The Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan

(Draft Version 2)

August 2005

1 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Index

Title Page

The Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan 3

Acid Grassland Habitat Action Plan 18

Allotments and Community Gardens Action Plan 27

Built Environment Habitat Action Plan 35

Churchyards and Cemeteries Habitat Action Plan 48

Parks and Greenspaces Habitat Action Plan 58

Ponds and Open Water Habitat Action Plan 70

Private Gardens Habitat Action Plan 84

Railway Linesides Habitat Action Plan 94

Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan 104

Woodlands Habitat Action Plan 116

Bats Species Action Plan 125

Blackbird Species Action Plan 132

Crucian Carp Species Action Plan 138

House Sparrow Species Action Plan 147

Mistletoe Species Action Plan 155

Reptiles Species Action Plan 161

Stag Beetle Species Action Plan 167

2 The Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan

1. Summary Statement

At first glance packed with housing, busy streets, concrete or tarmac hardstanding, and well- manicured parks and open spaces, the casual observer might be tempted to think that there is no space or place for wildlife in the Borough of Lambeth. However, thankfully that is certainly not the case. Lambeth is surprisingly rich in wildlife – not just wildlife habitats like gardens, allotments and railway linesides, but also the many different species of wild plants and animals that make use of these habitats for shelter, feeding, breeding and travel.

In terms of the richness and abundance of wildlife – often termed ‘biological diversity’ or ‘biodiversity’, Lambeth’s got an awful lot going for it: it’s just often we don’t see it or don’t fully appreciate what we’ve got, and the important contribution it makes to the biodiversity of London or the UK as a whole.

Lambeth is home to many wildlife habitats and species which are relatively common and abundant in London or even the UK, and which add variety and colour to the lives of people living in, working in or visiting the borough. Though not under any immediate threat, these habitats and species still need looking after and managed so they don’t get out of control or we end up putting their future well being at risk by inappropriate management or neglect.

Lambeth also contains a number of wildlife habitats and species that are relatively uncommon in London or the UK, or are even declining in area or abundance due to changes in the way we manage the environment or other factors. Some of these rare or threatened habitats and species have important historical or social links with London and Lambeth, such as the house sparrow, or act as important ‘indicators’ of the health of our natural and physical environment, and so arresting or reversing their decline or loss could result in improvements to the quality of our own lives and that of future generations living or working in Lambeth.

It’s all very well to say we must protect wildlife and improve biodiversity in Lambeth, but we often don’t have information to hand to tell us where that wildlife value or interest is, what condition it’s in, or what we can do to protect and improve Lambeth’s wildlife and biodiversity. We also need something that can be used to promote the value and importance of Lambeth for wildlife and biodiversity, so that people become more aware of what they can do to look after and protect wildlife habitats and species in Lambeth, and help them avoid taking action that might conflict with the needs of wildlife.

The Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan, or ‘Lambeth BAP’, is a document designed to help provide the information we all need to protect Lambeth’s wildlife and biodiversity. It provides this information in a way which is accessible to all, regardless of background, previous knowledge or interest, so that novice and expert alike can understand what is required and what can be done to protect what we have and make it even better for future generations.

The Lambeth BAP will hopefully encourage all those living and working in Lambeth with a responsibility for, or an interest in, the protection of wildlife and biodiversity to work together to continue doing or improving on what’s working well, and avoid taking action or making decisions that might harm or impact upon Lambeth’s wildlife status or biodiversity value.

3 2. Foreword

[A simple statement made by key people sponsoring the Lambeth BAP, e.g. the Executive Director for Environment, Executive Member for Environment, or Chair of the LSP, acknowledging the importance and benefits of the Lambeth BAP.] To be finalised.

4 3. Introduction – What is ‘Biodiversity’?

‘Biodiversity’ is shorthand for biological diversity, which is a measure of the ‘richness of biological life’ on Earth. However, it doesn’t just apply to the whole Earth, as it can also apply to the richness of biological life in any part of the Earth, and any particular time.

In simple terms, biodiversity measures how many different life forms are present and how they all contribute to the diversity of natural processes. The greater the number of different individual forms of life – or ‘species’ - in a given place, and the greater the contribution made by each life form to the functioning of the earth or a particular place, the we say the more ‘biodiverse’ that place is. We sometimes use the word ‘ecosystem’ to describe a place where lots of different species live – and ecosystems with lots of ecological richness are very special and highly prized places indeed.

If an ecosystem had only five different species, and one of these made up 99% of all life forms present, with the other four species contributing about 1% of remaining individuals, that place wouldn’t be seen as being very ‘biodiverse’. One species is dominating and the others don’t have much influence as to how the ecosystem develops. However, if an ecosystem had the same five species, and each species made up 20% of all life forms present, then that ecosystem is going to be much more biodiverse - each species is able to make a significant contribution to the way the place functions and develops.

Likewise, an ecosystem with 100 different species, each contributing equally in terms of numbers and how the environment functions, is seen of as being very ‘biodiverse’. Not surprisingly ecosystems like tropical rainforests, marine reefs and well-managed woodlands can have literally thousands of species all competing with each other, and yet in a balanced way, for resources, space and opportunities. For these reasons, such ecosystems are seen of as being of extremely high biodiversity and very highly prized by scientists and the public.

However, biodiversity doesn’t relate to a select number of species, like Giant Pandas, otters or oak trees – it encompasses the whole range of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects and other invertebrates, plants, fungi, microorganisms (e.g. protozoa, bacteria and viruses) in a certain area or location. That means an ecosystem with a high biodiversity may be so because of all the inconspicuous or well-hidden species present, not just the ones we can see or track easily!

Biodiversity also includes the concept of ‘habitats’ – the actual locations in which species live and interact together as a community. Thus a site with many different habitats, each used by a different community of species, is a very biodiverse one, whereas a site with only one dominant habitat is going to be a lot less biodiverse – compare a well-managed lowland organic farm with the arid wastes of the Sahara.

5 4. Purpose of the Lambeth BAP – Why Produce One?

In 1992 the “Earth Summit” took place in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil at which most of the world’s governments met. From the Earth Summit a number of decisions were made by various attending governments, including a series of ‘actions’ designed to protect the Earth’s natural and cultural resources.

One of the most important outcomes of the Summit was an Environmental Action Plan, often known as Local Agenda 21 (LA21). This required the signatory countries and their governments to produce a plan of action designed to promote sustainable development, and which included protecting the earth’s wildlife resources, so as to conserve and promote its ‘biological diversity’.

In 1992 the British Government responded to the Rio Earth Summit and LA21 by publishing “Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan” in 1994, which also established the “UK Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group”.

The UK Steering Group published a report in 1995 and although this provided a national framework for biodiversity, it emphasised the importance of local action through “Local Biodiversity Action Plans” or “BAPs”. This means that local authorities like Lambeth are required to help deliver on LA21 and the UK government’s obligations to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, and this included producing and implementing a Biodiversity Action Plan for Lambeth – the Lambeth BAP.

The Mayor of London, and through him the Greater London Authority (GLA), is required to publish a Biodiversity Strategy for London. The London Biodiversity Strategy has been prepared with regard to actions being taken by the various London Boroughs to protect and promote biodiversity at their local level. Therefore, the Lambeth BAP Plan will help support the London Biodiversity Strategy as well as the National Biodiversity Action Plan.

In November 2000, the Rural White Paper was published which states that the Government expects all local authorities to incorporate planning for local action on biodiversity into their new community strategies. Following extensive consultation with its many local partners, Lambeth has taken on board a commitment to deliver on this important obligation, and has incorporated the Lambeth BAP into the Lambeth Community Strategy.

