DOCSLIB.ORG

May 2011) Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
May 2011) Kent Minerals and Waste Development Framework Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Kent Minerals And Waste Development Framework Mineral Sites Development Plan Document Options Consultation (May 2011) Commentary Report (November 2011) 1 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Produced by : Planning and Environment Environment and Enterprise Kent County Council Invicta House Tel: 01622 221610 County Hall Email: [email protected] Maidstone Web: www.kent.gov.uk/mwdf Kent ME14 1XX 2 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Contents Page 1 Abbreviations 4 2 Introduction 5 3 Site Proposals 7 4 Responses for Mineral Sites DPD 9 5 Soft Sand Sites for Consideration 11 6 Sharp Sand and Gravel Sites for Consideration 33 7 Crushed Rock Sites for Consideration 53 8 Silica Sand Sites for Consideration 57 9 Chalk Sites for Consideration 61 10 Brickearth Sites for Consideration 67 11 Clay Sites for Consideration 71 12 Mineral Import Sites for Consideration 73 13 Secondary & Recycled Aggregates Sites for Consideration 75 14 Glossary 101 3 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) Abbreviations AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty MGB Metropolitan Green Belt AQMA Air Quality Management Area MOD Ministry of Defence BAP Biodiversity Action Plan NNR National Nature Reserve BOA Biodiversity Opportunity Area PINS Planning Inspectorate CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England PPS Planning Policy Statement DPD Development Plan Documents PROW Public Right of Way SA Sustainability Appraisal EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SAC Special Area of Conserva- HER Historic Environment Record tion HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle SLA Special Landscaped Area HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment SNCI Site of Nature Conserva- tion KCC Kent County Council SPA Special Protection Area KHS Kent Highway Services SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest KWT Kent Wildlife Trust SWS Southern Water Site LDF Local Development Framework TMBC Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council LWS Local Wildlife Site 4 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 2.0 Introduction 2.1 The Mineral Sites Development Plan Document (Options Stage) 2.5 As well as the online comments the Council also received a num- Commentary Report is the follow up document to the consultation for ber of petitions; the Mineral Sites Development Plan Document. The consultation pe- riod ran from the 31st of May 2011 to the 26th of July, however there Petition Amount of Signatures th was a 2 week extension until the 9 of August. Charing-Sites 201 10,16,62,69,74,77,85,86 and 87 Lenham- Sites 75 and 76 77 2.2 This document collates and summarises the responses for each of the sites to show the main reasons for support , objection or com- Hollowshore and Ham Farm- 616 menting from organisations and members of the public. The aim of Sites 25 and 26 this report is to create a clear and concise document showing the main issues put forward. If people wish to read full responses they Lydd Quarry- Site 73 (ongoing e- 21 may access them through the online consultation portal at; http:// petition) consult.kent.gov.uk/portal. This brought the total number of responses up to 2620. 2.3 Those responses put forward will be recorded as part of the site assessment. Data collection and site visit reports will then be formu- 2.6 The Council has received detailed reports on sites from the resi- lated, taking into consideration the emerging Minerals and Waste dents of Lenham, Badgers Mount and Shoreham Parish Council. Core Strategy policies and changes to national planning policy. The Preferred Options are due to be published and consulted upon in Reports were given to Minerals and Waste Development Framework May 2012. (MWDF) team outside of the consultation but the comments from these internal consultees are considered to be important in informing 2.4 The Mineral Sites ‘options’ consultation received the following the site selection process and so have been summarised for this re responses; port. Total Number of Responses 1705 Objection 1452 Comment 219 Support 34 5 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 2.7 Sites with the most responses/objections; 2.9 There were some recurring concerns which applied to many of the sites. These comments included; Site Refer- Name ence Number •The suitability of roads 10 Pluckley Road, Charing •Damage to homes, both structurally and in terms of value 62 Newlands Farm, Charing 69 Burleigh Farm, Charing •Sites that are in or near to designated land 74 Charing Quarry •Public safety 75 Boltons Field, Lenham •Impact on biodiversity 76 Chapel Farm, Lenham 77 Burleigh Farm & Tile Lodge, Charing 2.10 Space is restricted in this report. All comments are valued and 5 Filston Lane will be taken into consideration in the site assessment process. Full 25 Ham Farm (Withdrawn) responses can be accessed via the online consultation portal; 26 Hollowshore http://consult.kent.gov.uk. 73 Lydd Quarry 7 Hermitage Quarry Westerly Extension 2.11 The graphs found in this report represent the number of re- 8 Chelsfield Ammunition Depot sponses for each site. The internal responses we received from 12 Newington Industrial Estate heritage, biodiversity and highways are not included in this data. 86 Charing Quarry (waste 2) 2.8 The other mineral sites had responses from within KCC or outside organisations but had fewer or no comments from members of the public. 6 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 3 Site Proposals 3.3 Sharp Sand and Gravel Sites for Consideration 3.1 The following is a list of all sites submitted for consideration for minerals uses. The list contains their site reference number and the 2 Beltring Green Farm 33 relevant page in this document. 3.2 Soft Sand Sites for Consideration 3 Arnolds Lodge Farm 35 West 4 Woodfalls Farm 37 5 Filston Lane 39 Site Reference Num- Name Page Number ber 17 Moat Farm 41 6 Land Adjacent to Platt 11 Industrial Estate 25 Ham Farm 43 9 Celcon Works 13 26 Hollowshore 45 10 Pluckley Road, Charing 15 49 Land North and South 47 of Hammer Dyke 24 Land North of Addington 17 Lane 71 Stonecastle Farm 49 62 Newlands Farm, Char- 19 ing 73 Lydd Quarry 51 69 Burleigh Farm, Charing 21 3.4 Crushed Rock Sites for Consideration 74 Charing Quarry 23 75 Boltons Field, Lenham 25 7 Hermitage Quarry West- 53 erly Extension 76 Chapel Farm, Lenham 27 78 Richborough Under- 55 77 Burleigh Farm & Tile 29 97 Shrine Farm 31 7 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 3.5 Silica Sand Sites for Consideration 3.9 Mineral Importation sites for Consideration Site Reference Num- Name Page Number 1 East Peckham Rail De- 73 ber pot 24 Land North of Addington 57 Lane 3.10 Secondary & Recycled Aggregate 62 Newlands Farm, Char- 59 ing 8 Chelsfield Ammunition 75 Depot 3.6 Chalk Sites for Consideration 12 Newington Industrial 77 Estate 16 Beacon Hill Quarry 61 21 FM Conway, Rochester 79 Way 56 Hegdale Quarry 63 45 Dunbrik Depot 81 63 Pinden Quarry 65 52 Weatherlees 83 56 Hegdale Quarry 85 3.7 Brickearth Sites for Consideration 65 Land North of Stevens 87 Carlotti 19 Paradise Farm 67 72 Unit 14 Canterbury In- 89 dustrial Park 92 Land at Bax Farm 69 79 Tilmanstone 91 80 Faversham Quarry 93 3.8 Clay Sites for Consideration 81 Milton Manor Farm 95 86 Charing Quarry 97 60 Norwood Quarry & 71 (waste2) Landfill Extension 91 Animal Products Site 99 8 Kent County Council—Mineral Sites Options Commentary Report (May 2011) 4.0 Mineral Sites Development Plan Document support 0 Responses regarding the complete Mineral Sites Develop- comment 17 Responses ment Plan Document object 15 0 5 10 15 20 Responses Port of London Authority None of the sites set out in the options consultation document are located in close proximity to the River Thames and therefore the PLA has no comments to make on the individual sites. However, it would appear to be useful in the introductory text to emphasise the point from the Core Strategy concerning the Council's aspi- rations regarding co-location of facilities. Kent Wildlife Trust We welcome the fact that the after use suggested is for biodiversity enhancement in the majority of cases. We understand that not all these sites will come forward in the final document, many of the sites proposed will ei- ther have a direct or indirect impact. Of particular concern is the impact from a number of sites proposed on the Swale SPA and Ramsar sites and surrounding areas likely to be used by the bird populations. Within the documents Local Wildlife Sites are either called County Wildlife Sites or Sites of Nature Conservation Interest. These sites were historically known as SNCIs however when they become recognised within national policy and administrated by the Biodiversity Action Groups rather than the Wildlife Trusts it was agreed that they would be known by one name, Local Wildlife Sites, and should be referenced as such to prevent confusion. Protect Kent We have serious concerns about the loss of prime agricultural land. We would expect to see the impacts mitigated through a phased approach. We wish to see these sites reinstated to agriculture. We have con- cerns about the impacts of all traffic movements on and in the vicinity of the proposed sites. We would ex- pect a full traffic study for each site. As some of the proposed sites cover a large area, if selected we would expect to see control over development through a phased approach. As some of the proposed sites are concentrated within one locality, we would expect to see sequential operation of the sites.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agenda Document for Environment & Transport Cabinet Committee, 08
    ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT CABINET COMMITTEE Wednesday, 8th September, 2021 10.00 am Online AGENDA ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT CABINET COMMITTEE Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 10.00 am Ask for: Matthew Dentten Online Telephone: 03000 414534 Membership (16) Conservative (12): Mr S Holden (Chairman), Mr R Love, OBE (Vice-Chairman), Mr N Baker, Mr C Beart, Mr T Bond, Mr N Collor, Mr D Crow- Brown, Mr M Dendor, Mr A Hills, Mrs S Hudson, Mrs L Parfitt- Reid and Mr D Watkins Labour (2): Ms M Dawkins, Mr B Lewis Liberal Democrat (1): Mr I Chittenden Green and Mr M Baldock Independents (1): UNRESTRICTED ITEMS (During these items the meeting is likely to be open to the public) 1 Introduction/Webcast announcement 2 Apologies and Substitutes To receive apologies for absence and notification of any substitutes present. 3 Declarations of Interest by Members in items on the Agenda To receive any declarations of interest made by Members in relation to any matter on the agenda. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared. 4 Minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2021 (Pages 1 - 10) To consider and approve the minutes as a correct record. 5 Verbal Updates by Cabinet Members and Corporate Director 6 21/00073 - Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 - 5 Year Review of 2016 adopted Plan (Pages 11 - 186) 7 Approach to monitoring Net Zero Target (Pages 187 - 192) 8 Kent and Medway Energy and Low Emissions Strategy - Progress Update (Pages 193 - 202) 9 Heritage Conservation Strategy (Pages
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004
    CHILHAM: STOUR VALLEY Location map: CHILHAMCHARACTER AREA DESCRIPTION North of Bilting, the Stour Valley becomes increasingly enclosed. The rolling sides of the valley support large arable fields in the east, while sweeps of parkland belonging to Godmersham Park and Chilham Castle cover most of the western slopes. On either side of the valley, dense woodland dominate the skyline and a number of substantial shaws and plantations on the lower slopes reflect the importance of game cover in this area. On the valley bottom, the river is picked out in places by waterside alders and occasional willows. The railway line is obscured for much of its length by trees. STOUR VALLEY Chilham lies within the larger character area of the Stour Valley within the Kent Downs AONB. The Great Stour is the most easterly of the three rivers cutting through the Downs. Like the Darent and the Medway, it too provided an early access route into the heart of Kent and formed an ancient focus for settlement. Today the Stour Valley is highly valued for the quality of its landscape, especially by the considerable numbers of walkers who follow the Stour Valley Walk or the North Downs Way National Trail. Despite its proximity to both Canterbury and Ashford, the Stour Valley retains a strong rural identity. Enclosed by steep scarps on both sides, with dense woodlands on the upper slopes, the valley is dominated by intensively farmed arable fields interspersed by broad sweeps of mature parkland. Unusually, there are no electricity pylons cluttering the views across the valley. North of Bilting, the river flows through a narrow, pastoral floodplain, dotted with trees such as willow and alder and drained by small ditches.
    [Show full text]
  • Appropriate Assessment / Habitats Regulations Assessment
    Appropriate assessment / Habitats Regulations Assessment Riki Therivel, Levett-Therivel • What is AA/HRA? • Four steps in HRA – Screening – Appropriate assessment – Alternatives, IROPI, compensatory measures • UK examples • ‘People Over Wind’ WHAT IS AA / HRA? Slavonian Grebe North Atlantic wet heaths European dry heaths Avocet Southern damselfly • Tests impact of project or plan on SPAs/SACs • Concludes with yes/no statement: will project or plan have significant impact on European site? • It is very precautionary Required by European Habitats Directive AA of projects carried out for about 15 years European Court of Justice ruling Oct. 2005: UK has not implemented Habitats Directive Articles 6.3 and 6.4 correctly re. plans Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 transposes requirements into UK law 6.3 Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives... the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.. 6.3 Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in viewa European of the ‘site’ site's is an SPA conservation objectives..
