DOCSLIB.ORG

Ashford Cluster Risk Profile

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ashford Cluster Risk Profile Review of Emergency Response Provision: Ashford Cluster Risk Profile RERP - Ashford Cluster Risk Profile Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 Description of Cluster ............................................................................................................ 5 Cluster Demographics and Population Risk Factors.............................................................. 6 Deprivation ............................................................................................................................ 9 Overall Cluster Risk ............................................................................................................ 10 Dwellings ......................................................................................................................... 10 Special Service ................................................................................................................ 11 Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................................... 12 Cluster Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................... 13 Building Usage as a Risk Identifier ...................................................................................... 15 Other Building Risk ............................................................................................................. 16 Sleeping Accommodation Risk ........................................................................................ 16 Hospitals ...................................................................................................................... 17 Care Homes ................................................................................................................. 18 HMOs .......................................................................................................................... 19 Hotels .......................................................................................................................... 20 Non Sleeping Accommodation Risk ................................................................................. 21 Factories or Warehouses ............................................................................................. 22 Further Education Establishments ............................................................................... 23 Licensed Premises ....................................................................................................... 24 Offices ......................................................................................................................... 25 Premises Open to the Public ........................................................................................ 26 Other Sleeping Accommodation ................................................................................... 27 Other Workplaces ........................................................................................................ 28 Public Buildings............................................................................................................ 29 Schools ........................................................................................................................ 30 Shops .......................................................................................................................... 31 Specific Risks within the Cluster ......................................................................................... 32 COMAH Sites...................................................................................................................... 34 Infrastructure Risk ............................................................................................................... 35 Roads .............................................................................................................................. 36 Rail .................................................................................................................................. 38 Aviation ........................................................................................................................... 39 Ports ................................................................................................................................ 40 Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI) ........................................................................... 41 Flooding .............................................................................................................................. 42 Existing KFRS Arrangements .............................................................................................. 43 Future Development ........................................................................................................... 45 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 46 Major Developments ........................................................................................................ 46 2 RERP - Ashford Cluster Risk Profile Chilmington Green ....................................................................................................... 46 Cheeseman’s Green .................................................................................................... 47 Junction 10a of the M20 ............................................................................................... 48 3 RERP - Ashford Cluster Risk Profile Introduction In order to effectively assess the fire cover provision which is required to achieve the stated aims of the Authority an assessment of the risk factors for Kent and Medway needs to be undertaken. This document forms part of a suite of Risk Profile documents which segment the county into 19 geographically identifiable areas thereby allowing for a simplification of the assessment of the county wide risk. Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority (KMFRA) divide the county into 19 clusters based on internal working arrangements and the day to day work activities of its personnel. These clusters have been in use since 2011 to analyse and report incident activity, creating a wealth of information which is used to gain a deep understanding of activity within each cluster. It therefore follows that these clusters be used as a backdrop to provide risk information, as this allows for a continuity of analysis across the RERP2 project. The map below illustrates these clusters. Information regarding risk factors has been obtained from a number of sources in order to provide a detailed level of risk for each individual cluster. Much of the data within this document has been derived from information provided by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) a Government department charged with the collection and publication of statistics related to the economy, population and society. In March 2011 the 4 RERP - Ashford Cluster Risk Profile ONS conducted the most recent census of the population. It is this information which is used extensively throughout this document as the most accurate societal data available. Each Local Authority within Kent and Medway has produced a Local Development Plan. These documents detail the strategic developments which are planned for their area of responsibility, and as such are referenced to give an indication of the future risk within the cluster. KMFRA has significant experience in planning for emergencies in sites of specific risk; as such numerous sites have been identified through previous internal work. These sites have been included within this document. This document describes the risk factors found in the Ashford cluster. Description of Cluster The Ashford cluster covers a geographical area of approximately 132 square miles and has a population of 97,758 people, a figure which represents 5.66% of Kent and Medway’s population. A map showing the cluster can be seen below. 5 RERP - Ashford Cluster Risk Profile Cluster Demographics and Population Risk Factors The most current and widely available information with which to highlight population risk factors is the 2011 census data. This data has been used to describe the community composition of each cluster. The following charts and tables provide information regarding the population, age and gender of the community who live within the Ashford cluster. The male to female ratio, age breakdown by gender and composite age breakdown are comparable to the Kent and Medway average. 6 RERP - Ashford Cluster Risk Profile Household types Total % One Family - Married or Civil Partnership Couple - Dependent Children 7,140 18.24 One Person - Other 5,623 14.36 One Family - Married or Civil Partnership Couple - No Children 5,432 13.88 One Person - Aged 65 and Over 4,210 10.75 One Family - All Aged 65 and Over 3,244 8.29 One Family - Lone Parent - Dependent Children 3,004 7.67 One Family - Cohabiting Couple - No Children 2,289 5.85 One Family - Married or Civil Partnership Couple - All Children Non-Dependent 2,219 5.67 One Family - Cohabiting Couple - Dependent Children 2,072 5.29 Other - Other 1,354 3.46 One Family - Lone Parent - All Children Non-Dependent 1,229 3.14 Other - With Dependent Children 989 2.53 One Family - Cohabiting Couple - All Children Non-Dependent 205 0.52 Other - All Aged 65 and Over 129 0.33 Other - All Full-Time Students 7 0.02 Total households
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review Examination
    FHDC EX034 Folkestone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review Examination Update position regarding Natural England’s concerns in relation to the excessive nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous) which are impacting on the Stodmarsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the impact of the Core Strategy Review and in particular the proposed New Garden Settlement 30 October 2020 Folkestone & Hythe District Council – Update on Discussions with Natural England Update position regarding Natural England’s concerns in relation to the excessive nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous) which are impacting on the Stodmarsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the impact of the Core Strategy Review and in particular the proposed New Garden Settlement 1. Introduction The purpose of this correspondence is to set out where progress has been made regarding Natural England’s concerns in relation to the excessive nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous) which are impacting on the Stodmarsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the impact of the Core Strategy Review and in particular the proposed New Garden Settlement. 2. Chronology The below provides a chronology of representation issued by both Natural England and Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC), as well as the advancement of supporting technical work. Regulation 19 response was issued by Natural England to the District Council dated 11th March 2019, and a copy is provided in Appendix A. The Regulation 19 response raised no issue in relation to the matter of nutrient neutrality regarding Stodmarsh designated sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2017 Ashford Borough
    ASHFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL EXAMINATION LIBRARY SD10 Ashford Borough Council INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN 2017 1 CONTENTS Introduction p3 Background and context p5 Prioritisation p7 Overview of Infrastructure p12 Theme 1: Transport p13 Theme 2: Education p24 Theme 3: Energy p28 Theme 4: Water p32 Theme 5: Health and Social Care p38 Theme 6: Community Facilities p43 Theme 7: Sport and Recreation p47 Theme 8: Green Infrastructure / Biodiversity p54 Theme 9: Waste and Recycling p64 Theme 10: Public Realm p66 Theme 11: Art and Cultural Industries p67 Appendix 1: Links to evidence and management plans Appendix 2: Examples of letters to stakeholders and providers Appendix 3 & 4: Responses from our requests for information Appendix 5: Liaison with key stakeholders Appendix 6: The growth scenarios tested 2 Introduction 1.1 This Infrastructure Plan has been produced by Ashford Borough Council (the Council). The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) provides: • background and context to key infrastructure that has been delivered recently or is in the process of being delivered, • an analysis of existing infrastructure provision, • stresses in the current provision, • what is needed to meet the existing and future needs and demands for the borough to support new development and a growing population, as envisaged through the Council’s emerging Local Plan 2030. 1.2 The IDP has been informed through discussion and consultation with relevant service providers operating in the Borough, alongside reviewing existing evidence and publications (such as management plans). 1.3 The IDP is supported by various appendices, as follows: • Appendix 1: Links to evidence and management plans – several stakeholders steered us towards their respective management plans and publications as a way of responding to our consultation and questions.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Landscape Assessment of Kent
    The Landscape Assessment of Kent October 2004 Prepared for Kent County Council by Jacobs Babtie Kent County Council Invicta House County Hall Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX Tel: 01622 221537 Jacobs Babtie Miller House Lower Stone Street Maidstone Kent ME15 6GB Tel: 01622 666000 Produced with the financial support of the European Regional Development Fund Front cover photograph courtesy of Jason Mitchell EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kentish landscape has evolved over many hundreds of years. It has been created by the interaction of the natural environment and human activities, in particular the combination of physical, biological and cultural influences. Physical influences such as geology and landform, together with the overlying pattern of settlement and land use are key determinants of landscape character. The Landscape Assessment of Kent is a landscape character based study that draws together existing landscape character assessments of the county and updates them to conform to the current guidance. Additional work on the condition and sensitivity of the Kent landscape has been used to formulate character-based strategies to ensure the continued distinctiveness of the Kent landscape. It is intended that the Landscape Assessment of Kent will be used in a variety of forward planning strategies, in land management schemes and in planning control. The objective is to ensure that decisions on the rural landscape are underpinned by a robust and widely accepted assessment of the landscape character. The challenge is to find ways of identifying the important characteristics of the landscape that assist the process of accommodating change, where this is both desirable and practicable, whilst maintaining the links with the past and the natural environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the South-East IAP Report Here
    Important Areas for Ponds (IAPs) in the Environment Agency Southern Region Helen Keeble, Penny Williams, Jeremy Biggs and Mike Athanson Report prepared by: Report produced for: Pond Conservation Environment Agency c/o Oxford Brookes University Southern Regional Office Gipsy Lane, Headington Guildbourne House Oxford, OX3 0BP Chatsworth Road, Worthing Sussex, BN11 1LD Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who took time to send pond data and pictures or other information for this assessment. In particular: Adam Fulton, Alex Lockton, Alice Hiley, Alison Cross, Alistair Kirk, Amanda Bassett, Andrew Lawson, Anne Marston, Becky Collybeer, Beth Newman, Bradley Jamieson, Catherine Fuller, Chris Catling, Daniel Piec, David Holyoak, David Rumble, Debbie Miller, Debbie Tann, Dominic Price, Dorothy Wright, Ed Jarzembowski, Garf Williams, Garth Foster, Georgina Terry, Guy Hagg, Hannah Cook, Henri Brocklebank, Ian Boyd, Jackie Kelly, Jane Frostick, Jay Doyle, Jo Thornton, Joe Stevens, John Durnell, Jonty Denton, Katharine Parkes, Kevin Walker, Kirsten Wright, Laurie Jackson, Lee Brady, Lizzy Peat, Martin Rand, Mary Campling, Matt Shardlow, Mike Phillips, Naomi Ewald, Natalie Rogers, Nic Ferriday, Nick Stewart, Nicky Court, Nicola Barnfather, Oli Grafton, Pauline Morrow, Penny Green, Pete Thompson, Phil Buckley, Philip Sansum, Rachael Hunter, Richard Grogan, Richard Moyse, Richard Osmond, Rufus Sage, Russell Wright, Sarah Jane Chimbwandira, Sheila Brooke, Simon Weymouth, Steph Ames, Terry Langford, Tom Butterworth, Tom Reid, Vicky Kindemba. Cover photograph: Low Weald Pond, Lee Brady Report production: February 2009 Consultation: March 2009 SUMMARY Ponds are an important freshwater habitat and play a key role in maintaining biodiversity at the landscape level. However, they are vulnerable to environmental degradation and there is evidence that, at a national level, pond quality is declining.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent-Botany-2019.Pdf
    0 1 Kent Botany 2019 Contents Page Introduction 1 Corrections to Kent Botany 2018 8 Plant records: selection criteria and recorders 8 Plant records for East Kent (vice county 15) 10 Plant records for West Kent (vice county 16) 27 References 35 Compiled by Geoffrey Kitchener (January 2020, web version 1) Front cover: Raphanus raphanistrum subsp. maritimus R (Sea Radish) at Minster (Sheppey). Photo 4 July 2019, © Lliam Rooney Introduction Kent Botany 2019 is the tenth report in the Kent Botany series, reporting on current botanical developments in the county. It represents a significant milestone, as 2019 brings to an end ten seasons of recording by the Kent Botanical Recording Group, founded in March 2010. It is also the end of the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland’s (BSBI) date class 2010-19, a ten-year period for the assemblage of records which may be compared with previous ten-year date classes, to identify trends in the distribution of our flora. In addition, it is the end of the BSBI’s Atlas 2020 project, which seeks to map the current status of the British and Irish flora, following up the last mapping (Preston et al., 2002), twenty years before. This report is issued primarily as a web version, maintained on the Kent page of the BSBI website, https://bsbi.org/kent, and this should be regarded as the definitive version. The text, substantially the same, is also published as hard copy within the Kent Field Club (KFC) Bulletin. Highlights Highlights for 2019 included the following: Juncus ranarius (Frog Rush) has been restored to the Kent flora, with the discovery of a population at Crossness; Juncus x surrejanus (J.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashford Local Plan