The Lambeth Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) – better known as ‘Lambeth First’ – is the key driver in producing the Lambeth Community Strategy. Lambeth First, which includes Lambeth Council along with important local statutory and voluntary agencies, has agreed to incorporate the Lambeth BAP into the Community Strategy and this is now a key component of the Strategy Theme “Creating a Cleaner and Greener Environment”.

Lambeth has produced a series of Habitat and Species Action Plans, which are designed to address the Borough’s priorities for nature conservation and maximise the involvement of local residents, community groups and businesses in the Lambeth BAP. These Action Plans are designed to identify where important wildlife species and habitats are in Lambeth, how local people and communities can help protect and manage them, and what they can do to extend and enrich the current distribution and abundance.

The Lambeth BAP is a means to monitor and report on how local wildlife is doing in the Borough of Lambeth, what changes are happening over time (with or without active management) and what are the key achievements of the Lambeth BAP as it starts, progresses and delivers on its objectives.

6 It is also opens the possibility of introducing further Habitat and Species Action Plans on an ongoing basis as new species or habitats are discovered in the Borough or need additional management and protection due to changing circumstances. Therefore, the listing of species and habitats in the current Lambeth BAP should not be regarded as either exhaustive or including all species with priority needs either now or in the future.

5. Benefits of the Lambeth BAP – Improving Quality of Life

The Lambeth BAP will link into, connect with and influence other major initiatives or plans that affect or are led by local people and communities. The BAP does not and cannot ‘stand alone’ – it must be part of the ‘bigger picture’ and both influence and be influenced by other Borough-wide or local events and initiatives.

The Lambeth Community Strategy: Creating a Cleaner and Greener Environment

The Lambeth Community Strategy has six ‘Themes’, which are designed to deliver changes and improvements to people living and working in Lambeth, and to the environment in and around them and their communities.

The first Theme of the Lambeth Community Strategy Action Plan is “Creating a Cleaner and Greener Environment”. Under this Theme, Action Plan Objective E1 is “to promote environmental awareness and responsibility, in order to minimise Lambeth’s impact on global environmental change”. The relevant Action for Objective E1 is to “produce a Biodiversity Action Plan for Lambeth”.

Therefore in producing the Lambeth BAP, we are delivering on a core Objective of the Lambeth Community Strategy and Action Plan, and hence also fulfilling our obligations under the Rural White Paper 2000.

However, the Lambeth BAP also helps Lambeth deliver on another important Objective of the Community Strategy Action Plan, namely Objective E7: “to protect and enhance open and green space and river frontage to extend use and enhance access”. The Lambeth BAP will help in directing and developing improvements to the appearance and character of many of Lambeth’s parks and public greenspaces, albeit primarily for nature conservation benefits but obviously these can also benefit public access and enjoyment as well.

Although the Actions for E7 are to develop the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy and to develop a pilot parks management plan, the Lambeth BAP should be a fundamental part of the Parks Strategy and a key consideration in any parks management plan. Therefore, in producing the Lambeth BAP, we are helping to support and reinforce the delivery of these two Actions by ‘adding value’ and quality to any Strategy and management plan.

The Lambeth Unitary Development Plan

Development and change in a borough like Lambeth is a constantly ongoing process – it never seems to stop. Each and every day of the year new developments are proposed for all kinds of buildings and sites across Lambeth, and works are taking place on many others to build new or improve existing housing, improve transport links or create new jobs.

However, Lambeth has a duty to manage development so that it is under some degree of control and regulation, and important buildings, features and landscapes are not ruined by inappropriate developments or developments take place for the ‘common good’ of the Borough and its residents.

7 The Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) is currently the principal means by which the Council regulates the type and purpose of developments within the Borough. However, the UDP is also the means by which certain sites, areas or features are identified for protection from inappropriate developments, or unacceptable changes of use or occupation.

The Lambeth UDP makes particular reference to sites within the Borough that are of recognised importance for nature conservation and biodiversity, and contains a number of policies designed to provide them with protection. However, it also has a number of policies that are designed to protect wildlife or nature conservation in general, or to protect important landscape or conservation features that might also have wildlife value.

In doing this the Lambeth UDP provides a degree of protection to species that might be widely dispersed or highly mobile across the Borough, for habitats that are not on designated sites, or sites, species and habitats that might be recognised for their biodiversity importance at a later date. It’s a crucial document in driving forward and delivering the Lambeth BAP.

The current Lambeth UDP, which was adopted in 1988, has a number of general and specific policies which relate to biodiversity and nature conservation: the Lambeth BAP both provides a delivery mechanism for these policies and is in its turn regulated by them. The principal policies in the current UDP that are relevant to the Lambeth BAP are:

• G7 to G19 - General Policies on the Environment; • ENV1 - Protection of Sites of Metropolitan or Borough Importance for Nature Conservation; • ENV2 - Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation; • ENV3 - Wildlife Habitats; • ENV4 - Green Corridors and Green Links; • ENV5 - Design and Management of Open Spaces for Nature Conservation; • ENV6 - Local Nature Reserves; • ENV7 - Retention of Existing Trees in New Developments; • ENV8 - Protection of Trees on Construction Sites; • ENV9 - New Planting and Landscaping on Development Sites; • ENV10 - Tree Preservation Orders; • ENV11 - Trees in the Landscape; • ENV12 - Environment Improvement Schemes; • ENV13 - Vacant Sites.

The Lambeth BAP is a potential mechanism by which these policies can be ‘brought to life’, and results in a set of tangible objectives and actions to both protect what we already have but also to promote and enhance it, as well as provide opportunities for new habitats and species to colonise, disperse and establish. The Lambeth BAP, though it obviously focuses on a set of named habitats and species, is designed to benefit all wildlife habitats and species in the Borough, hence achieving many of the relevant UDP policies.

By raising the profile of key habitats and species, the Lambeth BAP helps raise awareness of the importance of wildlife and biodiversity across the Borough and the actions that local people, communities and businesses, as well as the Council and its partners, should be undertaking to provide a Borough-wide benefit to and protection of Lambeth’s natural assets.

8 The Lambeth Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) – Improving Lambeth

The Lambeth BAP also provides an important tool by which local people, communities and interest groups can become more involved in the management and improvement of the Borough’s open spaces and wildlife sites, and participate in the decision-making process as to how resources are allocated to benefit local nature and landscapes.

In doing so, the Lambeth BAP is one way in which the Council can meet one of its priorities under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA), which is how it is measured in terms of delivering quality services and value for money. The Lambeth BAP addresses the CPA priority ‘improving community leadership’, by providing an opportunity for local people and groups to direct delivery of the BAP and to be part of the overall management process.

6. Lambeth, London and Nature Conservation – The Bigger Picture

Lambeth is a surprisingly rich borough in terms of wildlife and landscapes, more than people imagine. Although at first glance Lambeth seems to be packed full of buildings, housing estates, busy roads and shopping precincts, with very little greenspace or any other places for wildlife, a look at an aerial photograph of the Borough shows a very different picture.

Lambeth is full of greenspaces, of which many are public and fully accessible, such as the Borough’s 64 parks and public open spaces. However, many more are in private hands (e.g. private gardens, railway land or vacant land awaiting sale or redevelopment) and are normally of restricted public access, or in public ownership but with restricted access (e.g. green areas in housing estates, school playing fields or Council-owned areas that have been leased to community groups or trusts).

Although Lambeth doesn’t have large and striking open spaces of the same scale, complexity and ecological richness of, say, Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common, Epping Forest or Hampstead Heath, that doesn’t mean it is devoid of wildlife just as it isn’t devoid of important open spaces.

Lambeth definitely has plenty of wildlife, plenty of important habitats and plenty of important or interesting plant and animal species, and the Lambeth BAP describes many of these within both Habitat and Species Action Plans. Many of the habitats and species found in Lambeth occur right across Greater London and are often quite common, but some others are restricted in their distribution and even in their abundance.

