, or been updated to Environmental Stewardship. The new scheme aims to appeal to a wider range of land managers and to tackle countrywide environmental problems such as diffuse water pollution, damage to the historic environment and loss of wildlife.
Source of data Figures for the uptake of Stewardship are no longer available directly from the Defra website and so data were requested via Defra’s Stewardship Advisor for Bedfordshire.
Indicator results No more recent figures for Countryside Stewardship were available than those given in the previous report. Figures for Environmental Stewardship are not yet available.
National/regional comparisons Land included in agri-environment schemes is one of the 68 indicators supporting the government’s current sustainable development strategy. When data on the new Environmental Stewardship schemes are available the national indicator is to be revised accordingly.
Indicator 7: Area (ha) of organic holdings
Background Organic farming, with its emphasis on sustainable production avoiding the use of pesticides and herbicides, can be used as an indicator of land which is being managed in a manner beneficial to the health of the natural environment.
Organic farmers have to meet a range of standards outlined in EU regulations on organic farming and monitored by the Advisory Committee of Organic Standards (ACOS).
Source of data Defra collates data on organic farming from the various organic sector bodies throughout the UK and provides county data on request. Luton Borough is included within Bedfordshire on the Defra database.
Indicator results
County level In January 2005 there were eight holdings registered as organic within Bedfordshire, covering a total of 578.97ha of the county. This represents 0.65% of the county’s agricultural land by area. Of this land, 534.7ha were fully organic while 44.27ha were in conversion.
District level The distribution of holdings throughout the county is shown on Map 7.1. Organic holdings are now present only in Bedford Borough and Mid Beds [Table 7.1].
Number of organic holdings
Beds Borough 4 Mid Beds 4 South Beds 0 Luton Borough 0
Bedfordshire 8
Table 7.1: Number of organic holdings in Bedfordshire’s districts, Jan 2005 [data from Defra]
Trends Changes in the area and number of organic holdings in Bedfordshire since 2001 are shown in Figure 7.1. Since January 2004 there has been a decrease in both; the result of a net loss of four holdings, leading to a reduction in area of 196ha - a 25% decrease. Three of the holdings no longer registered as organic are in South Beds.
cover.qxp 1/11/06 1:00 pm Page 2
Map 7.1
Registered Organic Holdings within Bedfordshire
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNTY
CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY
MILTON KEYNES BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY
Text
LUTON HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY Map produced by FCAFRD AHW Statistics, January 2006 Registered Organic holdings source: FCAFRD Diversification, Trade and Organic Statistics Team, Defra. © Crown copyright. All rights reserved Defra, Licence number 100018880 2006 900 14
Area
800 Number 12
700
10 600 ) a h ngs ( 8 500 holdi dings of r hol e
400 b of 6 a m e u r N A 300 4
200
2 100
0 0 201201 2002 20033452004 2005 Year
Figure 7.1: Changes in number and area of organic holdings in Bedfordshire, 2001-2005 [data from Defra and ‘Organic Farming in Bedfordshire; Constraints & Solutions’, Elm Farm Research Centre, 2001]
National/regional comparisons The area of land converted, or in conversion, to organic production was one of the national core indicators within the Government’s first strategy for Sustainable Development, produced in 1999, however, it is not one of the 68 national indicators supporting the current strategy, produced in March 2005.
Table 7.2 shows local, regional and national organic statistics. It is clear that the percentage of the total agricultural land in Bedfordshire registered as organic is low compared to that seen across the country as a whole. Since 2004 it has dropped below that seen in the East of England region which, together with Yorkshire & Humberside, has the lowest percentage of any English region.
Area of land Area of Total % of total in-conversion organic Total (ha) agricultural agricultural (ha) land (ha) area (ha) area
Bedfordshire 44 535 579 88,875 0.65 East of England 2,425 10,336 12,761 1,487,805 0.9 England 28,995 230,377 259,372 9,420,046 2.8 UK 54,771 635,497 690,269 16,824,295 4.1
Table 7.2: Local, regional and national organic statistics, January 2005 [national and regional data from ‘ Organic Statistics, UK’ – ONS & Defra, June 2005; area data for Bedfordshire from the June 2004 Agricultural Census, Defra]
Since 2004 the UK has seen a drop in the total area of organic land of approximately 1%, however the area within England and the East of England region has remained about the same in this period. The decline seen in Bedfordshire is felt to be the result of chance fluctuations, not the result of any large scale trends or changes to incentives.
Indicator 8: Area (ha) of woodland within Woodland Grant Scheme
Background Until June 2004 the Woodland Grant Scheme [WGS] was the Government’s main scheme to encourage the creation and beneficial management of woodlands. It was administered by the Forestry Commission and all privately owned woodlands were considered for grants under the scheme. Applicants that best suited the priorities of the England Forestry Strategy were given higher priority. Annual management grant was paid for the beneficial management of existing woodlands.
The new England Woodland Grant Scheme [EWGS] was launched in 2005. The scheme consists of a suite of six grants designed to develop the co-ordinated delivery of public benefits from the country’s woods. WGS agreements in existence under the old scheme continue to operate.
Source of data A request for data was made to the East England Conservancy of the Forestry Commission.
Indicator results The Forestry Commission is still developing the reporting side of the EWGS and so current figures for the area of woodland within WGS or EWGS are not yet available.
National/regional comparisons ‘Sustainable management of woodlands’ was previously one of the Government’s core national indicators, measured by the proportion of woodland area certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, however, this is no longer the case. Only the area of woodland is now reported on, as part of the land use indicator that forms one of the 68 indicators supporting the sustainable development strategy.
Indicator 9: Populations of wild birds
Background Birds are very useful indicator species; found in a wide variety of habitats and at, or near, the top of the food chain, their numbers reflect conditions throughout their habitat.
The British Trust for Ornithology [BTO] runs a Breeding Bird Survey [BBS] in which its volunteers throughout the country collect data on numbers of common birds. The BBS is based on surveys of randomly selected 1km squares. Within each square two 1km transects across the square are walked on two occasions, surveyors recording the birds they hear or see. Its aim is not to establish total population sizes but to compare numbers year to year.
It is recommended that a species must occur in 20 or more squares for accurate population trends to be established. The small size of Bedfordshire means that it is difficult to calculate statistically significant trends for any but the commonest species.
Source of data Data was obtained by Beds CC via the BTO website [www.bto.org]. Luton is included within Bedfordshire in the BBS. Information was also taken from Richard Bashford’s article – ‘The BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey’ in the Bedfordshire Naturalist for 2004 No. 59 (Part 2) 2005.
The fieldwork for the BBS in the county was carried out by members of the Bedfordshire Bird Club.
Indicator results
County level The county indicator developed last year by Beds CC reported on the proportion of the 30 commonest species (see Table 9.1) whose population had increased over the previous year.
In 2004, only 25 1km squares were surveyed in the county; the lowest coverage since 1994 (Bashford, 2005). This resulted in 40% of the species used in the indicator being recorded in fewer than 20 survey squares (one, the willow warbler, was only found in 8 squares). With no reliable trends for such a high proportion of the 30 species it has therefore been impossible to calculate the indicator for the county.
Species
Mallard* Dunnock Jackdaw Red-legged Partridge* Robin Rook* Pheasant Blackbird Carrion Crow Woodpigeon Song Thrush Starling Collared Dove* Common Whitethroat House Sparrow* Cuckoo* Blackcap Chaffinch Swift* Willow Warbler* Greenfinch Skylark Blue Tit Goldfinch* Swallow* Great Tit Linnet* Wren Magpie* Yellowhammer Table 9.1: The 30 common species used to make up the county indicator. * marks species which occurred in fewer than 20 survey squares in 2004.
The Bird Club has since been successful in recruiting more volunteers to become involved in the BBS and it is hoped the number of squares covered will rise again in future years to enable this indicator to be calculated.
It is felt that the situation in Bedfordshire is similar to that in the East of England region as a whole and that the population trends for this larger region give a good indication of changes within Bedfordshire (Richard Bashford, pers. comm.). Table 9.2 shows regional population trends over the last decade.