    Appendix 1 – Scoping Report Ashford Borough Council Local Plan 2030 Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Scoping Report for the Local Plan September 2014 Ashford Borough Council Planning and Development Department Appendix 1 - page1 Contents SECTION PAGE 1 Introduction 5 2 Baseline Evidence 9 Theme: Protection of the Environment and Adaption to Climate Change 9 2.2 Biodiversity 9 2.3 Landscape, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 14 2.4 Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation 17 Theme: Social Progress 2.5 Housing and Affordable Housing 23 2.6 Access to Services and Social Inclusion 26 2.7 Health and Wellbeing 33 2.8 Design Quality 37 Theme: Natural Resources and Material Assets 38 2.9 Water Quantity and Quality 38 2.10 Landuse, Geology and Soil 43 2.11 Minerals and Waste 45 Theme: Economy and Employment 2.12 Economic Growth, Employment and Skills 47 2.13 Town and District Centre Vitality 52 Theme: Sustainable Transport 2.14 Sustainable Travel 55 3 Sustainability Framework 3.1 SA Themes and Data Gaps 61 3.2 SA Framework 63 3.3 Defining ‘Significant Effects’ 63 3.4 What happens next in the SA process? 64 Annex 1: SA Framework Annex 2: SHLAA Site Assessment Pro forma Annex 3: Additional Data Appendix 1 - page2 List of Figures Page Figure 1: Flood Risk within the Ashford urban area 21 Figure 2: Population change in Ashford compared to county, region and England 28 Figure 3: Index of Multiple Deprivation: Ashford 30 Figure 4: Health Deprivation in Ashford 35 Figure 5: Land Classification for East Kent 44 Figure 6: Road and Rail routes within Ashford
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the Ornithological Interest of Sssis in England
    Natural England Research Report NERR015 A review of the ornithological interest of SSSIs in England www.naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Research Report NERR015 A review of the ornithological interest of SSSIs in England Allan Drewitt, Tristan Evans and Phil Grice Natural England Published on 31 July 2008 The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. You may reproduce as many individual copies of this report as you like, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with Natural England, 1 East Parade, Sheffield, S1 2ET ISSN 1754-1956 © Copyright Natural England 2008 Project details This report results from research commissioned by Natural England. A summary of the findings covered by this report, as well as Natural England's views on this research, can be found within Natural England Research Information Note RIN015 – A review of bird SSSIs in England. Project manager Allan Drewitt - Ornithological Specialist Natural England Northminster House Peterborough PE1 1UA [email protected] Contractor Natural England 1 East Parade Sheffield S1 2ET Tel: 0114 241 8920 Fax: 0114 241 8921 Acknowledgments This report could not have been produced without the data collected by the many thousands of dedicated volunteer ornithologists who contribute information annually to schemes such as the Wetland Bird Survey and to their county bird recorders. We are extremely grateful to these volunteers and to the organisations responsible for collating and reporting bird population data, including the British Trust for Ornithology, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Joint Nature Conservancy Council seabird team, the Rare Breeding Birds Panel and the Game and Wildlife Conservancy Trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan
    The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan A framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife Produced by Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group © Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, 1997 c/o Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX. Tel: (01622) 221537 CONTENTS 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN 1 1.1 Conserving Biodiversity 1 1.2 Why have a Kent Biodiversity Action Plan? 1 1.3 What is a Biodiversity Action Plan? 1.4 The approach taken to produce the Kent Plan 2 1.5 The Objectives of the Kent BAP 2 1.6 Rationale for selection of habitat groupings and individual species for plans 3 2. LINKS WITH OTHER INITIATIVES 7 2.1 Local Authorities and Local Agenda 21 7 2.2 English Nature's 'Natural Areas Strategy' 9 3. IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.1 The Role of Lead Agencies and Responsible Bodies 10 3.2 The Annual Reporting Process 11 3.3 Partnerships 11 3.4 Identifying Areas for Action 11 3.5 Methodology for Measuring Relative Biodiversity 11 3.6 Action Areas 13 3.7 Taking Action Locally 13 3.8 Summary 14 4. GENERIC ACTIONS 15 2.1 Policy 15 2.2 Land Management 16 2.3 Advice/Publicity 16 2.4 Monitoring and Research 16 5. HABITAT ACTION PLANS 17 3.1 Habitat Action Plan Framework 18 3.2 Habitat Action Plans 19 Woodland & Scrub 20 Wood-pasture & Historic Parkland 24 Old Orchards 27 Hedgerows 29 Lowland Farmland 32 Urban Habitats 35 Acid Grassland 38 Neutral & Marshy Grassland 40 Chalk Grassland 43 Heathland & Mire 46 Grazing Marsh 49 Reedbeds 52 Rivers & Streams 55 Standing Water (Ponds, ditches & dykes, saline lagoons, lakes & reservoirs) 58 Intertidal Mud & Sand 62 Saltmarsh 65 Sand Dunes 67 Vegetated Shingle 69 Maritime Cliffs 72 Marine Habitats 74 6.
