DOCSLIB.ORG

Fleet Pond Management Plan 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fleet Pond Management Plan 2015 FLEET POND NATURE RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015 - 2021 1 Site Name Fleet Pond Nature Reserve Location Fleet, North Hampshire Head of Service John Elson Departmental Manager Adam Green Site Ranger Samantha Kerr Plan prepared by N/A Samantha Kerr, Katy Sherman and Nicky Plan updated by Williamson Samantha Kerr, Katy Sherman and Nicky Plan edited by Williamson Date of draft N/A Date of final copy 2015 Reviewed December 2020 Next Review Date Summer 2021 2 Content Table SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & SITE INFORMATION .................................................... 5 1. Preamble ............................................................................................................... 5 2. General Information .............................................................................................. 6 2.1. Location ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2. Land Tenure ................................................................................................. 7 2.3. Management Infrastructure & Resources ..................................................... 7 2.4. Health, Safety & Security .............................................................................. 8 3. Site Information ................................................................................................... 11 3.1. MAP 1 – Fleet Pond Nature Reserve ......................................................... 11 3.2. Access & Structures ................................................................................... 11 3.3. Physical ...................................................................................................... 15 3.4. Biological .................................................................................................... 17 3.5. Cultural ....................................................................................................... 17 3.6. The Restoration Project .............................................................................. 21 3.7. Ecological Enhancements Project .............................................................. 22 SECTION 2 – MANAGEMENT & SITE FEATURES ......................................................... 23 1. Management Aims .............................................................................................. 23 1.1. Management Rationale .............................................................................. 23 1.2. Management Options ................................................................................. 23 1.3. Vision .......................................................................................................... 24 2. Site Features ....................................................................................................... 24 2.1. Overview Of Site Features .......................................................................... 24 2.1.1. Rarity Of Features ............................................................................ 25 2.1.2. Fragility Of Features ......................................................................... 25 2.2. Factors Affecting The Management Of The Features ................................. 26 2.2.1. On Site Natural Factors .................................................................... 26 2.2.2. On Site Man-Induced Factors .......................................................... 27 2.2.3. External Factors ............................................................................... 27 2.2.4. Factors Arising From Legislation Or Tradition .................................. 28 2.3. Site Features Information ........................................................................... 30 FEATURE 1: MAP 2 – The Lake ................................................................. 30 FEATURE 2: MAP 3 – The Islands .............................................................. 34 FEATURE 3: MAP 4 – Streams & Ditches .................................................. 38 FEATURE 4: MAP 5 – Reedbeds ................................................................ 42 FEATURE 5: MAP 6 – Marshes & Fens ...................................................... 47 FEATURE 6: MAP 7 – Wet Heathland ........................................................ 52 FEATURE 7: MAP 8 – Dry Heathland ......................................................... 57 FEATURE 8: MAP 9 – Wet Woodland ........................................................ 61 FEATURE 9: MAP 10 - Dry Mixed Woodland .............................................. 65 FEATURE 10: Invasive Species .................................................................. 69 SECTION 3 – ACTION PLAN ........................................................................................... 71 3. Work Plan Maps .................................................................................................. 76 3.1. Five Year Work Plan: MAP 11 – Reedbeds & Marshes .............................. 76 3.2. Five Year Work Plan: MAP 12 – Woodland Thinning ................................. 77 SECTION 4 – SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................................... 