    [Show full text]
  • 7.4 Strategic Options Report
    DOCUMENT 7.4 Strategic Options Report National Grid (Richborough Connection Project) Order Regulation 5(2)(q) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 and TEN-E Regulation EU347/2013 First published June 2013 Application Ref: EN020017 January 2016 Richborough Connection Project Strategic Options Report for the South East Region June 2013 Issue 1 National Grid National Grid House Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6DA Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 3 2 Background................................................................................................ 7 3 Summary of the Need Case.........................................................................11 4 New Transmission Routes - National Grid’s Approach......................................14 5 Potential Strategic Options Identified for the Richborough Connection ..............20 6 Appraisal of Strategic Option 1 – Richborough to Canterbury North (onshore) ...27 7 Appraisal of Strategic Option 2 – Richborough to Cleve Hill (onshore)...............37 8 Appraisal of Strategic Option 3 – Richborough to Kemsley (onshore) ................48 9 Appraisal of Strategic Option 4 – Richborough to Cleve Hill (offshore)...............59 10 Appraisal of Strategic Option 5 – Richborough to Sellindge (offshore) ...........64 11 Appraisal of Strategic Option 6 – Richborough to Kemsley (offshore) ............70 12 Conclusions ...........................................................................................75
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Sites Booklet
    Discover Discover WILD SITESon your doorstep A visitor’s guide to wildlife sites in the Stour Valley WILD SITES on your doorstep on your About WILD SITES The Kentish Stour Explore the on your doorstep Countryside Partnership WILD SITES This booklet is designed to help you The Kentish Stour Countryside Partnership Get out there! explore and enjoy the fantastic (KSCP) organised the Wild Sites project. There are so many landscapes and special wildlife of the amazing places to The KSCP works to conserve, enhance and promote the enjoy nature and the outdoors in Stour Valley. countryside and urban green space of the Stour Valley. the Stour Valley! The Wild Sites are We work closely with landowners and communities to spread all over the KSCP Partnership To get the best out of your visit, go to our conserve and protect the landscapes, habitats and area (see map). They are very varied, website: www.wildsites.org and click wildlife of our Partnership area. We conserve and ranging in size from a few acres to ‘Explore Sites’ for full details of the sites. enhance all sorts of habitats, including the River Stour hundreds of hectares, from local and other watercourses, woodlands and wildlife rich parks to internationally important Much of the content in this guide book has been grasslands; we also create habitats for wildlife in urban nature reserves, owned and managed produced by participants in the Wild Sites on Your areas. Where we can, we develop opportunities for good by a range of bodies (see back cover). Doorstep project. Hundreds of people took part in access to the countryside and informal recreation.
    [Show full text]
  • English Nature Research Report
    Vatural Area: 33. East Anglian Plain Geological Sigaificance: Outstanding (provisional) General geological character: The solid geology of the East Anglian Natural Area is mainly underlain by Jpper Cretaceous chalk. This very pure limestone was laid down on the floor of a tropical sea between 97 md 74 Ma. Locally the chalk is rich in fossils including sea-urchins and bivalves. Overlying much of the ;halk is a complex sequence of Quaternary deposits (deposited over the last 2 Ma) showing changes in Aimate and environment from both cold (glacial) and temperate (interglacial) periods. These sediments hostcompletely obscure the underlying chalk and it is their composition which gives the Natural Area its :haacter. The base of the Quaternary sequence is the early Pleistocene Crag deposits which are marine jcdiments of*shelly muds and sands, often containing temperate marinc molluscan faunas. However, the nost extensive and thickest Quaternary sediments consist of glacial sands, gravels and clays deposited by the 4nglian ice sheet as it advanced across the area around 300,000 to 250,000 years BP. These deposits are ;ollectivcly known as 'boulder clay' and their calcareous nature reflects glacial erosion and transportation of he chalk bedrock beneath. The Anglian glaciation interrupted a well-developed fluvial network of eastward flowing rivers, and patches of these preglacial river gravels are still found within the area. Many localitites show river gravels related to the early development of the River Thames, which crossed this area prior to jiversion by the Anglian ice sheet. These sites are important for Quaternary stratigraphy (including records Jf climate change) because they can be correlated with sedirnents in other parts of Britain and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1999 No. 2170 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ENGLAND The Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 Made ---- 29th July 1999 Laid before Parliament 3rd August 1999 Coming into force 1st September 1999 The Secretary of State– having consulted the committee established(a) under section 140(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990(b); having published a notice in the London Gazette as required by section 140(6)(b) of that Act; having considered the representations made to him in accordance with that notice; considering it appropriate to make these Regulations for the purpose of preventing the substance or articles specified in them from causing pollution of the environment and harm to the health of animals; in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 140(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following Regulations: Citation, commencement and extent 1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 and shall come into force on 1st September 1999. (2) These Regulations shall extend to England only. Interpretation 2. In these Regulations– “authorised person” means a person authorised under regulation 4(1) below; “lead shot” means any shot made of– (a) lead, or (b) any alloy or compound of lead where lead comprises more than 1% of that alloy or compound; “premises” includes any land, vehicle or vessel, but does not include premises used for residential purposes; “shot gun” means a smooth-bore gun but does not include any shot gun chambered for 9 millimetre or smaller rim-fire cartridges; (a) S.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Countryside Access Improvement Plan 2007-2017
    KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Countryside Access Improvement Plan 2007-2017 COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PLAN I 1 CONTENTS I Foreword 4 II Vision 5 1. Why Produce a Countryside Access Improvement Plan? 6 1.1 Introduction 7 1.2 The Plan 7 1.3 Methodology 7 2. Policy Context 9 2.1 Overview 10 2.2 Vision for Kent 11 2.3 Towards 2010 11 2.4 The Local Transport Plan 11 2.5 Walking Strategy 13 2.6 Cycling Strategy 13 2.7 Kent & Medway Structure Plan 13 2.8 South East Regional Plan 14 2.9 Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 14 2.10 Kent High Weald AONB Management Plan 15 3. Kent “The Garden of England” 16 3.1 A Picture of Kent 17 3.2 The Natural Environment and Heritage 17 3.3 Transport and Population 20 4. Current Access Provision in Kent 23 4.1 Public Rights of Way 24 4.2 Summary of Kent’s Rights of Way Network 25 4.3 Asset Statistics 25 4.4 Promoted Routes 28 4.5 The North Downs Way 29 4.6 Permissive Access 30 4.7 Roads 30 4.8 Accessible Green Space 30 4.9 Country Parks, Picnic Sites and Nature Reserves 31 4.10 Open Access 33 4.11 Village Greens and Commons 33 4.12 Woodland 33 4.13 Coastal 35 4.14 Riverside and Inland Water 36 5. Countryside Access Management 38 5.1 Kent County Council 39 5.2 District Councils 42 5.3 Parish Councils 42 5.4 Countryside Management Projects 42 5.5 Voluntary and Charity Sector 42 COUNTRYSIDE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PLAN I 2 5.6 Neighbouring Authorities 43 5.7 Landowner Issues 44 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Thanet Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment
    Thanet District Council Thanet Local Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment Information to support an assessment under Regulation 105 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited – July 2018 • © Wood Environment & lnfrastructure Solutions UK Limited wood. Report for Copyright and non-disclosure notice Jo Wadey The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright Planning Officer owned by Wood (© Wood Environment & Infrastructure Thanet District Council Solutions UK Limited 2018) save to the extent that copyright PO Box 9 has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Cecil Street Wood under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright Margate in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior Kent written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose CT9 1XZ indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Wood. Disclosure of that information may Main contributors constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may Mike Frost otherwiseprejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Third party disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this Mike Fro disclaimer. The report was prepared by Wood at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report.
    [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]
  • Ec Ecolo Ogy a and D Evi Iden
    Ecology and Evidence Winter newsletter 2017/18 DISCOVER wildlife, DATA gather, DELIVER cconservation Cover picture: Deptford pink Dianthus armeria, by Peter Atherall The Deptford pink has declined rapidly in range and is now known to inhabit only about 15 sites in the UK, mainly in the south. It prefers light, sandy, acidic soils, and requires open conditions to grow well. It can be found on disturbed ground, such as tracks and field edges, along hedgerows and in dry pasture. In Kent it is found on Kent Wildlife Trust’s Sandwich Bay National Nature Reserve and at Farnigham Woods. Kent Wildlife Trust Ecology and Evidence Winter newsletter 2017/18 Introduction community, visitor or educattional interest. For example at Welcome to the winter 2017/18 ecology and evidence our Queendown Warren reseerve in the Medway Smile newsletter, which this year is bigger than ever before. I Living Landscape, chalk grassland, woodland and early have taken the decision this year to encompass not only spider orchids have been identified as key nature Ecology Groups, but also to highlight the wealth of other conservation features. Each feature will have a number of work carried out by Kent Wildlife Trust and our volunteers attributes which are its charaacteristics, qualities or in the vital areas of monitoring and evidence. Evidence is properties. Attributes are the measurable performance absolutely critical to what we do, and it is increasingly indicators which together help to indicate the condition of important that we are able to demonstrate the efficacy of the feature. Examples might t be the size of an orchid colony, our management of Kent’s wildlife and habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • Maidstone Risk Profile
    Review of Emergency Response Provision: Maidstone Cluster Risk Profile RERP - Maidstone Cluster Risk Profile Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Description of Cluster ............................................................................................................ 4 Cluster Demographics and Population Risk Factors.............................................................. 5 Deprivation ............................................................................................................................ 7 Overall Cluster Risk .............................................................................................................. 8 Dwellings ........................................................................................................................... 8 Special Service .................................................................................................................. 9 Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................................... 10 Cluster Geodemographic Segmentation .......................................................................... 11 Building Usage as a Risk Identifier ...................................................................................... 13 Other Building Risk ............................................................................................................. 14 Sleeping Accommodation
    [Show full text]