Species % change Species % change
Willow warbler -62* Wood pigeon 9 Cuckoo -49* Coal tit 13 Turtle dove -48* Lapwing 14 Sparrowhawk -41* Pheasant 16* Grey partridge -38* Stock dove 17 Mistle thrush -37* Great tit 18* Starling -36* Reed warbler 19 Bullfinch -35* Blue tit 23* Kestrel -35* Moorhen 24 Corn bunting -33* Mallard 28* Yellowhammer -29* Whitethroat 28* Linnet -28* Robin 28* Song thrush -25* Chaffinch 29* Yellow wagtail -24* Magpie 32* Goldfinch -23* Pied wagtail 33* Skylark -22* Shelduck 35 Swallow -21* Greenfinch 43* House sparrow -20* Blackcap 47* Swift -12 Rook 51* Lesser whitethroat -11 Mute swan 57* Wren -10* Jackdaw 66* Long-tailed tit -9 Moorhen 75* Jay -6 Feral pigeon 78* Reed bunting -3 Chiffchaff 81* Dunnock -1 Crow 82* House martin 4 Great spotted woodpecker 89* Meadow pipit 4 Canada goose 91* Sedge warbler 4 Collared dove 103* Red-legged partridge 5 Green woodpecker 115* Blackbird 6 Goldcrest 119*
Table 9.2: Population trends in the East of England, 1994 – 2004. Data from Bashford (2005). * indicates that the change is statistically significant
National/regional comparisons Bird populations form one of the Government’s 20 Framework Indicators; indices are reported for all native species, woodland birds and farmland birds and are now available for government regions as well as nationally [The environment in your pocket 2005, Defra; Wild bird indicators for the English regions; 1994-2004, Defra, March 2006]. The national and regional indices are derived from the BBS data described above however the large sample sizes at these scales means that more robust trends can be identified and the figures are not directly comparable to the county indicator.
Nationally, populations of all native species combined have remained relatively stable from 1970 to 2003; 2003 figures being 6% higher than those seen in 1970. Regionally, populations of all native species have fared worse than in the country as a whole with a 21% decrease between 1970 and 2004; the last decade has however seen a slight, although not significant, increase (7%).
Populations of farmland birds almost halved nationally between 1977 and 1993. Although they appear to have stabilised since, the population index is still less than 60% of that in 1970. A decline of 44% was seen regionally from 1970 - 2004, however the period 1994-2004 saw a slowed decline of 9% rather than a stabilisation.
Nationally, woodland bird populations dropped by about a quarter between the mid 1970s and the mid 1990s however they have remained relatively stable since. The situation appears to be similar in the East of England region which saw a 5%, although not significant, increase 1994-2004, but an overall decrease of 20% from 1970 - 2004.
D. Access to the countryside
Indicator 10: Area (ha) of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation per 1000 people
Background Access to land rich in wildlife can contribute greatly to people’s quality of life. For this reason English Nature produced a set of Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, one of which is the provision of at least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve [LNR] per 1000 population. This is a target within the Urban Habitat Action Plan of the Bedfordshire & Luton Biodiversity Action Plan.
As this target excludes other publicly accessible land of high wildlife value serving a similar function to LNRs, the above indicator was developed in order to provide a measure of the accessibility of land rich in wildlife to people in Bedfordshire.
The definition of ‘managed for nature conservation’ used is ‘sites which have a management plan in which nature conservation plays an important role’. Sites which have permissive access are included however those for which there is an entrance fee have been excluded.
Source of data Data were obtained either directly from organisations owning or managing access land in the county, from those bodies which provide grants to land owners for management which includes public access and also from the Woodland Trust’s Woods for People dataset (Version 2), which is now held at the BRMC. The database of the sites meeting these criteria in April 2006 is given in Appendix 3.
Indicator results
County level In April 2006, there was a total of 2764ha of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire. This equates to 7.05ha per 1000 population and is 2.32% of the area of the county. If Luton is included, the area rises to 2899ha; 5.03ha per 1000 people and 2.35% of the area of the two authorities.
There are still 18 LNRs within Bedfordshire and none in Luton. The area covered by LNRs is still 299ha. This equates to 0.76ha per 1000 people in Bedfordshire, however only 0.52 per 1000 people if Bedfordshire and Luton are considered together. In both cases this is considerably lower than the English Nature target.
Work is currently underway by the BRMC to digitise the boundaries of the sites shown in Appendix 3. When this is completed it will be possible to show the distribution of these sites throughout the county on a GIS layer.
District level Table 10.1 illustrates the variation in provision between districts. When considered per 1000 people, provision is highest in Mid Beds and lowest in Luton, however, as a percentage of the area of the district, South Beds and Luton score more highly.
District Population Area (ha) Area (ha) of Area (ha) per % of district access land 1000 people area
Beds Borough 151,000 47,653 663.04 4.39 1.39 Mid Beds 127,000 50,285 1329.96 10.47 2.64 South Beds 114,200 21,282 770.93 6.75 3.62 Luton Borough 184,000 4,226 135.48 0.74 3.21
Bedfordshire 392,200 119,220 2763.93 7.05 2.32 Beds & Luton 576,200 123,446 2899.41 5.03 2.35
Table 10.1: Availability of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire in April 2006 [population data are 2004 mid-year estimates from ONS, provided by Beds CC; site data collected by the Greensand Trust]
A similar pattern of variation can be seen in the availability of LNRs [Table 10.2], with Mid Beds having the largest area per 1000 people; the only district to exceed English Nature’s target for provision. There are no LNRs in Luton. When provision is considered as a proportion of the area of the district, South Beds again scores slightly higher than Mid Beds. In both cases provision is lower in Beds Borough.
District No. of LNRs Area (ha) of LNRs Area (ha) of % of district LNR per 1000 area people
Beds Borough 7 60.4 0.40 0.13 Mid Beds 8 158.13 1.25 0.31 South Beds 3 80.7 0.71 0.38 Luton Borough 0 0 0 0
Bedfordshire 18 299.23 0.76 0.25 Beds & Luton 18 299.23 0.52 0.24
Table 10.2: Availability of LNRs in Bedfordshire districts, 2006
Trends
Table 10.3 and Figure 10.1 show the increase in the availability of land managed for nature conservation that is publicly accessible in Bedfordshire since 2002.
2002 2004 2006
Area of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation (ha) 2168 2436 2764 Area (ha) per 1000 people 5.64 6.27 7.05 % of area of county 1.82 2.04 2.32
Area of LNR 291 299 299 Number of LNRs 17 18 18 Area (ha) of LNR per 1000 people 0.76 0.77 0.76
Table 10.3: Trends in availability of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire
8
7
6 e l p o e 5 00 p 10
r 4 e p ) a h
( 3 ea Ar 2
1
0 20021232003 2004 200455 2006 Year Figure 10.1: Increase in the area of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation per 1000 people in Bedfordshire, 2002-06
There has been an increase of 328ha in the publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire since 2004. Approximately 80ha of this is due to the inclusion of data newly available from the Forestry Commission on woods which have access as part of their WGS agreements, but the majority of this is an actual increase in the accessibility of land managed for nature conservation in this period due to new management plans, management agreements, site purchase, the new eWGS Walker’s Welcome package and the CRoW Act. Allowing for the new availability of data, the increase in accessible land area is approximately 10% between 2004 and 2006 and 17% for the period 2002- 06.
There has been no change in the number or area of LNRs in the last year, the slight decrease in the area per 1000 shown is due to the rise in estimated population size during this period.