78 SECTION 5 – PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................ 80 1. Fleet Pond Visitor Strategy ................................................................................. 80 2. Health & Wellbeing.............................................................................................. 81 3. Community Involvement ...................................................................................... 82 3.1. Volunteering ............................................................................................... 82 3 3.1.1. The Fleet Pond Society .................................................................... 82 3.1.2. Corporate Volunteering .................................................................... 82 3.1.3. Young Volunteers ............................................................................. 82 3.2. Partnership Working ................................................................................... 83 3.2.1. Other Conservation Organisations ................................................... 83 3.2.2. Other Local Organisations ................................................................ 84 4. Marketing ............................................................................................................ 84 4.1. Website ....................................................................................................... 84 4.2. Social Media ............................................................................................... 85 4.3. Events & Activities ...................................................................................... 85 4.4. Press Releases .......................................................................................... 85 4.5. Interpretation .............................................................................................. 86 4.6. Education .................................................................................................... 86 SECTION 6 – APPENDICES ............................................................................................. 88 1. Site Byelaws ....................................................................................................... 88 2. MAP 13 – Walking Routes .................................................................................. 92 3. MAP 14 – Illustration of the Fleet Pond catchment area ..................................... 93 4. MAP 15 – Loddon Catchment Area .................................................................... 94 5. MAP 16 – Dipwell Locations ............................................................................... 95 6. Biological Records, Surveys Undertaken & Species Lists ................................... 97 7. MAP 17 – Vegetation Communities .................................................................. 101 8. Methods Of Habitat Management ..................................................................... 105 9. Table Of Red & Amber Listed Birds Recorded At Fleet Pond ........................... 108 10. Rare & Notable Species .................................................................................... 110 11. Reedbed Work Plan 2015 To 2021 ................................................................... 125 12. MAP 18 – Invasive Species .............................................................................. 128 MAP 19 – Extent of New Zealand Pygmy Weed ............................................... 129 13. Financial Summary – Prediction Only Resources For Work Within This Plan ... 130 14. Photo Credits .................................................................................................... 130 LIST OF MAPS MAP 1 – Fleet Pond Nature Reserve ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. MAP 2 – The Lake ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. MAP 3 – The Islands ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. MAP 4 – Streams & Ditches ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. MAP 5 – Reedbeds .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. MAP 6 – Marshes & Fens ...................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gazetteer.Doc Revised from 10/03/02
    Save No. 91 Printed 10/03/02 10:33 AM Gazetteer.doc Revised From 10/03/02 Gazetteer compiled by E J Wiseman Abbots Ann SU 3243 Bighton Lane Watercress Beds SU 5933 Abbotstone Down SU 5836 Bishop's Dyke SU 3405 Acres Down SU 2709 Bishopstoke SU 4619 Alice Holt Forest SU 8042 Bishops Sutton Watercress Beds SU 6031 Allbrook SU 4521 Bisterne SU 1400 Allington Lane Gravel Pit SU 4717 Bitterne (Southampton) SU 4413 Alresford Watercress Beds SU 5833 Bitterne Park (Southampton) SU 4414 Alresford Pond SU 5933 Black Bush SU 2515 Amberwood Inclosure SU 2013 Blackbushe Airfield SU 8059 Amery Farm Estate (Alton) SU 7240 Black Dam (Basingstoke) SU 6552 Ampfield SU 4023 Black Gutter Bottom SU 2016 Andover Airfield SU 3245 Blackmoor SU 7733 Anton valley SU 3740 Blackmoor Golf Course SU 7734 Arlebury Lake SU 5732 Black Point (Hayling Island) SZ 7599 Ashlett Creek SU 4603 Blashford Lakes SU 1507 Ashlett Mill Pond SU 4603 Blendworth SU 7113 Ashley Farm (Stockbridge) SU 3730 Bordon SU 8035 Ashley Manor (Stockbridge) SU 3830 Bossington SU 3331 Ashley Walk SU 2014 Botley Wood SU 5410 Ashley Warren SU 4956 Bourley Reservoir SU 8250 Ashmansworth SU 4157 Boveridge SU 0714 Ashurst SU 3310 Braishfield SU 3725 Ash Vale Gravel Pit SU 8853 Brambridge SU 4622 Avington SU 5332 Bramley Camp SU 6559 Avon Castle SU 1303 Bramshaw Wood SU 2516 Avon Causeway SZ 1497 Bramshill (Warren Heath) SU 7759 Avon Tyrrell SZ 1499 Bramshill Common SU 7562 Backley Plain SU 2106 Bramshill Police College Lake SU 7560 Baddesley Common SU 3921 Bramshill Rubbish Tip SU 7561 Badnam Creek (River