There is no doubt that Lambeth contains some wildlife habitats and species which are increasingly rare or heavily restricted in their distribution and abundance both in London and in the UK as a whole. We may not know for sure what these habitats and species are, where exactly they can be found, and what is causing their decline or restricted distribution, or that we can include them all in any Action Plan or Plans within the Lambeth BAP. We can’t make up Action Plans for habitats and species we think we might have but don’t know if we do or have no idea where they are or what they need to protect and enhance them.

However, hopefully some of the Lambeth Action Plans will pick up one or two of these ‘rare’ or threatened habitats and species, where we know something about their distribution and abundance in the Borough, for example mistletoe and crucian carp. However many other rare or endangered habitats and species will benefit from the fact we are aiming, through the Lambeth BAP, to manage as much of the Borough as possible in a more ecologically appropriate and sensitive fashion.

9 The outcome of this better way of managing sites in Lambeth would hopefully be to benefit endangered or rare species and habitats within such sites, and in the Borough as a whole. Obviously common or abundant species can benefit as well from a better way or management, so we aren’t trying to spend all our time and resources just to favour one or two species and habitats, but to make sure all species and habitats gain equally and the overall biodiversity of the Borough is maintained and improved.

In delivering on the Lambeth BAP, we are also assisting with the delivery of, and making sure Lambeth is both committed to and contributing to, the London Biodiversity Action Plan, the Mayor of London’s Biodiversity Strategy, and The London Plan, which also has to give consideration to biodiversity.

Lambeth Council also liases regularly with many government regulatory agencies and non- government organisations over a wide range of biodiversity and nature conservation matters. Indeed, many of the habitats and species described in the Lambeth BAP s, the GLA, Mayor of London, Central Government departments and agencies, as well as vice-versa. Example of species and habitats which Lambeth contains which make a substantial contribution to the London total, and whose protection in Lambeth benefits the whole of London.

7. Habitat and Species Action Plans: Flagships and Champions

At the heart of the Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan are a set of ‘Action Plans’ for certain named wildlife habitats and species. These Action Plans identify what is known about a named habitat or species, where it is found in Lambeth (and Greater London), what issues are affecting it, and what we intend to do to protect and promote it, when and by whom.

To be fair, a Biodiversity Action Plan could contain Action Plans for tens if not hundreds of different habitats and species, all of which are probably found in a complex and diverse place like Lambeth. Indeed, all these habitats and species have a right to be protected as they must all be under some form of threat, and could also benefit from being promoted for their value to biodiversity and our quality of life.

However, if we did that the Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan would consist of hundreds of Action Plans and be a massive document nobody would pick up and read. It makes sense to have a few Action Plans that relate to no more than, say, 15 different habitats and species.

Therefore, in choosing habitats and species to have Action Plans, the aim is to go for those that will act as ‘flagships’ for other habitats and species which don’t have Action Plans but are just as important for nature conservation and biodiversity. These ‘flagship’ species could be rare in Lambeth, London or the UK, and need to be protected and managed to prevent them being lost for good or having their numbers and distribution reduced even further.

However, these ‘flagship’ habitats and species might just as easily be relatively common but threatened by a range of factors which, if not addressed, could put them at risk of becoming rare or restricted in distribution. A BAP doesn’t have to be devoted to rare plants, animals and habitats – it can include some seen as being ‘common’ but under pressure from things like loss to development, global climate change or inappropriate management.

Some ‘flagship’ species or habitats can be given Action Plans in a BAP because they act as ‘indicators’ of the quality of the local environment, and can inform us how things are changing – for better or worse.

10 Many species and habitats are excellent environmental indicators, and if they are being affected by factors both within and outside human control, we need to know in case other species and habitats are being affected too. Such indicator species and habitats also need to be easy to survey, so that the general public, not just a select number of professionals, can help monitor and report changes in abundance, distribution and health so that some appropriate action can be taken.

Some species might deserve an Action Plan because they are ‘champions’: fantastic promotional tools for a Biodiversity Action Plan. They might not be rare or endangered, they might be quite common and they might be easy to spot and survey.

However, these particular species have a strong public profile, and people of all ages, backgrounds and interests not only recognise them but are also passionate about publicising and protecting them. These species offer an ideal opportunity to engage with the general public and demonstrate that by caring about and for one species, other species and many habitats benefit equally.

Finally, any habitat and species with an Action Plan will be one where practical ‘actions’ can be agreed to offer protection or to promote it. There is no gain whatsoever in having an Action Plan for a species or habitat where the actions are unrealistic in terms of timescales or resources, or where it would be difficult to monitor or survey the outcomes to see if those actions have had any real effect or not.

A very rare species which is hard to identify, hard to survey as to locations, abundance or distribution, hard to identify threats or challenges, and hard to produce practical actions to halt any decline or loss, might be good for the conscience but may not make a very good flagship species which inspires public action and can deliver some tangible outputs that also help other species or habitats!

11 8. Habitat Action Plans (HAPs)

Habitat Action Plans, or HAPs, are Action Plans for particular named habitats that are either characteristic of the Borough of Lambeth or which deserve protection, promotion and management because of their importance for biodiversity at the local or national level.

Each HAP sets out the current status of the habitats on a national, regional and local level, plus what kinds of threats or pressures each is under. The HAP then describes what efforts are being made to protect and promote the habitat type, expand their area and distribution, or offer them better protection. Each HAP then ends with a set of proposed actions which will help deliver it in Lambeth, and which partner(s) will be undertaking each action.

Eight to ten HAPs is more than sufficient for a BAP; a total of nine habitats are proposed for the Lambeth BAP, but this can be amended through consultation and as the Lambeth BAP is implemented and evolves.

It is important to remember that the Lambeth BAP is not ‘fixed in stone’ – it is a constantly evolving document that reacts to changes in the quality, distribution and abundance of wildlife habitat in the Borough. Right through its life the Lambeth BAP will be reviewed and re-evaluated, and if new habitats need to be included, along with a specific HAP, to take account of these changes, then this is perfectly possible to do so.

New habitats can be added in as long as all the BAP partners are happy to do this, and the actions required for the additional habitats are both realistic and achievable. Indeed, some habitats in the original Lambeth BAP, and which have HAPs, could be removed if they are no longer felt to require actions to protect or promote them. The Lambeth BAP contains the following Habitat Action Plans:

• Acid Grassland Action Plan

• Allotments and Community Gardens Action Plan

• Built Environment Action Plan

• Churchyards and Cemeteries Action Plan

• Ponds and Open Water Action Plan

• Parks, Public Gardens and Open Spaces Action Plan

• Private Gardens Action Plan

• Railway Linesides Action Plan

• Tidal Thames Action Plan

• Woodlands Action Plan

12 9. Species Action Plans (SAPs)

Just as certain habitats may require a Habitat Action Plan, certain named species may also need a Species Action Plan, or SAP. Species which are included in the Lambeth BAP, and for which a SAP is compiled, might be ones which are characteristic of the Borough of Lambeth, or ones which need protection and promotion on a national as well as a local level.

Just as with a HAP, a SAP sets out the current status of a named species on a national, regional and local level, plus what kinds of threats or pressures the species is under. The SAP describes what efforts are being made to protect and promote that species or its habitats, and to prevent it from further decline or loss. The SAP ends with a set of proposed actions to deliver it in Lambeth, and which partner(s) will be undertaking each action.

A good BAP should try to keep the number of species described in it to a sensible number, say no more than six to eight species (or species groupings), each with a SAP. A total of six species are proposed for the Lambeth BAP, and as with habitats, this total can be amended through consultation and evolution of the Lambeth BAP. However, it is important to remember most species we are concerned for can be conserved through actions in a relevant HAP or set of HAPs. A HAP which has sound actions and objectives is not just beneficial to particular habitats it was written for, but also the numerous plant and animals that live in or depend on that habitat for shelter, food, territory or dispersal.