National/regional comparisons There is no equivalent national or regional indicator.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the following for their assistance during the production of this report in providing data, maps and advice:
Lesley Saint & Sandra Kitchen (Environment Agency) Amanda Proud (Bedfordshire Otters and Rivers Project) Tim Barfield (English Nature) John Comont (Bedfordshire County Council) Keith Balmer (Bedfordshire & Luton Biodiversity Recording & Monitoring Centre) Phil Irving (Greensand Trust) Darren Braine & Carrie Mackay (RDS, Defra) Michael Rowland & Andrew Wiseman (FCAFRD, Defra) Matthew O’Brien (Bedfordshire Farming & Wildlife Advisory Group) Emma Pritchard (Forestry Commission) Ian White (Woodland Trust) Helen Wiltshire (Bedfordshire County Council) Richard Bashford (Bedfordshire Bird Club) Bird Club surveyors Jim Johnson (Bedfordshire County Council)
Appendix 1.1
THE GENERAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCHEME – METHODOLOGIES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF RIVER AND ESTUARY QUALITY
The Environment Agencyʼs method for classifying the water quality of rivers and canals is known as the General Quality Assessment scheme (GQA). It is designed to provide an accurate and consistent assessment of the state of water quality and changes in this state over time.
The scheme consists of separate windows on water quality:
• Chemical quality – dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand and ammonia.
An indicator of organic pollution in general, chemical monitoring assesses the quality of rivers in terms of the measurements which detect the most common types of pollution – discharges of organic wastes from sewage treatment works, from agriculture and from industry.
• Biological quality – using macro-invertebrates.
An indicator or overall “health” of rivers, biological monitoring can provide information about types of pollution that would be missed by chemical monitoring.
• Nutrient status – phosphate and nitrate.
Levels of these nutrients are most likely to be directly influenced by human activities.
What this document contains
Section 1. Offers brief background notes on the various parts of the GQA assessment scheme. These notes include tables showing “Grades at a glance” for each of the above windows. These “at a glance” tables will assist with the interpretation of any GQA printouts which may have been supplied.
Section 2. Reference is made during Section 1 to tables 1 to 9. These tables offer more detailed information on how grades are assigned and comprise the second part of this document.
For further information
Please visit our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk. From our home page follow the links to Science and Research, then What Science Is Happening Now, then Environmental Monitoring, then GQA Methodologies.
SECTION 1 – NOTES ON THE GQA
General Quality Assessment of Rivers – Chemistry
The chemical GQA describes quality in terms of chemical measurements which detect the most common types of pollution. It allocates one of six grades (A to F) to each stretch of river, using the same, strictly defined procedures, throughout England and Wales. The process is set out below.
To each sampling site, we assign a stretch of river that the site will characterise. In the main these sites, and the monitoring, are the same as those used to take decisions on developments that will affect water quality – discharges, abstractions and changes in land use.
We use only results from the routine pre-planned sampling programmes with samples analysed by accredited laboratories. To avoid bias we ignore all extra data collected for special surveys or in response to incidents or accidents. The routine programme involves monthly sampling at some 7,000 monitoring points on over 40,000 kilometres of rivers and canals in England and Wales.
Sites are sampled a minimum of 12 times a year. We use the data collected over three years because this produces 36 samples per site, giving the required precision in making judgements about particular rivers, bearing in mind the cost of monitoring. All the results collected over the three years are included. No extreme data values are excluded.
Chemistry grades at a glance
Grade Quality A Very good B Good C Fairly good D Fair E Poor F Bad
A grade is defined in Table 1 by standards for the determinands biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia and dissolved oxygen. A grade is assigned to each river length according to the worst determinand. These determinands are indicators of pollution that apply to all rivers, first because of the widespread risk of pollution from sewage or farms, and second because of the toxicity of ammonia and the requirement for dissolved oxygen for aquatic life, including fish.
Table 2 describes the general characteristics of each grade.
General Quality Assessment of Rivers – Biology
Each biological sampling site corresponds to a stretch of river also characterised by a chemical site (but not all stretches have a biological sampling point). Although biological and chemical sites are not always coincident they are subject to the same water quality, and as far as possible are not separated by tributaries, discharges, weirs or other potential influences on water quality.
The biological scheme is based on the macro-invertebrate communities of rivers and canals, and include insects such as mayflies and caddis flies, together with snails, shrimps, worms and many others. Macro-invertebrates can be affected by pollutants that occur infrequently or in very low concentrations and which may be missed by chemical sampling.
For biological assessment, macro-invertebrates are grouped into 83 taxa. As different taxa respond differently to pollution, they are given scores of between 1 (pollution-tolerant taxa) and 10 (pollution-sensitive taxa). The presence of taxa sensitive to pollution suggests better water quality than for sites where only pollution-tolerant taxa are found.
By comparing taxa found in the sample with those expected if the river were unpolluted, rivers can be classified into one of six grades (Table 3). There will be some rivers where water quality might permit a higher grade were it not for limits imposed by poor habitat, the nature of the river channel or the pattern of river flows.
The divisions between grades are based on the need to detect and report changes in biological quality so that any deterioration may be acted upon before it goes too far. The extremes (grades a and f) are set to reflect very good and bad quality, with intermediate grades set pragmatically between these extremes. Although the biology of these intermediate grades will differ from site to site in terms of the actual taxa that are present, the grades will reflect the relative position of the sites on a common scale between the best and worse possible quality.
The grading of waters through sampling is not precise. There is, on average, a risk of 22% that rivers will be graded incorrectly. It is unusual for this error to extend beyond the adjacent grade. There is a tendency for a pessimistic grade to be calculated as taxa are more likely to be missed than added when samples are analysed.
Biology grades at a glance
Grade Quality a Very good b Good c Fairly good d Fair e Poor f Bad
General Quality Assessment of Rivers – Nutrients
Samples are analysed for their concentrations of two nutrients, nitrate and phosphate. Data collected over three years are used to determine average nutrient concentrations. All the results collected over three years are included. No extreme data values are excluded.
A grade from 1 to 6 is allocated for both phosphate and nitrate. These are not combined into a single nutrients grade, because they reflect different aspects of water quality. Table 4 shows the limits for each phosphate grade. Table 5 shows the limits for each nitrate grade.
There are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ concentrations for nutrients in rivers in the way that we describe chemical and biological quality. Rivers in different parts of the country have different concentrations of nutrients. ‘Very low’ nutrient concentrations, for example, are not necessarily good or bad; the classification merely states that concentration in this river are very low relative to other rivers.
Phosphate grades
The descriptors used relate to the Phosphate concentrations in the grades. ‘High’ descriptions refer to grades where the average concentration is more than 0.1mgl-1. This is the concentration which is considered indicative of possible existing or future problems of eutrophication (the enrichment of water by nutrients, especially compounds of nitrogen and/or phosphorus, causing accelerated growth of algae and higher plant forms which can disturb the balance of organisms present in the water and the quality of the water concerned.)
High concentrations of phosphate do not necessarily mean that the river is eutrophic. Other factors have to be taken into account such as the amount and type of algae present, flow rates and dissolved oxygen concentration.
Nitrate grades
The descriptors used relate to the Nitrate concentrations in the grades. ‘High’ descriptions refer to grades where the average concentration is more than 30mgl-1. This limit very roughly corresponds to the 95 percentile limit of 50mgl-1 which is used in the European Community (EC) Drinking Water Directive and the EC Nitrate Directive. There is, however, no direct comparison because the methods used to calculate the 95 percentile for the purposes of these Directives are strictly laid down and cannot be estimated from average concentrations over three years.