    [Show full text]
  • A Baseline Invertebrate Survey of the Knepp Estate - 2015
    A baseline invertebrate survey of the Knepp Estate - 2015 Graeme Lyons May 2016 1 Contents Page Summary...................................................................................... 3 Introduction.................................................................................. 5 Methodologies............................................................................... 15 Results....................................................................................... 17 Conclusions................................................................................... 44 Management recommendations........................................................... 51 References & bibliography................................................................. 53 Acknowledgements.......................................................................... 55 Appendices.................................................................................... 55 Front cover: One of the southern fields showing dominance by Common Fleabane. 2 0 – Summary The Knepp Wildlands Project is a large rewilding project where natural processes predominate. Large grazing herbivores drive the ecology of the site and can have a profound impact on invertebrates, both positive and negative. This survey was commissioned in order to assess the site’s invertebrate assemblage in a standardised and repeatable way both internally between fields and sections and temporally between years. Eight fields were selected across the estate with two in the north, two in the central block
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Sincs Hampshire.Pdf
    Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) within Hampshire © Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre No part of this documentHBIC may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recoding or otherwise without the prior permission of the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre Central Grid SINC Ref District SINC Name Ref. SINC Criteria Area (ha) BD0001 Basingstoke & Deane Straits Copse, St. Mary Bourne SU38905040 1A 2.14 BD0002 Basingstoke & Deane Lee's Wood SU39005080 1A 1.99 BD0003 Basingstoke & Deane Great Wallop Hill Copse SU39005200 1A/1B 21.07 BD0004 Basingstoke & Deane Hackwood Copse SU39504950 1A 11.74 BD0005 Basingstoke & Deane Stokehill Farm Down SU39605130 2A 4.02 BD0006 Basingstoke & Deane Juniper Rough SU39605289 2D 1.16 BD0007 Basingstoke & Deane Leafy Grove Copse SU39685080 1A 1.83 BD0008 Basingstoke & Deane Trinley Wood SU39804900 1A 6.58 BD0009 Basingstoke & Deane East Woodhay Down SU39806040 2A 29.57 BD0010 Basingstoke & Deane Ten Acre Brow (East) SU39965580 1A 0.55 BD0011 Basingstoke & Deane Berries Copse SU40106240 1A 2.93 BD0012 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood North SU40305590 1A 3.63 BD0013 Basingstoke & Deane The Oaks Grassland SU40405920 2A 1.12 BD0014 Basingstoke & Deane Sidley Wood South SU40505520 1B 1.87 BD0015 Basingstoke & Deane West Of Codley Copse SU40505680 2D/6A 0.68 BD0016 Basingstoke & Deane Hitchen Copse SU40505850 1A 13.91 BD0017 Basingstoke & Deane Pilot Hill: Field To The South-East SU40505900 2A/6A 4.62
    [Show full text]
  • Coarse Fishing Close Season on English Rivers
    Coarse fishing close season on English rivers Appendix 1 – Current coarse fish close season arrangements The close season on different waters In England, there is a coarse fish close season on all rivers, some canals and some stillwaters. This has not always been the case. In the 1990s, only around 60% of the canal network had a close season and in some regions, the close season had been dispensed with on all stillwaters. Stillwaters In 1995, following consultation, government confirmed a national byelaw which retained the coarse fish close season on rivers, streams, drains and canals, but dispensed with it on most stillwaters. The rationale was twofold: • Most stillwaters are discrete waterbodies in single ownership. Fishery owners can apply bespoke angling restrictions to protect their stocks, including non-statutory close times. • The close season had been dispensed with on many stillwaters prior to 1995 without apparent detriment to those fisheries. This presented strong evidence in favour of removing it. The close season is retained on some Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, as a precaution against possible damage to sensitive wildlife - see Appendix 1. This consultation is not seeking views on whether the close season should be retained on these stillwaters While most stillwater fishery managers have not re-imposed their own close season rules, some have, either adopting the same dates as apply to rivers or tailoring them to their waters' specific needs. Canals The Environment Agency commissioned a research project in 1997 to examine the evidence around the close season on canals to identify whether or not angling during the close season was detrimental to canal fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Three Trapping Methods Used to Survey Forest-Dwelling Coleoptera