Therefore, in preparing HAPs the key driver is to think about the many species that live there or us it, and how they too will benefit from the protection and enhancement of that habitat. In that way, the number of SAPs that need to be prepared can be kept to a sensible figure.

The question is, of course, that if good HAPs will protect many different species, why do we still need SAPs in the Lambeth BAP. Well, some wild species might still need to have a SAP because of whatever reasons a number of HAPs might not cover them adequately and they still need to be offered additional protection, promoted better or we need to be managing them and their habitat requirements in specific ways. For example, stag beetles are in obvious need of protection and better promotion, but we’d struggle to cover their many needs in one or more HAPs. A woodland and private garden HAP will protect stag beetles in woodlands and gardens, but will it protect them where they are outside of a woodland or garden, say on the public highway or a commercial estate?

Stag beetles have a requirement for dead wood for their developing young, and unless we make particular reference to the need to leave dead wood behind or locate it better to meet the beetle’s specific needs, then HAPs might miss this or be unable to go into such detail. Stag beetles also have a poor public image, and this needs to be changed radically – a stag beetle SAP allows us to design actions that will help us overcome this perception and change it over time to a more positive one.

Some species might deserve a SAP because they aren’t uncommon in Lambeth or immediately threatened like the stag beetle, but have such a strong image with the general public that they can act as a ‘champion’ for many other species, some of which might be more threatened or under pressure. SAPs for such species can have actions which provide a broad ‘push’ to promote not just the names species but also many others that associate with it, are related to it, or have similar habitat requirements.

In devising SAPs and choosing species for them, the key issue is ‘realism’: we need species that are identifiable – people of all interests and backgrounds can identify and appreciate them – and for which practical and achievable actions can be produced. The Lambeth BAP has been devised so that all the species described in it and for which SAPs have been produced are ones we as a community can do something about and for them.

13 For instance, the mistletoe plant would benefit greatly if a) we knew where it was distributed across the Borough (surveys); b) we prevented it being removed from host trees (legal protection and making tree contractors more aware); c) prevented host trees being lost (enforcing tree protection orders and better tree maintenance); and d) encouraging its spread to new hosts (deliberate seed transplantation and protecting wild species that help spread it, e.g. thrushes).

The Lambeth Mistletoe SAP is designed to do all of this, yet in a way which is sensible, practical and realistic – and so all aspects of the Lambeth community can be involved, not just the professionals and experts.

The Lambeth BAP contains the following Species Action Plans:

• Bats Action Plan

• Blackbird Action Plan

• Crucian Carp Action Plan

• House Sparrow Action Plan

• Mistletoe Action Plan

• Reptiles Action Plan

• Stag Beetle Action Plan

10. Linkage Matrix – Joint Working, Joint Benefits

Wildlife habitats and species don’t operate in a vacuum – they are influenced by and depend on the actions of others, including humans. This means an Action Plan for a particular habitat or species can have an impact (hopefully beneficial) on other habitats and species, which is the reason we produce them in the first place so that all benefit from the work done.

However, an Action Plan for a given habitat or species also has impacts upon other habitats and species which also have Action Plans! This is not a bad thing of course, as it means whatever actions we take for one will hopefully help us deliver on other Action Plans and reinforce actions for a range of selected habitats and species. In preparing the Lambeth BAP Action Plans, we’ve tried to ‘play smart’ and ensure that actions for one habitat or species can go some way to help actions for the others, for this very reason.

The table below is a summary of how we think an Action Plan for one habitat or species in the Lambeth BAP will or could impact upon other habitats and species for which Plans are produced. A ‘X’ indicates we think there is a strong link between two different Plans, so that in taking action for one we have to think about impacts upon the other. The impacts should be beneficial and positive, but it also makes us aware that in changing something for one we might affect the other, so we shouldn’t be trying to bias changes for just one of the pair.

It also shows how some Action Plans have a very broad scope, and can influence the way other Action Plans are developed and implemented. It also shows that some Habitat Action Plans have a very significant influence on many Species Action Plans, and thus the species and actions described in them. Some HAPs also exert a strong influence on other HAPs for that same reason. Likewise, some SAPs have a strong influence on other particular SAPs, and can sometimes affect one or more HAPs and the habitats in them.

14

Acid Grassland Allotments Built Environment Churchyards Ponds & Open Parks & Open Private Gardens Railway Linesides Tidal Thames Woodlands Bats Blackbird Crucian Carp House Sparrow Mistletoe Reptiles Stag Beetle Acid Grassland Allotments X Built Environment X Churchyards Ponds & Open X Water Parks & Open X X X X Spaces Private Gardens X X X X X X Railway Linesides X X Tidal Thames X X Woodlands X X X X X X Bats X X X X X X X X Blackbird X X X X X X X X Crucian Carp X X House Sparrow X X X X X X X X X X Mistletoe X X X X X Reptiles X X X X X X X Stag Beetle X X X X X X X X

It’s worth noting that some HAPs and SAPs don’t seem to influence many other Action Plans, e.g. the Tidal Thames or Crucian Carp Action Plans. However, don’t be fooled into thinking this means these particular habitats and species are not important and shouldn’t have an Action Plan. It means they have very specific requirements or unusual status, that we in Lambeth recognise as being important for biodiversity, and are committed to protect and promote them. Even though they might not link to many other HAPs or SAPs, the ones they do so might be very strong linkages or dependencies, and we also need to be aware of that. This still requires us to look at each Action Plan in detail and take them all in context.

Therefore, the above table is not the be all and end all of the way we prioritise or view the various habitats and species in the Lambeth BAP – it is just a tool to help us think about how one Action Plan might influence the others – the real core is still the individual Action Plans.

15 11. Public and Community Participation

Without the genuine and practical involvement of all those who live and work in Lambeth, the Lambeth BAP cannot succeed. After all, when all is said and done, the Lambeth BAP is a document to benefit the people of the Borough as well as its wildlife, so it depends on their participation as well as them having a clear understanding of it and what it is asking of them.

The Lambeth BAP is not just a publication for the benefit of ecological experts or conservation practitioners, although obviously they do need to be involved and undertaking may of the key responsibilities and actions. It is also something that local people, of all backgrounds, interests, ages and skills need to understand and ‘own’, so that they can see where, when and how they too have an important role to play.

Each of the Action Plans have been written to ensure that everybody can understand why wildlife habitats and species have been identified as important for Lambeth, and why an Action Plan has been devised for them. Each of the actions for the habitats and species named in the Lambeth BAP are kept as simple, practical and realistic as possible, and complex or technical language is avoided wherever possible. The whole idea is to ensure that anybody reading the Lambeth BAP can appreciate what we are hoping to do, why we are doing it, and by when do we anticipate each action being delivered.

In each Action Plan is additional information which the reader might like to access to find out more about the named habitat or species, or contact details for other organisations working on protecting and promoting these habitats and species nationally or at a local level. Additional information on what other documents related to the Action Plan are also shown, e.g. UK or London Biodiversity Action Plans, so the reader can see how the Lambeth BAP and each Action Plan in it relate to what else is happening at the regional or national level.

Because a growing amount of helpful information is now available on the Internet, each contact for further information has details of the relevant website address, where the Lambeth BAP or each Action Plan is in paper format. However, where the Lambeth BAP and each Action Plan is hosted on the Lambeth Council website, or on other partner websites, a ‘hyperlink’ is attached so that the reader can ‘click’ onto the contact details and go straight to the relevant web page or download a useful document.