Phosphate and Nitrate grades at a glance
Grade Description – Phosphate Description – Nitrate 1 Very low Very low 2 Low Low 3 Moderate Moderately low 4 High Moderate 5 Very high High 6 Excessively high Very high
SECTION 2 - TABLES
Table 1: Standards for the chemical GQA GQA Grade Dissolved oxygen Biochemical oxygen demand Ammonia (% saturation) (mgl-1) (mgNl-1) 10-percentile 90-percentile 90-percentile A 80 2.5 0.25 B 70 4 0.6 C 60 6 1.3 D 50 8 2.5 E 20 15 9.0 F <20 - - NOTES: 90-percentile compliance – the river should contain less than the specified levels for at least 90% of the time. 10-percentile compliance – levels should not fall below the standard for more than 10% of the time. mgl-1 – milligrammes per litre mgNl-1 – milligrammes per litre of Nitrogen
Table 2: Grades of river quality for the chemical GQA Chemical grade Likely uses and characteristics* A Very good All abstractions Very good salmonid fisheries Cyprinid fisheries Natural ecosystems B Good All abstractions Salmonid fisheries Cyprinid fisheries Ecosystems at or close to natural C Fairly good Potable supply after advanced treatment Other abstractions Good cyprinid fisheries Natural ecosystems, or those corresponding to good cyprinid fisheries D Fair Potable supply after advanced treatment Other abstractions Fair cyprinid fisheries Impacted ecosystems E Poor Low grade abstraction for industry Fish absent or sporadically present, vulnerable to pollution** Impoverished ecosystems** F Bad Very polluted rivers which may cause nuisance Severely restricted ecosystems * Provided other standards are met ** Where the grade is caused by discharges of organic pollution
Table 3: Grades of river quality for the biological GQA Grade Biological criteria a The biology is similar to (or better than) that expected for an average, unpolluted river of this type, size and location. There is a high diversity of families, usually with several species in each. It is rare to find a dominance of any one family. b The biology shows minor differences from grade ‘a’ and falls a little short of that expected for an unpolluted river of this size, type and location. There may be a small reduction in the number of families that are sensitive to pollution, and a moderate increase in the number of individuals in the families that tolerate pollution (such as worms and midges). This may indicate the first signs of organic pollution. c The biology is worse than that expected for an unpolluted river of this size, type and location. Many of the sensitive families are absent or the number of individuals is reduced, and in many cases there is a marked rise in the numbers of individuals in the families that tolerate pollution. d The biology shows considerable differences from that expected for an unpolluted river of this size, type and location. Sensitive families are scarce and contain only small numbers of individuals. There may be a range of those families that tolerate pollution and some of these may have a high number of individuals. e The biology is restricted to animals that tolerate pollution with some families dominant in terms of the numbers of individuals. Sensitive families will be rare or absent. f The biology is limited to a small number of very tolerant families, often only worms, midge larvae, leeches and the water hog-louse. These may be present in very high numbers, but even these may be missing if the pollution is toxic. In the very worse cases there may be no life present in the river.
Table 4: Phosphate classification Grade Grade limit (mgPl-1) Description Average 1 <0.02 Very low 2 >0.02 to 0.06 Low 3 >0.06 to 0.1 Moderate 4 >0.1 to 0.2 High 5 >0.2 to 1.0 Very high 6 >1 Excessively high NOTES: MgPl-1 – milligrammes per litre of Phosphate
Table 5: Nitrate classification -1 Grade Grade limit (mgNO3l ) Description Average 1 <5 Very low 2 >5 to 10 Low 3 >10 to 20 Moderately low 4 >20 to 30 Moderate 5 >30 to 40 High 6 >40 Very high NOTES: -1 MgNO3l – milligrammes per litre of Nitrate
Appendix 1.2
STANDARD NOTICE FOR THE SUPPLY OF AGENCY INFORMATION (Version July ʻ05)
1. Nothing in this notice will in any way restrict your statutory or any other rights of access to the Data. If you wish to do anything in excess of those rights you may do so in accordance with the following paragraphs only if you agree to all the terms. 2. All intellectual property rights in the documents, data or information supplied to you (“Data”) whether owned by the Environment Agency (“Agency Data”) or third parties ("Third Party Data") will continue to be owned by them. 3. The Data have not been prepared to meet your or anyone else's individual requirements so it is your responsibility to ensure that the Data meet your needs. 4. The Environment Agency cannot ensure and therefore gives no promise that the Data in its possession will always be accurate, complete, up to date or valid. 5. The Environment Agency will use reasonable care to ensure that you are provided with an accurate copy of the Data from our records. 6. If we have specified that a payment is required this must be made to us before we respond to your request and you will only be able to cancel and request your fee back up to the point when we start work on providing the requested information. 7. If you have asked for the Data to be supplied in an electronic format we cannot guarantee that the medium is free of any defects and you should do the appropriate virus checks. 8. Third Party Data use, including copying, must be limited to statutory rights and this generally means that you will need to seek permission to copy. Third Party Data may include information from our public registers which has been supplied to us by a third party such as in an application form. PERMITTED USE OF AGENCY DATA 9. You may use Agency Data for your own use provided that usage is not for or related to any commercial, business, professional or other income generating activity (other than if you fall under the obligations of the Freedom of Information Act and you are applying an authorised charge in response to a request for information). As long as you comply with this restriction you may: take copies for use by yourself or to give to others provided you copy the Data exactly as they are (but this does not restrict re-sizing, font or file format) and if you give it to others you attach a copy of this notice and tell recipients that they too must comply with this notice. include copies of photographs, tables, diagrams (other than text extracts) taken from the Data in another document for your own use provided that the photograph etc is not changed or manipulated in any way other than resizing include text extracts from Agency Data in another document for your own use provided that the extract is a complete piece of information in its own right and not taken out of context or in any other way misleading publish (including putting it on a website) or distribute in multiple copies any paper or electronic document identified in the previous two paragraphs. Any copying of Agency Data to other persons or in any published document or Internet page shall acknowledge the Environment Agencyʼs ownership of its Data. One way of doing this is by adding the words "© Environment Agency copyright and/or database right 20xx. All rights reserved.” (using the year you receive the data from us if we have not indicated what year to use). 10. If you have paid us our standard charge for the costs of making the information available to you, you may take copies of the Data (exactly as they are) for the internal purposes of your business provided that you agree not to amend or alter the Data or merge it with other data or to supply the Data or any data or information derived from or based on usage of the Data to others (Internal Business Usage). 11. If you have paid us our standard charge for the costs of making the information available to you and you are a professional adviser you may give unamended and un-adapted copies to your client and any other person who reasonably requires a copy in connection with the specific transaction or matter in respect of which you obtained the Data from the Environment Agency provided that you make no charge for supplying the Data other than for your actual costs and time incurred, attach a copy of this Standard Notice and require all recipients to comply with it. (Professional Usage) Condition of SSSI units (Bedfordshire) - compiled 1 Nov 2005 Data from English Nature