    Eur. J. Entomol. 103: 397–407, 2006 ISSN 1210-5759 A comparison of three trapping methods used to survey forest-dwelling Coleoptera ESKO HYVÄRINEN, JARI KOUKI and PETRI MARTIKAINEN Faculty of Forest Sciences, University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FIN – 80101 Joensuu, Finland; e-mail: [email protected] Keywords. Abundance distribution, beetles, biodiversity inventories, boreal forest, Coleoptera, interception traps, pitfall traps, sampling, species richness, window traps Abstract. Sampling of insect communities is very challenging and for reliable interpretation of results the effects of different sam- pling protocols and data processing on the results need to be fully understood. We compared three different commonly used methods for sampling forest beetles, freely hanging flight-intercept (window) traps (FWT), flight-intercept traps attached to trunks (TWT) and pitfall traps placed in the ground (PFT), in Scots pine dominated boreal forests in eastern Finland. Using altogether 960 traps, forming 576 sub-samples, at 24 study sites, 59760 beetles belonging to 814 species were collected over a period of a month. All of the material was identified to species, with the exception of a few species pairs, to obtain representative data for analyses. Four partly overlapping groups were used in the analyses: (1) all, (2) saproxylic, (3) rare and (4) red-listed species. In terms of the number of species collected TWTs were the most effective for all species groups and the rarer species the species group composed of (groups 1-2-3-4) the larger were the differences between the trap types. In particular, the TWTs caught most red-listed species. However, when sample sizes were standardized FWTs and TWTs caught similar number of species of all species groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Elvetham Heath Management Plan
    ELVETHAM HEATH LOCAL NATURE RESERVE & OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2011 - 2021 1 Site Name Elvetham Heath LNR & Open Spaces Location Fleet, North Hampshire Head of Service John Elson Departmental Manager Adam Green Site Ranger Samantha Kerr Plan prepared by Timothy Ackroyd Plan updated by Leigh Wallace Plan edited by Leigh Wallace Date of draft April 2011 Date of final copy January 2012 Reviewed December 2020 Next Review Date Summer 2021 2 Content Table SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION & SITE INFORMATION .................................................... 5 1. Management Aims ...................................................................................................... 5 2. Location ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Land Tenure ................................................................................................................ 6 4. Site Information ........................................................................................................... 6 5. Legal Obligations ......................................................................................................... 7 6. Healthy, Safe & Secure ............................................................................................... 7 7. MAP 1 – Site map Elvetham Heath Nature Reserve ................................................... 9 8. Site Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 9
    [Show full text]
  • Fleet Pond Management Plan
    Fleet Pond Management Plan 2015 – 2020 1. Introduction and Site Information 5 1.1. Preamble 5 1.2. General Information 6 1.2.1. Location 6 1.2.2. Land Tenure 7 1.2.3. Management Infrastructure and Resources 7 1.2.4. Health, Safety and Security 8 1.3. Site Information 10 1.3.1. Site Map 10 1.3.2. Access and Structures 10 1.3.3. Physical 14 1.3.3.1. Climate 14 1.3.3.2. Hydrology 14 1.3.3.3. Geology 15 1.3.3.4. Geomorphology 15 1.3.3.5. Soils 16 1.3.4. Biological 16 1.3.4.1. Communities 16 1.3.5. Cultural 16 1.3.5.1. Archaeology and Past Land Use 16 1.3.5.2. Present Land Use 17 1.3.5.3. Present Conservation Status 18 1.3.5.4. Environmental Relationships and Implications for 18 Management 1.3.5.5. Surrounding Landscape 19 1.3.6. Restoration Project 20 2. Management and Site Features 21 2.1. Management 21 2.1.1. Aims 21 2.1.2. Management Rationale 22 2.1.3. Management Options 22 2.1.4. Vision 22 2.2. Site Features 23 2.2.1. Overview of Site Features 23 2.2.1.1. Rarity of Features 23 2.2.1.2. Fragility of Features 23 2.2.2. Factors Affecting the Management of the Features 24 2.2.2.1. On Site Natural Factors 24 2.2.2.2. On Site Man-induced Factors 25 2.2.2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Jan to Jun 2011
    Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Isle of Wight Branch Page 1 of 18 Butterfly Conservation Hampshire and Saving butterflies, moths and our environment Isle of Wight Branch HOME ABOUT US EVENTS CONSERVATION HANTS & IOW SPECIES SIGHTINGS PUBLICATIONS LINKS MEMBER'S AREA Thursday 30th June Christine Reeves reports from Ash Lock Cottage (SU880517) where the following observations were made: Purple Emperor (1 "Rather battered specimen"). "Following the excitement of seeing our first Purple Emperor inside our office yesterday, exactly the same thing happened again today at around 9.45am. The office door was open and we spotted a butterfly on the inside of the window, on closer inspection we realised it was a Purple Emperor. It was much smaller than the one we had seen the day before and more battered. However we were able to take pictures of it, in fact the butterfly actually climbed onto one of the cameras and remained there for a while. It then climbed from camera to hand, and we took it outside for more pictures before it eventually flew off. It seemed to be feeding off the hand.". Purple Empeor Purple Empeor Terry Hotten writes: "A brief walk around Hazeley Heath this morning produced a fresh Small Tortoiseshell along with Marbled Whites, Silver- studded Blues in reasonable numbers along with Meadow Browns, Ringlets and Large and Small Skippers." peter gardner reports from highcross froxfield (SU712266) where the following observations were made: Red Admiral (1 "purched on an hot window "). Red Admiral (RWh) Bob Whitmarsh reports from Plague Pits Valley, St Catherine's Hill (SU485273) where the following observations were made: Marbled White (23), Meadow Brown (41), Small Heath (7), Small Skipper (2), Ringlet (2), Red Admiral (3), Small Tortoiseshell (4), Small White (2), Comma (1).
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Action Plan for Hart 2018 – 2023
    Biodiversity Action Plan for Hart 2018 – 2023 Contents Introduction………………………………………,,,,,,………………… 3 Purpose of this Action plan………………………………..…………… 4 Biodiversity Achievements 2012-17……………………….….…...…… 5 What is biodiversity and why is it important? …………..…………….. 7 Overview of the biodiversity resource in Hart …………..…...………. 9 Designated sites in Hart…………………………...……..…………… 11 Nature conservation sites managed by HDC………….………..….… 17 Action Plan 2018-23………………………………….…………….…. 19 2 1. Introduction 1.1 The natural environment in Hart has experienced large changes over the past century, in common with most of south eastern England. However, there remains an extremely diverse natural environment in the district, rich in different habitats and species. Hart is characterised by a mosaic of farmland, ancient woodlands, lowland heathlands and water courses. There is also a varied built environment from newer towns such as Fleet and Yateley to rural towns and villages such as Odiham and Hartley Wintney which all contain features which contribute to overall biodiversity resource. 1.2 The publication of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act in 2006 makes biodiversity an important consideration for all local authorities. Section 40 of this act sets out the duty to conserve biodiversity: “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”. 1.3 The adoption of the first Hart Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) in 2012 helped translate national and regional targets into local action, whilst also highlighting species and areas of local importance. The first Hart BAP was implemented by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer in partnership with other groups such as the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC), Hart Countryside Services, Parish Councils, friends of groups and other council departments.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Today for Nature Tomorrow
    Report Number 574 Revision of the Index of Ecological Continuity as used for saproxylic beetles English Nature Research Reports working today for nature tomorrow English Nature Research Reports Number 574 Revision of the Index of Ecological Continuity as used for saproxylic beetles Keith N A Alexander 59 Sweetbrier Lane Heavitree Exeter EX1 3AQ You may reproduce as many additional copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA ISSN 0967-876X © Copyright English Nature 2004 Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Jon Webb for initiating this project and to the many recorders who have made their species lists available over the years. The formation of the Ancient Tree Forum has brought together a wide range of disciplines involved in tree management and conservation, and has led to important cross-fertilisation of ideas which have enhanced the ecological understanding of the relationships between tree and fungal biology, on the one hand, and saproxylic invertebrates, on the other. This has had tremendous benefits in promoting good conservation practices. Summary The saproxylic beetle Index of Ecological Continuity (IEC) was originally developed as a means of producing a simple statistic which could be used in grading a site for its significance to the conservation of saproxylic (wood-decay) beetles based on ecological considerations rather than rarity. The approach has received good recognition by the conservation agencies and several important sites have been designated as a result of this approach to interpreting site species lists as saproxylic assemblages of ecological significance. The Index is based on a listing of the species thought likely to be the remnants of the saproxylic beetle assemblage of Britain’s post-glacial wildwood, and which have survived through a history of wood pasture management systems in certain refugia.