As well as the Full Action Plan, each named habitat and species in the Lambeth BAP has a ‘Summary Action Plan’. This is a much shorter document, designed to give the reader the key facts and figures and put actions into simple sentences that make clear what has to be done by everybody in Lambeth to protect, promote and enhance that named habitat or species. The Summary Action Plans is what to the reader how they can get involved with the delivery and management of the Lambeth BAP, through practical activities, campaigning to protect important habitats and species, or by becoming more aware of wildlife and its needs. The Summary Action Plan, being shorter and more concise in the information it contains, is ideal for being ‘hosted’ on the Lambeth Council website, or the websites or web pages of the Lambeth BAP’s other partner organisations. The Summary Action Plans are easier to convert into Adobe Acrobat PDF files, making the downloading of information quicker.

The concise nature of the Summary Action Plans makes them ideal for translation into other languages. This will ensure everybody in the Borough of Lambeth, regardless of whether or not they have English as a first or additional language is able to become more informed of the Lambeth BAP and engaged in the overall process. The Summary Action Plans are also amenable to being converted into special texts, Braille or into sound tapes, so that people in Lambeth who may have sight or hearing impairments are also included in the process

16 12. Acknowledgements

[A series of acknowledgements as to who helped with producing the Lambeth BAP, so that their contribution and commitment is recognised and continues through the implementation and delivery of the Plan.] To be finalised.

13. Contact Details

Name, address, telephone and email details of the key person(s) to contact with regards to the Lambeth BAP and its management and delivery. Usually a Council Officer, although contacts at partnership agencies may be included if specific information and advice is offered which cannot be sourced within the Council.

14. References & Further Reading

References to key documents, reports or other literature used in compiling the Lambeth BAP. It can also include website addresses if information was sourced this way. However, as important is to encourage the reader to find out more about BAPs in general, as well as about the habitats and species included in the Lambeth BAP – the Plan can only cover a fraction of the knowledge we have about each of these. Therefore, suggested ‘further reading’ is included, which can be easily located by a reader either via local libraries, the internet or the major bookshops.

15. Appendices

Key documents whose attachment will be important in helping the reader understand the Lambeth BAP, and how it will be delivered and managed. This should only include documents whose absence from the Lambeth BAP document would make it difficult to deliver – other information should be mentioned in the ‘References’ section. Most good Action Plans keep the objectives to no more than three or four.

17 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Acid Grassland

1. Aims

• To protect existing acid grassland sites within Lambeth for the benefit of biodiversity and for both current and future generations of local people.

• To increase the quality and biodiversity of Lambeth’s acid grasslands.

• To increase significantly the area of appropriately managed acid grassland in Lambeth.

2. Introduction

• Acid grassland develops over acidic soils, which usually originate from sands and gravels deposited as material from ancient river deltas, coastal seas and estuaries.

• These sands and gravels are freely draining and low in nutrients, not only those important for plants but which also maintain an alkaline or neutral pH in the resulting soils. There are a number of locations in Lambeth where the surface geology is dominated by sands and gravels, and where soils are ‘acidic’ as a result.

• Acid grassland habitat usually consists of various fine-leaved grasses and wildflowers which are able to tolerate and thrive in these acid, low nutrient conditions, such as common bent, red and sheep’s fescues, wavy hair grass, sheep’s sorrel, tormentil and heath bedstraw.

• Acid grasslands in Greater London are very important for their insect and spider populations, and are often colonised by distinctive groups of such invertebrates. This is due not just to the specific grass and nectar-rich flower species present, but also the loose and often bare soils, plus the dry and sun-exposed locations that acid grasslands are located in.

• Prominent invertebrate species in acid grasslands include hole-nesting bees, wasps and ants, many species of butterfly and moth, meadow ants, and birds such as meadow pipit, skylark and green woodpecker.

• The UK distribution of these unusual species is rather restricted, and this unique assemblage, along with their association with acid grasslands, has been collectively termed the ‘Thames Terrace Invertebrate Fauna’.

• Unlike chalk grasslands, acid grasslands are not as widely appreciated for their wealth of colourful wildflowers. This is unfortunate as much acid grassland contains a diversity of colourful or unusual plant species such as harebell, common storks-bill, buck’s-horn plantain, heath milkwort and bird’s-foot. Acid grassland in London can contain nationally scarce plants like clustered clover, upright chickweed and autumn squill.

18 3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• Acidic soils are fairly common in the Thames Basin - which includes Greater London - particularly where the River Terrace Gravels were laid down as a result of the constant shifting and meandering of the River Thames.

• Although there seems to be the potential for more acid grassland in Greater London, it is a surprisingly uncommon habitat. The main reasons are loss to developments like buildings, hardstanding or roads, or conversion into farmland or amenity grassland, with increased nutrient levels and loss of appropriate grass and wildflower species.

• Quarrying of underlying sands and gravels for aggregates has also had an impact on available acid grassland cover, plus the restoration of sites for uses other than grassland like open water or woodland.

• Lowland dry acid grassland is identified as a priority habitat in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, and London’s estimated 1300 hectares of acid grassland contribute about 4% to the national resource. Because acid grassland is so widely distributed across the Thames Basin, only six Boroughs are without this important habitat type.

• Although there are extensive areas of acid grassland in Greater London, such as Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common and Wanstead Flats, a significant proportion occurs as widely scattered or overlooked fragments on the margins of other habitats like farmland, amenity grassland, rail verges or woodland.

• Much of London’s existing acid grassland has suffered in terms of quality due to many factors. Traditionally much acid grassland would be maintained by grazing animals like cattle and sheep, and occur alongside areas of gorse and heath, bare ground and scrub.

• Over-intensity of use for grazing, or abandonment of grazing, and the consequent invasion of coarser grasses, bracken and immature woodland has had a major impact upon both the quality and area of acid grassland in London.

3.2 Local Status

• There are approximately 6 ha of identified acid grassland sites in Lambeth, which amounts to about 0.22 % of the total land area (2,727 ha) of the Borough.

Table 1. Description of the main acid grassland sites in Lambeth

Site Name Grid Ref Area (Ha) of % of Total Acid Ownership Grassland* Grassland (6 ha) Eardley Road TQ 292 703 0.60 10.00 LB Lambeth Sidings Grassland Peabody Hill – TQ 320 736 3.00 50.00 Peabody Trust Grassland Area Streatham Common TQ 307 709 2.40 40.00 LB Lambeth – Acidic Grassland (*) Not all of each named site is covered with acid grassland, and the area of grassland may only contribute a proportion of the total site area

19 • Most of the acid grassland cover in Lambeth is in the middle and southern half of the Borough, in Herne Hill, Streatham and Norwood.

• Most of the acid grassland in Lambeth has been managed at some time to allow the grassland to develop or be retained. This is obvious at Streatham Common, where a more relaxed mowing regime, plus a reduced level of fertiliser application, has helped retain the acid grassland and prevent it from becoming amenity grassland like the rest of the site.

• However, at places like Eardley Road Sidings the acid grassland developed as a result of a change of use and because of the unusual ground conditions. This site was originally part of large open railway carriage sidings and a stockyard, with the substrate made up of clinker, ash and gravels. Abandonment in the 1950s, combined with the acidic free-draining soils, has allowed a species assemblage typical of acid grassland to develop on site, which has been colonised by many species typical of this habitat.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline

• Out of Sight Out of Mind. All three of Lambeth’s main acid grassland sites are located in areas where there is a tendency to ‘forget they are there’ or that they need special management. Such sites could get included in a more general form of amenity or low-cost open space management, which reduces the acid grassland coverage or affects biodiversity. Equally these sites get neglected and so the habitat suffers from succession by more vigorous habitats such as scrub or woodland.

• Habitat Fragmentation. All three major acid grassland sites in Lambeth are physically isolated from each other by considerable distances, with no effective ‘green connections’ between them. This restricts the opportunity for plants and invertebrates typical of this habitat to move between sites, so sustaining existing or enriching species diversity.