SSSI name District Main habitat Unit No. Unit area (ha) Date Condition Barton Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 44.18 4/18/2005 Favourable Barton Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 2.74 8/11/2004 Unfavourable declining Biddenham Pit BB Earth heritage 1 0.13 5/25/1999 Unfavourable declining Biddenham Pit BB Earth heritage 2 0.3 1/11/2002 Favourable Blow's Down SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 19.72 7/11/2003 Unfavourable recovering Blow's Down SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 13.64 7/11/2003 Unfavourable recovering Cooper's Hill MB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 1 17.77 6/8/2005 Unfavourable no change Deacon Hill MB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 25.06 6/15/2004 Favourable Deacon Hill MB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 10.3 6/1/2005 Favourable Double Arches Pit SB Earth heritage 1 1.71 7/11/2001 Favourable Dropshort Marsh SB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 2.66 6/24/2005 Unfavourable no change Dunstable And Whipsnade Downs SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 38.71 8/16/2002 Unfavourable recovering Dunstable And Whipsnade Downs SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 13.08 7/27/2000 Unfavourable recovering Dunstable And Whipsnade Downs SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 21.53 8/23/2004 Unfavourable no change Fancott Woods And Meadows SB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 8.87 2/10/2005 Part destroyed Fancott Woods And Meadows SB Neutral grassland - lowland 2 4.32 2/10/2005 Unfavourable no change Felmersham Gravel Pits BB Standing open water and canals 1 21.52 7/21/1999 Unfavourable recovering Flitwick Moor MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 11.02 7/13/2005 Unfavourable declining Flitwick Moor MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 9.56 2/6/1998 Favourable Flitwick Moor MB Fen, marsh and swamp 3 2.63 10/25/2003 Unfavourable declining Flitwick Moor MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 4.41 7/13/2005 Favourable Flitwick Moor MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 5 31.29 7/28/1999 Favourable Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 11.05 7/18/2003 Favourable Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 18.35 7/18/2003 Unfavourable recovering Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 13.65 7/18/2003 Unfavourable no change Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 4 0.47 6/27/2001 Favourable Hanger Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 21.31 7/16/2001 Favourable Hanger Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 2.63 7/16/2001 Favourable Houghton Regis Marl Lakes SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 15.55 10/31/2000 Favourable Houghton Regis Marl Lakes SB Standing open water and canals 2 5.49 2/8/2005 Unfavourable declining Kensworth Chalk Pit SB Earth heritage 1 130.91 10/21/1998 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 1 8.31 6/22/2000 Unfavourable declining Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 2 6.6 6/22/2000 Unfavourable declining Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 15.8 9/8/2003 Unfavourable no change Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 8.14 9/8/2003 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 5 14.02 9/8/2003 Favourable
Appendix 2.1: Condition of SSSI units, 1 Nov 2005 Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 6 3.86 8/19/2005 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Neutral grassland - lowland 7 3.92 8/4/2000 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 8 20.07 8/4/2000 Unfavourable recovering Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 9 15.14 9/8/2003 Unfavourable recovering Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 10 25.34 6/11/2004 Unfavourable recovering Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 11 20.77 7/29/1999 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 12 18.61 7/29/1999 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 13 22.22 9/9/2005 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 14 10.25 9/9/2005 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 15 11.61 8/19/2005 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 16 6.62 6/11/2004 Favourable Kings Wood And Glebe Meadows, Houghto MB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 9.43 6/9/2004 Favourable Kings Wood And Glebe Meadows, Houghto MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 26.64 6/9/2004 Favourable Knocking Hoe MB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 8.09 4/18/2005 Favourable Marston Thrift MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 5.42 7/24/2003 Favourable Marston Thrift MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 18.76 7/24/2003 Favourable Marston Thrift MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 13.47 7/24/2003 Favourable Maulden Church Meadow MB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 4.19 6/27/2000 Unfavourable recovering Maulden Heath MB Acid grassland - lowland 1 2.77 8/2/2004 Unfavourable no change Maulden Heath MB Acid grassland - lowland 2 4.78 8/2/2004 Unfavourable no change Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 50.2 7/30/1997 Favourable Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 43.55 11/13/1998 Favourable Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 16.61 11/13/1998 Favourable Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 38.07 1/15/1998 Favourable Nares Gladley Marsh SB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 5.39 6/9/1999 Favourable Nine Acres Pit SB Earth heritage 1 20.42 6/17/2003 Unfavourable no change Odell Great Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 18.72 4/15/2003 Favourable Odell Great Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 13.68 4/15/2003 Unfavourable no change Odell Great Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 31.49 4/15/2003 Favourable Odell Great Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 22.06 4/15/2003 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 16.07 8/1/2002 Unfavourable recovering Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 18.28 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 13.65 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 16.15 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 5 13.74 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 6 7.35 7/31/2002 Favourable Pulloxhill Marsh MB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 4.25 3/15/2004 Unfavourable recovering Pulloxhill Marsh MB Neutral grassland - lowland 2 0.83 3/15/2004 Unfavourable recovering Sandy Warren MB Acid grassland - lowland 1 7.33 7/28/2005 Favourable Sandy Warren MB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 2 9.05 9/16/2005 Unfavourable recovering
Appendix 2.1: Condition of SSSI units, 1 Nov 2005 Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hil SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 2.97 6/8/2004 Unfavourable no change Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hil SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 6.07 11/11/2004 Unfavourable recovering Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hil SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 14.75 11/11/2004 Unfavourable recovering Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hil SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 4 21.14 4/15/2004 Unfavourable declining Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hil SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 5 29.18 11/11/2004 Unfavourable recovering Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hil SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 6 13.38 11/11/2004 Unfavourable recovering Southill Lake And Woods MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 25.56 7/30/1998 Favourable Stevington Marsh BB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 4.68 7/1/1999 Unfavourable no change Stevington Marsh BB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 2.94 7/1/1999 Unfavourable declining Sundon Chalk Quarry SB Fen, marsh and swamp 1 1.49 3/18/2004 Unfavourable no change Sundon Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 25.3 3/18/2004 Favourable Swineshead Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 9.01 5/25/1999 Favourable Swineshead Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 12.85 5/25/1999 Favourable Tebworth Marsh SB Fen, marsh and swamp 1 5.74 2/20/2002 Unfavourable recovering Tilwick Meadow BB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 2.57 7/9/2001 Favourable Totternhoe Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 10.59 11/4/2004 Unfavourable recovering Totternhoe Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 1.65 6/17/2005 Unfavourable declining Totternhoe Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 1.23 5/31/2000 Unfavourable declining Totternhoe Knolls SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 4.76 9/29/2004 Unfavourable recovering Totternhoe Knolls SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 8.67 9/29/2004 Favourable Totternhoe Stone Pit SB Earth heritage 1 2.21 1/11/2002 Favourable Wavendon Heath Ponds MB Bogs 1 2.56 9/10/2004 Unfavourable no change Wavendon Heath Ponds MB Neutral grassland - lowland 2 2.12 9/6/2004 Unfavourable no change Yelden Meadows BB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 2.84 10/17/2002 Favourable