    [Show full text]
  • For Consultation May 2012
    Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework – Site Options Habitat Regulations Assessment For consultation May 2012 Prepared for: Kent County Council UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 2 01/05/12 For Consultation Dr Graeme Dr James Riley Dr James Riley Down Principal Principal Ecologist Gareth Lavery Ecologist Ecologists REVISION RECORD Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 2 01/05/12 For Consultation Dr Graeme Dr James Riley Dr James Riley Down Principal Principal Ecologist Gareth Lavery Ecologist Ecologists URS Scott House Alencon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT May 2012 2 Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework Limitations URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Kent County Council (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2014-2019
    Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014 - 2019 Second revision April 2014 1 Ministerial Foreword Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are some of our finest This Management Plan also makes the important connection between landscapes. They are cherished by residents and visitors alike and people and nature. I am pleased to hear that local communities have allow millions of people from all walks of life to understand and been central to the development of the plan, and will be at the heart connect with nature. of its delivery. From volunteers on nature conservation projects, to businesses working to promote sustainable tourism, it’s great to hear I am pleased to see that this Management Plan demonstrates how of the enthusiasm and commitment of the local people who hold their AONB Partnerships can continue to protect these precious AONBs so dear. environments despite the significant challenges they face. With a changing climate, the increasing demands of a growing population AONBs are, and will continue to be, landscapes of change. and in difficult economic times, I believe AONBs represent just the Management Plans such as this are vital in ensuring these changes sort of community driven, collaborative approach needed to ensure are for the better. I would like to thank all those who were involved our natural environment is maintained for generations to come. in bringing this plan together and I wish you every success in bringing it to fruition. AONB Partnerships have been the architects of a landscape-scale approach to land management. This approach is a key feature of the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper and emphasises the need to manage ecosystems in an integrated fashion, linking goals on wildlife, water, soil and landscape, and working at a scale that respects natural systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for Ashford Borough, Kent Report and Inventory Maps March 2009
    Ashford AWI survey - front cover only with bleed & crop marks.ai 09/03/2009 19:10:50 A revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for Ashford Borough, Kent Report and Inventory Maps March 2009 Project carried out by the Weald and Downs Ancient Woodland Survey A revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for Ashford Borough, Kent Project carried out by the Weald and Downs Ancient Woodland Survey for East Sussex and Kent November 2006 to March 2009 With additional field surveys by Kate Ryland, Dolphin Ecological Services Report by: Philip Sansum, Weald and Downs Ancient Woodland Survey, Patrick McKernan, Natural England, Sally Westaway, formerly of the High Weald AONB Unit, and Matthew Grose, High Weald AONB Unit A partnership project funded by: Ashford Borough Council, the High Weald AONB, the Forestry Commission and Natural England Front cover photograph: King’s Wood near Ashford (photograph: Patrick McKernan, Natural England) WEALD AND DOWNS ANCIENT WOODLAND SURVEY Natural England foreword Natural England works for people, places and nature, to enhance biodiversity, landscapes and wildlife in rural, urban, coastal and marine areas; promoting access, recreation and public well- being, and contributing to the way natural resources are managed so that they can be enjoyed now and in the future. Natural England considers that ancient woodlands are irreplaceable, and should therefore be protected and managed so as to maintain and enhance their special character. Knowing where ancient woods are is therefore a key nature conservation need. The Ancient Woodland Inventory was originally compiled by the Nature Conservancy Council (a predecessor to Natural England) between 1981 and 1992, with the Inventory for Kent being produced first in 1984.
    [Show full text]