• Lack of Appropriate Management. To be retained and develop, acid grassland needs to be carefully managed. Low-intensity grazing by livestock is the preferred method, but the fragmented nature of sites in Lambeth prevents farmers from placing animals on each site, and move them economically between sites. The average size of each site is not enough to support viable flock or herd sizes. Availability of suitable stock (or local farms), and disturbance of livestock by the public or their dogs in such urban settings is also prohibitive.

In the absence of grazing, mowing is the primary means to maintain the open character of acid grassland in Lambeth, but this is a far from ideal method as it can destroy many features important for supporting diverse invertebrate communities, such as anthills and tussocky grasses or scrub plants. It is nowhere as selective as grazing, as it cuts back many plants which may be important refugia or feeding resources for invertebrates and birds.

The effects of pollution from motor vehicles (which are high in nitrogenous gases and salts) is also thought to be exerting an adverse effect on acid grassland and heath on the outskirts of London, as a result of enriching soils and affecting species assemblages. However, this has yet to be proved nationally and especially in Lambeth where vehicle-derived pollution is already prevalent.

20 • Amenity Use. Acid grasslands in Lambeth are found in or close to existing public open spaces or dense residential settlements, and there is often heavy pressure on site managers or contractors to try and avoid complicated management regimes. Acid grassland can therefore be lost through inappropriate management (irrigation, fertiliser application, reseeding and tree planting) which benefits the more formal recreation areas but not the acid grassland or the plants and animals which depend upon it.

Recreational uses of acid grassland sites is also a problem, and can cause erosion of the fragile soils by walkers, bicycles or motorcycles. There is concern that eutrophication of the nutrient poor soils by dog excreta and dumping of grass cuttings (resulting from poor management orientated toward amenity uses) is also having an effect of habitat quality and species diversity.

• Dumping and Vandalism. All the acid grassland sites in Lambeth are targets for illegal dumping of household, industrial or building wastes, because they are less public or offenders escape discovery or evidence is obscured. Flytipped waste smothers valuable ground cover, can introduce pollutants or invasive weeds, attracts vermin if it contains organic or food matter, and discourages public use as the site becomes unsightly.

Fires, either started accidentally or deliberately, can be a major hazard at grassland sites, and damage habitat or kill animal species. Site managers often try and address the problem of fires by cutting the grass low and frequently, which will also affecting habitat quality or species diversity.

• Invasive Plants and Weeds. Dumping of garden or horticultural waste on grassland can introduce invasive or alien plants like Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed, Sycamore and Buddleja. All these plants can come to dominate parts of the grassland, and in doing so out- compete traditional species, so affecting species richness and its biodiversity value.

• Development of Land. Although the two main acid grassland sites in Lambeth are located in places which are protected from developments like housing, industrial estates or roads, Eardley Road Sidings would be under obvious threat were it not for its nature conservation designations and the Lambeth UDP. However, other smaller sites scattered across the Borough are under potential threat from loss to creeping development, and where their small size and hidden locations would not attract publicity or protests regarding the loss.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• The three acid grassland sites described in Table 1 are protected through inclusion in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP), both the current UDP and the new UDP currently in Draft Deposit stage. The UDP recognises these sites as important components of major open spaces and provides them with protection from development or inappropriate use.

• All three acid grassland sites described in Table 1 are identified as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and thus are provided with special recognition within the Borough’s UDP but also through the normal planning process.

• Streatham Common is a Metropolitan Common and so the acid grassland is protected under the same legislation which confers protection for the whole of the Common. Eardley Road Sidings is a proposed Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and if declared will be protected under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1947.

21 5.2 National Action

• Much of the acid grassland identified in the London Biodiversity Audit occurs within areas classified as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC); however, there will be other important areas yet to be discovered or classified.

• Some sites within Greater London containing acid grassland have statutory protection as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or as Local Nature Reserves (LNR). SSSIs with substantial acid grassland areas within them include Wimbledon Common (Merton and Wandsworth), Keston and Hayes Common (Bromley) and Epping Forest (Waltham Forest and Redbridge). Richmond Park is both an SSSI and a National Nature Reserve (NNR). LNRs with acid grassland include Stanmore Common (Harrow), Barnes Common (Richmond) and Hounslow Heath (Hounslow). Richmond Park, Wimbledon Common and Epping Forest are all candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), to be designated under European legislation for the invertebrate and habitat interest.

• Specially protected species associated with acid grassland in London include adder, common lizard and possibly slow worm. The protected Deptford Pink is a nationally rare plant which may still occur in acid grassland sites like Richmond Park and Blackheath (Greenwich).

• Many of the rare invertebrates associated with acid grassland are listed in the British Red Data Book (RDB), for example the mining bee Andrena florea, the bee wolf Philanthus triangulum and the digger wasps Diodontus insidiosus and Cereris quinquefasciata.

5.3 Local Action

• Eardley Road Sidings and Streatham Common are incorporated into the new Lambeth Grounds Maintenance Contract (GMC). The GMC recognises the presence of areas of acid grassland in both sites, and includes a management regime designed to retain both areas of grassland for their landscape character, public access and biodiversity value.

• Peabody Hill is managed by the Peabody Trust, who have a programme of maintenance which recognises the presence of an area of acid grassland, and retains its open character and biological quality. Peabody Hill could be a potential recipient of funding via the ‘Capital Woodlands’ grant scheme, funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). This will involve a phased programme of woodland and grassland management to improve public access, create new wildlife habitat and increase the structural diversity of the area.

• A Conservation Management Plan is being commissioned for Eardley Road Sidings, which will direct a programme of works to retain and enhance its biodiversity and landscape value. This Plan will recognise the importance of the area of acidic grassland, and will include management proscriptions appropriate for this habitat type.

• A Management Plan for Eardley Road Sidings will also assist the Council in delivering on its commitment to have the site managed for declaration as a Local Nature Reserve (LNRs). LNR status will provide added protection from disposal or development, but also from inappropriate management or works which would adversely affect its biodiversity and landscape importance, and the quality of acid grassland on site.

• A Management Plan is proposed for the whole of Streatham Common. This Plan will recognise the importance of existing wildlife habitats, including the acid grassland, and include management proscriptions to protect and enhance the grassland through appropriate site management and education.

22 6 Advice and Information

• Lambeth Parks is committed to encouraging, developing and disseminating best practice for the management of existing acid grassland in Lambeth, in particular the integration of appropriate conservation management into grounds maintenance policy.

• Landowners or organisations seeking guidance on the creation of new stands of acid grassland on suitable soils or substrates will receive support from Lambeth Parks and its Action Plan partners, in order to help increase the net area of this habitat in the Borough.