Appendix 2.1: Condition of SSSI units, 1 Nov 2005 Site Site Number Unit District Area surveyed (ha) Date surveyed Surveyor Habitat Condition Ampthill Park 1882/4/1 1 M 7.6 26.6.02 PI LA U Ampthill Park 1882/4/1 2 M 17 26.6.02 PI LA U Ampthill Park 1882/4/1 3 M 15.5 26.6.02 PI LA U Ampthill Park (Laurel Wood) 1882/4/1 4 M 9.6 26.6.02 PI LW U Aspleybury Wood 31061/1 1 M 3 23.4.02 PI LW F Buckle Grove 31006/1 1 M 16 8.5.02 PI LW F Cainhoepark Wood 31070/3 1 M 3.7 25.4.02 PI LW F Cainhoepark Wood 31070/3 2 M 4.4 25.4.02 PI LW F Cainhoepark Wood 31070/3 3 M 0.5 25.4.02 PI LW F Flitwick Wood 1789/2 1 M 24.5 10.5.02 PI LW F Holcot Wood 30560/1 1 M 22.7 15.5.02 PI LW F Lark Hill 31018/1/1 1 M 0.8 1.7.02 PI LN F Marston Thrift non-SSSI 30580/12 1 M 18.7 16.5.02 PI LW U Marston Thrift spinnies 30580/12 1 M 3.7 9.5.02 PI LW F Marston Thrift spinnies 30580/12 2 M 1.4 9.5.02 PI LW F Marston Thrift spinnies 30580/12 3 M 0.6 9.5.02 PI LW F Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 1 M 8.3 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LA U Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 3 M 0.9 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LN U Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 4 M 4.6 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LN U Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 6 M 2.5 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LN U Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 7 M 4.5 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LA F Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 8 M 2.2 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LA F Meadhook Wood 31002 1 M 2.5 3.5.02 PI LW F Portobello Wood 31000/1 1 M 2.9 3.5.02 PI LW F Salford Wood 30649 1 M 1 9.5.02 PI LW F Simpsonhill Plantation 31010/5 1 M 14.5 21.5.02 PI LW U Speedsdairy Wood 31071 1 M 3.4 24.4.02 PI LW U Steppingley Hospital Grounds 1870/1 1 M 0.8 10.5.02 PI LN U Temple Grove 31072/2 1 M 2.1 24.4.02 PI LW U Tingley Field Plantation 31066/1 1 M 7.8 11.6.02 PI LW F Warren Wood 31010/7 1 M 26 2.5.02 PI LW F Watergate Meadow, Tebworth 30304/1 1 M 1.6 4.7.02 PI LN F Aspley Guise Meadows 43 1 M 1.3 16.9.03 PI LN U Ampthill Cemetery 201 1 M 1.4 16.9.03 PI LA U Ampthill Cutting 199 1 M 2.1 16.9.03 PI LN U Ampthill Knoll 201 1 M 0.9 16.9.03 PI LA U Duck End 191 1 M 1.6 22.7.03 PI LN U Duck End 191 2 M 1.7 22.7.03 PI LA U Heath Meadow (Ouzel Valley) 11 1 S 2.3 5.6.03 PI LA U
Appendix 2.2: CWS Monitoring Results 2002-05 Linslade Wood 9 1 S 5.5 20.5.03 PI LW U Northley Farm Meadows 314 1 M 1.6 19.9.03 PI LN U Ouzel Meadows (Ouzel Valley) 11 1 S 14 17.6.03 PI LN U Pulloxhill North Marsh 180 1 M 0.8 17.9.03 PI F U Pulloxhill South Grasslands 179 1 M 8.4 17.9.03 PI LN U Pulloxhill South Grasslands 179 2 M 2.4 17.9.03 PI LN U Readshill Grassland 184 1 M 0.3 17.9.03 PI LA U Sandhouse Pit (Double Arches) 18 1 S 3 24.6.03 PI LN U Sandhouse Pit (Double Arches) 18 2 S 0.8 24.6.03 PI LC F Shillington Churchyard 294 1 M 1.2 19.9.03 PI LN F Shillington Meadow 292 1 M 1.9 19.9.03 PI LN U Stockgrove Country Park 16/17 1 S 10.5 11.6.03/12.6.03 PI LA U Stockgrove Country Park 16/17 2 S 0.5 11.6.03/12.6.03 PI LA F Tiddenfoot Park 5 1 S 4 12.6.03 PI LA F Wavendon Heath Fullers Earth Quarry 39 1 M 10 25.6.03 PI LA U Astey Wood 61 1 B 8.8 20.5.04 PI LW F Bowels Wood 230 1 B 8.3 22.6.04 RL LW F How Wood 85 1 B 2.2 20.5.04 PI LW F Lambert's Spinney 60 1 B 2.1 24.5.04 PI LW F Molliver's Wood 231 1 B 3.6 29.7.04 RL LW F Pippin Wood 259 1 B 4.7 7.9.04 RL LW F Ransom's Wood 63 1 B 2.1 24.5.04 PI LW F Salem Thrift 86 1 B 8.2 14.6.04 RL LW F Sheerhatch Wood 332 1 B 71 18.6.04 RL LW F Ashen Grove 122 1 S 3.7 1.6.04 SH LW F Badgerdell Wood 150 1 S 10.6 7.5.04 PI LW F Castlecroft Wood 139 1 S 3.9 9.6.04 SH LW F Chiltern Green 276 1 S 2.8 12.7.04 PI LN U Folly Wood 132 1 S 4.2 7.5.04 PI LW F George Wood, Streatley 165 1 S 5.2 6.5.04 PI LW U Greencroft Wood 114 1 S 3.9 1.6.04 SH LW F Little John's/Dame Ellen's Woods 137 1 S 3.7 9.6.04 SH LW F Long Grove 123 1 S 3 25.6.04 SH LW F Sallowsprings Wood 120 1 S 2.1 30.6.04/16.7.04 SH LW F Skimpot Wood 140 1 S 2.5 8.6.04 SH LW F Stanbridge Meadows 29 1 S 4.1 10.6.04 PI LN F Stanners Wood 141 1 S 3.24 8.6.04 SH LW F Sundon Wood 162 1 S 5.4 5.5.04 PI LW F Thorn Spring 135 1 S 3.9 3.6.04 PI LW U Blue Lagoon 305 1 M 5 28.7.04 RL LC F
Appendix 2.2: CWS Monitoring Results 2002-05 Blunham Disused Railway 348 1 M 5.2 3.9.04 RL LN U Broadlands 298 1 M 3 13.5.04 PI LW F Bury Farm, HC (King's Wood & grassland) 229 1 M 46 5.7.04 PI LN U Chicksands Aerial Site (c grassland) 290 1 M 16 13.7.04 PI LN F Cockayne Hatley Wood 373 1 M 40 16.6.04 RL LW F Everton Churchyard 374 1 M 0.5 21.7.04 RL LN U Flitton Moor 204 1 M 2.7 9.6.04 PI LN U Flitton Moor 204 2 M 0.5 9.6.04 PI F U Grange Meadow, Haynes 225 1 M 5 29.6.04 PI LN U Grange Meadow, Haynes 225 2 M 5 29.6.04 PI LN U Grange Meadow, Haynes 225 3 M 7 29.6.04 PI LN U Lower Alders 303 1 M 5.1 2.6.04 PI LW F Montague Wood 186 1 M 6 10.5.04 PI LW F Moors Plantation 196 1 M 2.3 28.5.04 PI LW F Nunswood 304 1 M 2.9 17.6.04 RL LW F Palmers Wood 327 1 M 61 26.5.04 RL LW F Patemans Wood 297 1 M 5.9 13.5.04 PI LW F Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 1 M 7.5 2.6.04 PI LW F Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 2 M 2.4 2.7.04 PI F U Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 3 M 2 2.7.04 PI F U Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 4 M 3.1 2.7.04 PI F U Sandy Cemetery 344 1 M 1.7 20.7.04 RL LA F Sir Johns Wood 363 1 M 8.7 15.7.04 RL LW F Stewartby Lake 209 1 M 23 14.6.04 PI LC F Thrift Wood 181 1 M 3.4 27.5.04 PI LW F Utcoate Grange Meadow 42 1 M 0.8 6.7.04 PI LA F Utcoate Grange Meadow 42 2 M 0.5 6.7.04 PI LA U Wood near Washers Wood 49 1 M 2.3 11.5.04 PI LW F Wrest Park Grounds 183 1 M 2 15.6.04 PI LN U Bromham Lake 234 1 B 4.4 18.7.05 PI SW F Bromham Mill (River Gt Ouse) 65 1 B 1.6 20.7.05 PI R F Claphampark Wood 238 1 B 11.6 21.4.05 PI LW F Elstow Pit 212 1 B 13 11.7.05 PI LN U Gadsey Brook (River Gt Ouse) 65 1 B 1.9 21.7.05 PI R U Gadsey Brook (River Gt Ouse) 65 2 B 2.1 21.7.05 PI R F Harrold Odell Country Park 70 1 B 3 22.7.05 PI LW F Harrold Odell Country Park 70 sw 1 B 22 22.7.05 PI SW U Harrold Odell Country Park 70 sw 2 B 4.2 22.7.05 PI SW U Harrold Odell Country Park 70 sw 3 B 0.4 22.7.05 PI SW F Harrold Odell Country Park 70 sw 4 B 0.5 22.7.05 PI SW F