    [Show full text]
  • Other Material
    272 HAMPSHIRE FIELD CLUB INSECTS IN HAMPSHIRE, 1933 By F. H. HAINES HE summer of 1933, remarkable for drought and the amount of long-continued sunshine and heat, reacted on insects, T especially Lepidoptera, on the whole favourably. Times of appearance were very early, migrants numerous, and species normally single or double-brooded often produced an extra brood. But many, such as dragonflies, were soon over. February was wet, April dry, but June had one very heavy storm here (1.59ms. in 24 hours). The absence of rain was particularly noticeable later in-the year : in August, November and December. Orthoptera (Earwigs, Cockroaches, Crickets and Grass­ hoppers). The species of Ectobia were abundant and early, as was Nemobius sylvestris F., and grasshoppers : Pholidoptera griseoaptera De G. in the New Forest in August, Metrioptera albopunctata Gz. near Ringwood, M. brachyptera L., Conocephalus dorsalis 'Latr., Meconema thalassinum De G. and Leptophyes punctatissima Bosc. in the Forest. Tetrix subulatus L. was common, and hibernated T. bipunctatus L. was met with here very early. Goytphocerus maculatus Thunb. was everywhere in the wild, dry places around through summer and autumn, its colour, as usual, varying endlessly with that of its surroundings. The large Mecostethus grossus L., not uncommon in the forest bogs, and usually on Linwood Bog, was strangely, conditions being so favourable, not found here this year. Omocestus rufipes Zett. was not nearly so common on the heath as was O. viridulus L. on the grass. It was still abundant, basking in the sun on the woodwork of the house here, and else­ where, late in October.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item: 6
    Agenda Item: 6 HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Decision Report Decision Maker: Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Public Health Date of Decision: 30 July 2014 Title: Supporting People: Changes to Budget, Services Commissioned and Commissioning Responsibilities Reference: 5887 Report From: Director of Adult Services Contact name: Martha Fowler-Dixon Tel: 01962 832181 Email: [email protected] 1. Executive Summary 1.1. This report outlines the proposed changes to the Supporting People programme. These changes are being proposed as part of a reorganisation of preventative services to enable the Adult Services department to meet its legal obligations to people with the highest needs within reducing financial support from Government. Reductions in the Supporting People budget for 2014/15 were agreed by Hampshire County Council on 20 February 2014, when it set the budget for 2014/15. That same report identified the potential for further reductions in 2015/16 in the Supporting People budget. This report sets out how those reductions are proposed to be achieved. 1.2. This paper provides information about the existing and proposed future resources, service levels and governance proposals for the following client groups, who do not meet eligibility criteria and who have been supported by the Supporting People programme: a) People considered to be socially excluded, including homeless people, people with mental health problems and ex-offenders b) Older people c) People with a long-term disability, including learning disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory impairments 1.3. Prevention and Early Intervention services, such as Supporting People services, have always been integral to Adult Services’ strategy.
    [Show full text]