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of acid grassland are ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL20, RL21, RL25 and RL27 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice on acid grassland management and biodiversity can be found at:

• Royal Entomological Society (http://www.royensoc.co.uk/) • British Grassland Society (http://www.i-way.co.uk/~bgs/) • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (http://www.rspb.org.uk/) • Joint Nature Conservation Committee (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/) • DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) • English Nature (advice on management plans) (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Acid Grassland Habitat Action Plan is linked to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Allotments and Community Gardens • Parks, Public Squares and Open Spaces • Private Gardens • Railway Linesides • Woodlands • House Sparrow • Reptiles

• Flagship Species of Acid Grassland

The plants and animals listed in Table 2 are regarded as ‘acid grassland flagship species’ – they are characteristic of acid grasslands in London. Although only some are recorded in Lambeth’s acid grasslands, the intention of management be to both retain species already present, but also to manage or create acid grasslands so as to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

23 Table 2: Flagship Species of Acid Grassland Biodiversity

Species Name Latin Name Comments Harebell Campanula rotundifolia The ‘bluebell’ of Scotland is commonly found in dry and acidic/neutral grassland swards late into summer. Sheep’s Sorrel Rumex acetosella Member of dock family; blood red leaves are particularly characteristic of acid grassland. Eaten as wild salad plant. Heath Bedstraw Galium saxitale Sprawling plant often found on top of anthills. Along with other bedstraw species was traditionally used to stuff pillows and mattresses. Small Copper Lycaena phleas A small butterfly with metallic orange forewings, hence the specie’s common name. The common larval foodplant is sheep’s sorrel Red-banded Sand Ammophila sabulosa Striking insect with narrow elongated Wasp waist; frequents sandy grassland sites. Wasps require warm. Loose soil in order to breed, but adults also forage on nearby nectar-rich wildflowers. Ha

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Acid Grassland Action Plan:

• UK Lowland Dry Acid Grassland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=14) • UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Acid Grasslands Habitat Statement (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=53) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Acid Grassland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac07_acid.pdf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Audit – Acid Grassland (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/04_acidgrass.pdf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies ENV1 - ENV11, RL20, RL21, RL25 and RL27 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables are designed to set out some key objectives that would need to be achieved by the partnership Organisations for the Acid Grassland Action Plan to be delivered successfully, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

24 Objective 1: To raise the profile of acid grassland within Lambeth, and widen and strengthen appreciation by landowners and the public of its ecological value.

Target: Promote acid grassland in the Borough using flagship sites and a strong invertebrate theme, through a series of public events and promotional activities, by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Produce information on Lambeth’s acid 2006 LPG, PT grassland resource, focusing on the importance in terms of conserving Thames Terrace invertebrate fauna Develop a network of site managers and 2007 LPG, PT community interest groups, for distribution of information, management advice and good practice dissemination Ensure acid grassland sites are 2008 LPG recognised by Members and Planning officers for their regional importance as a habitat to be protected and conserved

Objective 2: To secure appropriate management of acid grassland.

Target: Appropriate management of all major acid grassland sites in Lambeth to be operational by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Produce best practice habitat 2006 LPG, PT management guidelines for acid grassland sites in Lambeth Distribute management guidelines to all 2007 LPG, PT acid grassland site managers or owners Integrate acid grassland management 2008 LPG, PT techniques into existing management procedures for all major sites in Lambeth

Objective 3: To conserve important species of acid grassland within Lambeth, with a strong emphasis on invertebrates, through a better understanding of their ecology and habitat management requirements.

Target: Initiate a Borough conservation programme for invertebrate fauna found in acid grassland sites in Lambeth by 2008

Action Target Lead Partners Produce and distribute guidance for site 2006 LPG managers on management for invertebrate interest in acid grassland Management of key acid grassland sites 2007 LPG, PT to benefit invertebrate value integrated into management procedures Undertake survey of Borough to identify 2008 LPG status of Thames Terrace invertebrate fauna, and help inform and guide management of suitable sites

25 10. Key References

English Nature (1999). Lowland Grassland Management Handbook, 2nd Edition. The Wildlife Trusts, Newark, Notts. (http://www.english- nature.org.uk/pubs/Handbooks/upland.asp?id=5).

Haggar, R J and Peel, S (Eds.) (1993). Grassland Management and Nature Conservation. Proceedings of a Joint Meeting between British Grassland Society and British Ecological Society. British Grassland Society, London.

Kirby, P (2001). Habitat Management for Invertebrates. 2nd Edition. RSPB/JNCC, Sandy, Bedfordshire.

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum PD – Lambeth Planning & Development EN – English Nature LNHS – London Natural History Society FC – Forestry Commission NR – Network Rail PT – Peabody Trust GLA – Greater London Authority

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

26 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Allotments & Community Gardens

1. Aims

• To help protect existing allotment and community garden sites in Lambeth through recognising their importance in terms of local biodiversity and a wildlife resource.

• To raise the profile of allotments and community gardens, and encourage a greater uptake and involvement in the Borough’s allotments and community gardens.

• To support and encourage allotment plot holders and community gardeners to manage sites so as to benefit or protect wildlife and biodiversity in Lambeth.

2. Introduction

• Allotments are areas of land provided for individuals to grow their own food and segregated into ‘plots’ which can be of various sizes depending on the overall size of the allotment site or other physical constraints. Individual plot holders normally produce food for their own consumption, and in theory work independently of other plot holders. In reality this is not the case, as most plot holders take a very co-operative approach to the management of the whole site and support each other in terms of advice, materials and good practice.

• ‘Community gardens’ is a broad term used to describe areas of land where management and use is ‘communal’ and aims to reflect the consensus of all members or people active on site. Whilst growing of food may be a major activity, community gardens are also used for environmental education, training and play purposes, or the location of wildlife gardens.

• Most of the food grown on allotments or community gardens is usually vegetable or fruit crops, although some allotment holders or communal gardeners might use sites for keeping domesticated animals (e.g. chickens and ducks) or rearing bees. Most sites show an enormous diversity in the types of crops or produce grown, and this certainly benefits the diversity of wildlife able to exploit such resources or habitats.

• Allotments and community gardens vary significantly in their management for the benefit and encouragement of wildlife. Some sites allocate certain areas as ‘nature sites’ and these are maintained for wildlife, often because many wild animals act as natural predators of insect crop pests, or such areas encourage pollinators like hoverflies, butterflies and bees.

• Some allotments or community gardens encourage or permit only organic or sustainable gardening practices, and this helps reduce or limit the adverse effects of pesticides or chemical fertilisers on wildlife, as well as the wider environment. Even if sites do not have such a policy, many plot holders or site users prefer to work with little or no reliance on pesticides or chemicals, and actively encourage others to adopt such practices.

• Many allotments and community gardens are now recognised for their importance in terms of protecting and encouraging local biodiversity, containing as they do different habitats and many wild species, some of which are priorities under the UK and regional Biodiversity Action Plans. Many sites are included in Borough BAPs and protected by inclusion in Local Plans or Unitary Development Plans under sections relevant for nature and landscape conservation.

27 3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• Allotments and community gardens make a significant contribution to local biodiversity. Their very management, purpose and location make them ideal resources for many different wild plants and animals, which might otherwise lack suitable habitats.

• There are places across the United Kingdom where species have been found that are unique to a single allotment site. However, even an average allotment site can contain many species that nationally are declining in distribution and abundance.

• Across the UK allotment sites are in decline. Many local authority sites are being lost to active use due to many factors, especially lack of resources and demographic or social changes. Some sites are securing their future survival by negotiating new leases to give them greater independence from local authority control, or are taking themselves into private ownership.

• The choice of crops or the growing of other plants by allotment holders makes a significant contribution to biodiversity; many species of once wild species, now domesticated, are being kept in existence by allotments. In addition, many wild plants or animals which associate with such traditional crops are kept in existence by allotment holders.

• Community gardens vary widely in their size, structure, function and ownership, as does their degree of stability and continuity. However, there are many examples across the UK of community gardens that have been successes and have continued to develop, especially as a wildlife resource. London and the major urban centres enjoy an abundance of community gardens, given the normal lack of accessible open space and facilities which these centres provide as an alternative, and the local community interest and support for such sites.

3.2 Local Status

• There are approximately 16.6 ha of identified allotment and community garden sites in Lambeth, which amounts to about 0.61 % of the total land area (2,727 ha) of the Borough.

• In Lambeth the ratio of available allotment plots to individual residents is very low; it is estimated there are about 600 available plots against a Borough population of 270,000 – a ration of 1 plot for every 450 individuals!

• There are about 8 working allotment sites in Lambeth, scattered across the Borough. Some allotment sites are very large (Rosendale Allotments, 400 plots), whilst others are relatively small and compact (Lorn Road Allotments, 29 plots).