Appendix 2.2: CWS Monitoring Results 2002-05 Harrold Odell Country Park 70 sw 5 B 0.1 22.7.05 PI SW F Harrold Odell Country Park 70 sw 6 B 0.9 22.7.05 PI SW F Harrold Odell Country Park 70 7 B 3.5 22.7.05 PI R F Judge's Spinney 235 1 B 1.8 27.5.05 PI LW F Pinchmill Islands (River Gt Ouse) 65 1 B 1.6 20.7.05 PI R F Turvey - Bromham Disused Railway 69 1 B 5.7 23.6.05 PI LN U West Wood 106 1 B 81.7 21.4.05 PI LW F Wilstead Wood 219 1 B 67 16.5.05 PI LW F Cottage Bottom Field (Blows Down) 136/2 1 S 10 22.6.05 PI LC F The Paddocks 763 1 S 4.1 22.6.05 PI LN U Whipsnade Heath 118 1 S 11 14.6.05 PI LW F Whipsnade Heath 118 2 S 1.5 14.6.05 PI LN U Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 1 S 3.6 15.7.05 PI LN U Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 1 S 0.24 15.7.05 PI SW F Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 2 S 0.1 15.7.05 PI SW F Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 3 S 0.19 15.7.05 PI SW F Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 4 S 0.12 15.7.05 PI SW F Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 5 S 0.05 15.7.05 PI SW F Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 6 S 0.18 15.7.05 PI SW F Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 7 S 0.36 15.7.05 PI SW U Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 8 S 0.02 15.7.05 PI SW U Churchways Quarry (Double Arches) 18 sw 9 S 0.5 15.7.05 PI SW F Arlesey Meadows 309 1 M 17 15.7.05 RL LN U Biggleswade Common 340 1 M 130 13.7.05 RL LN U Bottom Wood 333 1 M 6.2 26.4.05 PI LW F Bunkers Hill 342 1 M 32 28.7.05 RL LA U Chicksands Wood 316 1 M 109 12.5.05 PI LW F College Wood 337 1 M 60 14.5.05 RL LW F Everton Hill 359 1 M 1.5 16.7.05 RL LN U Flitwick Moor 204 1 M 4.7 7.7.05 PI LN U Flitwick Moor 204 2 M 1.3 7.7.05 PI LN U Great Barford Gravel Pits 349 1 M 5.1 21.7.05 PI SW U Henlow Common/Langford Meadows 339 1 M 18 28.6.05 PI LN U Heydon Hill 174 1 M 1.9 8.6.05 PI LW U Heydon Hill 174 2 M 6.8 8.6.05 PI LA U Home Wood 335 1 M 60 26.5.05 RL LW F Horsemoor Farm Marsh 35 1 M 2.1 27.6.05 PI F U Kettledean Farm Grassland 296 1 M 2.1 1.7.05 PI LC F Keyse's Spinney & Pasture 217 1 M 4.3 16.6.05 PI LW F Keyse's Spinney & Pasture 217 2 M 2.5 16.6.05 PI LN U
Appendix 2.2: CWS Monitoring Results 2002-05 Millbrook Complex 175 1 M 3.1 17.6.05 PI LA U Millbrook Complex 175 2 M 0.2 17.6.05 PI F F Mogerhanger Park 334 1 M 8.9 22.7.05 RL LN U Old Warden Tunnel 323 1 M 3.4 5.7.05 RL LC U Pegsdon Grasslands 293 1 M 1.9 30.6.05 PI LC U Potsgrove Grasslands 40 1 M 45 27.6.05 PI LN U Potton Wood 372 1 M 8 14.7.05 RL LW F Rowney Warren 321 1 M 4 6.7.05 PI LH U Sandy Disused Railway 369 1 M 17 15.7.05 RL LN U Swiss Garden Woodland 346 1 M 3 26.5.05 PI LW F The Pinnacle 598 1 M 5.9 12.7.05 RL LA U Upper Alders 301 1 M 16.5 29.7.05 PI LW F Upper Alders 301 2 M 16.5 29.7.05 PI F F Washer's & Daintry Woods 50 1 M 62.5 23.5.05 PI LW U
Haynes Church End Marsh 220 1 M 3.5 4.6.04 PI F Destroyed
Above data taken from:
Condition Recording System for County Wildlife Sites' prepared on behalf of Mid Beds DC and the Beds & Luton Wildlife Working Group by the Greensand Trust, June 2002, Phil Irving.
Mid Beds County Wildlife Site Work 2003' prepared on behalf of Mid Beds DC by the Greensand Trust, December 2003, Phil Irving.
County Wildlife Site Monitoring & Survey Work 2004' carried out on behalf of Mid Beds DC & Beds CC by the Greensand Trust, the Ivel & Ouse Countryside Project and the North Chilterns Trust, September 2004, Phil Irving.
County Wildlife Site Condition Monitoring Programme 2005' carried out on behalf of Mid Beds DC, Beds CC and the Forestry Commission by the Greensand Trust and the Ivel & Ouse Countryside Project, September 2005, Phil Irving.
Appendix 2.2: CWS Monitoring Results 2002-05 Site Grid Ref District Area (ha) Status Management Details Access situation Kempston Wood SP 995470 BB 16.5 CWS owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Swineshead & Spanoak Woods TL 065668 BB 46 SSSI owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Gulliver's Spinney & Church Farm SP 985615 BB 2.7 owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Land near Water End (Cople) TL 104478 BB 3.3 owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Wilstead Wood TL 072425 BB 61 CWS owned by Haynes Park, part managed by Park, part by FE permissive access West Wood SP 993625 BB 84 CWS owned & managed by FE open access Begwary Brook TL 169564 BB 7.12 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Cople Pits TL 103492 BB 1.86 CWS owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Felmersham Gravel Pits SP 991584 BB 21.19 SSSI owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Pavenham Osier Beds SP 990551 BB 1.4 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Sharnbrook Summit SP 963626 BB 8.82 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Wymington Meadow SP 959632 BB 1.48 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Fenlake Meadows, Bedford TL 067486 BB 24 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Mowsbury Hill, Bedford TL 066532 BB 3 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Park Wood, Bedford TL 046520 BB 4.6 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Putnoe Wood, Bedford TL 065516 BB 11 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Brown's Wood, Clapham TL 025545 BB 6 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Hill Rise, Bedford TL 045508 BB 1 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Priory Country Park, Bedford TL 075490 BB 100 owned & managed by BBC open access Biddenham Loop Country Park TL 014495 BB 26.3 owned & managed by BBC open access Hillgrounds, Kempston TL 039489 BB 30 owned & managed by BBC open access Bromham Lake TL 027515 BB 10.8 LNR/CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Harrold/Odell CP SP 960570 BB 58.7 CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Stevington Country Walk SP 995525 BB 10 CWS (part) owned & managed by Beds CC open access Clapham Park Wood TL 047531 BB 11.5 CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Crow Hill Farm, Wilden TL 083552 BB 6 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Milton Ernest Access TL 023563 BB 0.5 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2011) Oakley Open Area SP 004529 BB 5.8 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2012) Stafford Bridge Meadows, Oakley TL 005548 BB 7.4 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Buttons Ramsey Community Woodland TL 004467 BB 8 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Dog Field, Cople TL 102492 BB 5.5 owned by Beds CC, managed by Forest of Marston Vale open access Ridgeway Wood Community Woodland TL 015465 BB 13.4 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Van Diemans Land TL 020455 BB 8 leased & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Castle Close, Sharnbrook SP 989594 BB 3.5 CWS owned & managed by Sharnbrook Parish Council open access Shocott Spring TL 080453 BB 25 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Osier Bed Plantation TL 089488 BB 2.44 managed under WGS permissive access Salem Thrift SP 991515 BB 7.73 CWS Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access Yelnow New Wood SP 973592 BB 15.9 owned & managed by Beds CC open access Judges Spinney TL 018542 BB 1.6 CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Bramingham Wood TL 069259 LB 15.5 CWS owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Dallow Downs TL 075215 LB 40 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Fallowfield TL 082240 LB 5 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Leagrave Marsh TL 058246 LB 6 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Bradgers Hill TL 087243 LB 10 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Cowslip Meadow TL 082246 LB 6 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Castle Croft with Bluebell Wood TL 074206 LB 9 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Limbury Meads TL 070243 LB 5 owned & managed by LBC open access Riverside Walk TL 088235 LB 6 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access
Appendix 3: Sites managed for nature conservation with public access in Bedfordshire, April 2006 Stopsley Common with Hay Wood TL 103244 LB 20 owned & managed by LBC open access Slaughter's Wood and Green Lanes TL 119228 LB 5.99 CWS managed under WGS permissive access woodland to north of Luton Airport TL 125220 LB 6.99 Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access Reynold & Holcot Woods SP 962391 MB 97.8 CWS (part) owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Plummer's Copse, Haynes TL 098415 MB 1 owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Maulden Wood TL 074387 MB 142 SSSI owned & managed by FE open access Chicksands Wood TL 100400 MB 114 CWS owned by Crown Estates, leased & managed by FE permissive access Rowney Warren TL 120405 MB 110 CWS owned by Southill Estate, part managed by Estate & part by FE permissive access Potton Wood TL 252502 MB 94.8 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by FE open access College Wood TL 142470 MB 13 CWS owned & managed by FE open access Stanford Wood TL 160406 MB 24 owned by Southill Estate, managed by FE permissive access Arlesey Old Moat TL 189373 MB 2.12 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Cooper's Hill TL 028376 MB 12.95 LNR/SSSI owned by Ampthill TC, managed by Wildlife Trust open access Cut Throat Meadow TL 040381 MB 1.58 CWS (part) part-owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Flitwick Moor TL 046354 MB 38.46 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by BCC & Wildlife Trust open access Glebe Meadows, Arlesey TL 189376 MB 2.14 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Old Warden Tunnel TL 114446 MB 3.32 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Pegsdon Hills TL 120295 MB 74.39 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access The Riddy TL 167487 MB 7.68 LNR owned by Sandy TC, managed by Wildlife Trust & IOCP open access Warren Villas TL 182472 MB 8.9 managed by Wildlife Trust open access Campton Plantation TL 130389 MB 15.4 CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Duck End, Maulden TL 051375 MB 0.84 CWS owned by BCC, managed by GST open access Flitton Moor TL 056360 MB 5.3 LNR/CWS owned & managed by BCC open access Flitwick Wood TL 024348 MB 13.4 LNR/CWS owned by BCC, managed by FVEG open access Henlow Common & Langford Meadow TL 184405 MB 19 LNR/CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access King's Wood & Glebe Meadows TL 045403 MB 40 LNR/SSSI owned & managed by BCC open access Marston Thrift SP 973418 MB 56.4 LNR/SSSI/CWS leased & managed by BCC open access Maulden Church Meadows TL 059382 MB 3.4 LNR/SSSI owned & managed by BCC open access Rushymeade, Pulloxhill TL 064338 MB 7 CWS owned by Pulloxhill PC, managed with GST open access Aspley Woods (Wavendon Heath Ponds) SP 930338 MB 3 SSSI owned & managed by Bedford Estates access agreement with BCC & GST Marston Vale Millennium CP TL 005414 MB 75 CWS (part) owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Ampthill Park TL 025385 MB 61 CWS (part) owned & managed by Ampthill TC open access Arlesey Bridge Meadows TL 188382 MB 5.48 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2007) Carts Farm Trust, Gravenhurst TL 120361 MB 9.01 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Chicksands Access TL 131391 MB 2.5 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2011) Deacon Hill TL 125297 MB 36 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2011) Mill Meadows, near Arlesey TL 189364 MB 14.63 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Mill Meadows, Sandy TL 173487 MB 4 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Swiss Garden Woodland TL 148447 MB 3.82 CWS leased from Old Warden Estate, managed by Beds CC open access, on marked paths Sandy Pinnacle TL 178493 MB 5.4 CWS leased by Sandy TC from Pym Estate, managed by IOCP open access Rectory Wood, Cranfield (Tartlett's Close) SP 960418 MB 7.5 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Gannock's Castle, Tempsford TL 160529 MB 0.5 SAM owned by Beds CC, managed by the Friends of Gannock's Castle open access Biggleswade Common TL 192470 MB 118 CWS owned by the Lord of the Manor, managed by Fen Reeves registered common Baulk Wood, Henlow TL 178399 MB 7 owned by MBDC, managed with IOCP open access Drovers Spinney, Shefford TL 144389 MB 0.7 owned by MBDC, managed with IOCP permissive access Belcote Meadow, Shefford TL 149392 MB 2.5 owned & managed by Shefford Town Council open access Old Road Meadow, Meppershall TL 144366 MB 1.8 owned & managed by Meppershall Parish Council open access Knocking Hoe TL 131307 MB 8.5 SSSI/NNR owned by Mr Franklin, managed by WT & EN access through CRoW Act Rectory Wood, Cranfield (Strawberry Hill) SP 970420 MB 8.4 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access
Appendix 3: Sites managed for nature conservation with public access in Bedfordshire, April 2006 Meadhook Wood, Pulloxhill TL 063323 MB 2.52 CWS managed under WGS permissive access Lake View Wood SP 970390 MB 3.93 managed under WGS permissive access woodland between Tingrith and M1 TL 011323 MB 1.22 Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access woodland to north of Sandy TV mast TL 206496 MB 11.83 Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access woodland to north of Potton TL 228503 MB 3.02 Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access woodland in Moggerhanger Park TL 133485 MB 2.49 Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access woodland to east of Houghton Conquest TL 050415 MB 8.13 Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access Centenary Wood TL 060350 MB 13.2 owned & managed by Beds CC open access Barton Gravel Pits TL 098299 SB 1 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with Wildlife Trust open access Blows Downs TL 033216 SB 46.36 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Dropshort Marsh TL 007276 SB 2 SSSI owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access King's Wood, Heath & Reach SP 932298 SB 63.5 SSSI/NNR owned & managed by Lafarge, Wildlife Trust, BCC & GST permissive access Sallowsprings TL 006186 SB 1.2 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Sewell Cutting SP 997227 SB 3.57 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with Wildlife Trust open access Totternhoe Knolls SP 979220 SB 13.7 LNR/SSSI/CWS owned by BCC, managed by National Trust & Wildlife Trust open access Barton Hills TL 090298 SB 44 SSSI/NNR owned & managed by English Nature open access Tiddenfoot Waterside Park SP 915237 SB 11.5 CWS owned by SBDC, managed by GST open access Houghton Hall Park TL 025235 SB 17.5 owned by SBDC & HRTC, managed with GST open access Studham Common TL 025157 SB 28 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with Studham PC & GST open access Whipsnade Green TL 017177 SB 15 owned by ZSL, managed by WG & WH Management Group open access Whipsnade Heath TL 017182 SB 23.6 CWS owned by SBDC & BCC, managed by WG & WH M 'ment Group open access Sandhouse Pit SP 936298 SB 4 CWS owned by Lafarge, managed by GST permissive access Cottage Bottom Field TL 040206 SB 15 LNR/CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Dunstable Downs TL 007204 SB 52.6 SSSI owned by BCC, managed by NT open access Whipsnade Downs TL 001190 SB 38 SSSI owned & managed by NT open access Bluebell (Linslade) Wood SP 907263 SB 5.5 CWS owned by BCC, managed by GST open access Smithcombe Hills TL 073295 SB 17.59 SSSI owned by BCC, managed by National Trust open access Stockgrove CP SP 918291 SB 26 SSSI/CWS owned by BCC, managed by GST open access Sundon Hills CP TL 055290 SB 49.87 SSSI owned by BCC, managed by National Trust open access Linslade Community Woodland SP 905260 SB 32 owned & managed by Leake Family Trust access as long as scheme lasts Galley & Warden Hills TL 092265 SB 52 LNR/SSSI owned & managed by LBC open access Ouzel Meadows (incl. Vimy Rd) SP 919263 SB 15 CWS owned by LLTC & managed by GST open access Sharpenhoe Clappers TL 067303 SB 55 SSSI owned & managed by National Trust open access Moleskin TL 063297 SB 45 SSSI owned & managed by National Trust open access Knolls Wood SP 921270 SB 5.3 owned by SBDC, managed with GST open access Heath Wood & Meadow SP 912274 SB 11.6 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with GST open access Lancot Meadow TL 003217 SB 2.07 CWS managed by the Wildlife Trust open access Totternhoe Quarry SP 985225 SB 8.51 SSSI owned & managed by the Wildlife Trust open access Chews Charity Farm, Dunstable TL 000232 SB 4.04 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2012) Heath & Reach Poors Land SP 919282 SB 3 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2009) Park Farm, Tebworth SP 978266 SB 4.3 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Barton Quarry TL 078296 SB 11.4 CWS owned by Mr & Mrs Thomas, managed by Mr & Mrs Smith access through CRoW Act Stockwell Farm, woodland 1 SP 956261 SB 11.9 managed under WGS permissive access Stockwell Farm, woodland 2 SP 955248 SB 11.86 managed under WGS permissive access Stockwell Farm, woodland 3 SP 955254 SB 8.28 managed under WGS permissive access Kidney Wood TL 093192 SB 7.1 CWS managed under WGS permissive access woodland to north-west of Faldo Farm, Barton TL 070321 SB 3.08 Walkers Welcome England 2005 permissive access
Appendix 3: Sites managed for nature conservation with public access in Bedfordshire, April 2006