• A number of allotment sites in Lambeth are no longer actively worked and have fallen into dereliction or allowed to evolve into ‘wild’ areas. To get these sites back into order is thought to be difficult without a significant injection of funding or external support.

• A number of old allotment sites were disposed of for new social housing or private commercial developments. Currently no working or old allotment sites are proposed for disposal under the current Unitary Development Plan.

• Of the many allotment sites owned by the local authority, only two are actively worked at present. Four other major allotment sites are privately owned and managed by committees set up by plot holders, and these have leases arranged with the landowners or their agents.

28 • Almost all of the community gardens in Lambeth are on sites owned by the local authority; they are either leased to community groups or managed by committees set up by site users.

• Many of the community gardens in Lambeth are popular resources, used for play, gardening, nature conservation and education. A number of community gardens have been successful in securing external or local government funding for improvements or for projects on site that widen community participation or address local social, education, recreation or health issues.

• There is no official organisation representing allotment and community garden sites in Lambeth; at the moment individual allotment associations or community garden groups dialogue directly with landowners or other partners on their own.

Table 1. Description of the main allotment and community garden sites in Lambeth

Site Name Grid Ref Area (Ha) % Total Garden Ownership Area (16.6 ha) Brockwell Park TQ 315 741 0.30 1.80 LB Lambeth Greenhouses (Environment) Effra School Nature TQ 314 748 0.25 1.51 LB Lambeth Garden (Education) Grayscroft Road TQ 296 702 0.25 1.51 LB Lambeth Allotments (Environment) Harleyford Road TQ 307 778 0.60 3.61 LB Lambeth Gardens (Housing) Iveley Road TQ 292 761 0.20 1.21 LB Lambeth Allotments (Environment) Knight’s Hill TQ 320 731 1.50 9.04 Peabody Trust Allotments Lorn Road TQ 310 765 0.60 3.61 LB Lambeth Allotments (Environment) Lyham Road TQ 304 744 1.50 9.04 Thames Water Allotments Oasis Children’s TQ 301 766 1.00 6.02 LB Lambeth Nature Garden (Education) Roots & Shoots TQ 312 789 0.25 1.51 Roots & Shoots Nature Garden Rosendale TQ 322 733 8.00 48.18 Dulwich Estates Allotments Streatham Vale TQ 294 699 1.20 7.23 SVPOA Allotments Tulse Hill Nature TQ 310 742 0.20 1.21 LB Lambeth Garden (Housing) Tyers Street TQ 307 783 0.25 1.51 LB Lambeth Allotments (Housing) Vauxhall City Farm TQ 307 782 0.50 3.01 LB Lambeth (Housing)

29 4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline

• Local Authority Spending Cuts. Many local authorities, with increasing pressures on budgets and demands for expenditure on statutory or core services, can view allotments and community gardens as ‘non-core’ and have cut funding allocated to such accordingly. Certainly over the last 50 years the amount spent on each Council-owned/managed allotment site has declined substantially in real terms. Many community gardens have also seen their local authority funding cut over time, and have come to rely more and more on external funding and be ‘smart’ in how they secure grants for projects based on site.

• Poor Support of Infrastructure. Greater reliance by local authorities on contractors or externalised services to maintain sites has reduced the level and standard of service provided to Council managed allotments, and probably the same is true of many community gardens.

• Poor Image of Allotments and Community Gardens. Many people (including the media) can view allotments as ‘old-fashioned’ and a tradition that no longer recognises a modern way of living and working. The image that allotments are full of elderly men and younger plot holders, especially women or families, are not welcome is grossly untrue. Community gardens can be perceived of by some as ‘cliquey’, isolationist or a place of controversial opinions! Again, such attitudes are very wrong, and reflect the general ignorance by the media as to the purpose, benefits and objectives of community gardens and allotments.

• Low Tenancy Take Up. Increasing pressures on people’s lifestyles means many cannot find the time to take up an allotment plot, or if they do they sooner or later find they cannot cope with the demands of maintaining it given other social or work demands. A poor image of allotments in some people’s minds also deters them from taking on an allotment plot.

• Demand for Housing. Many allotment sites, particularly if non-statutory, have been lost to developments like housing, industrial estates or community facilities. Poor allotment take up and neglect by land mangers has meant many sites, abandoned or unmanaged, have been sold for development as a quick means to address the sense of dereliction. Some community gardens have gone the same way, when community use has declined or the landowner has sold the site for a development which provides a greater and more secure income.

• Vandalism. Many urban allotment and community garden sites suffer heavily from vandalism, being seen as ‘easy targets’. Regular vandalism often deters better plot take up or community involvement and soon drives out legitimate users or forces the site into abandonment.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• Local authorities are legally bound to provide allotments under Section 23 of the Small Holdings and Allotment Act 1908 – these are called ‘statutory allotments’. The Allotment Act 1922 also defines the term ‘allotment garden’.

• Statutory allotment sites are protected by above legislation, but ‘temporary’ allotments are not. Many community gardens are not statutory sites and are not protected by existing allotment legislation. Statutory allotments regarded as ‘surplus to requirements’ can only be sold off with the consent of the Secretary of State under Section 8 of the Allotment Act 1925.

• Consent of the Secretary of State is required for the erection of any dwelling – as long as it is not a shed or greenhouse – on allotment land under Section 12 of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919.

30 5.2 National Action

• On 25th March 1998 the Government introduced a requirement for local authorities to demonstrate steps taken to promote allotments in their area before they can obtain consent from the Secretary of State to dispose of allotment land.

• Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) was recently rewritten to provide more advice to planners and other officers in local authorities, and to land owners, as to the protection and alternative uses of allotments.

• The Government recommends, to support and inform local authority officers responsible for allotments, the June 2001 publication ‘ Growing in the Community – a Good Practice Guide for the Management of Allotments’.

5.3 Local Action

• All known or worked allotment sites in Lambeth are identified and recognised in the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP), adopted 1998, and thus afforded a degree of protection from sale or development. The UDP recognises the importance of allotments, and is committed to promoting greater and more regular use of allotments.

• Lorn Road Allotments, Lambeth Parks’ only currently managed site, is supported through a programme of improvements designed to maintain the site and a high plot take up and use. The site is occupied and the waiting list is heavily oversubscribed.

• Lorn Road Allotments are managed so as to provide a wildlife area at the site entrance to protect and promote nature conservation. The whole site is recognised as a ‘Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation in Lambeth’ in the London Ecology Unit publication ‘Nature Conservation in Lambeth’ (Ecology Handbook 26, London 1994)

• Many of the other allotment sites across Lambeth are worked and occupied, and include many features or areas of benefit to wildlife. Many allotment associations actively encourage organic or wildlife-friendly gardening, and encourage plot holders to seek advice on biological pest control or non-chemical gardening as an alternative.

• The five private allotment sites in the Borough are recognised as allotments in the Lambeth UDP and any attempt to abandon or sell them for development would be opposed by the Council. In any case, alternative locations could be found for existing plot holders before any disposal could be accepted or any planning proposals considered.

• Some community gardens in Lambeth are located in sites provided with planning protection in the Lambeth UDP from development or inappropriate uses, e.g. Brockwell Community Greenhouses. Others like Harleyford Road or Roots and Shoots, are afforded protection by conditions in their lease or agreements with the freeholder, or are recognised in the Lambeth UDP as important areas of open space or community use.

• Almost all the community gardens in Lambeth are managed to protect and promote wildlife and nature conservation. Areas within each site are maintained as wildlife areas, either for the direct benefit of wild plants and animals, or as an education resource to teach about the merits of wildlife and wildlife gardening.

• Community gardens in housing estates and old school grounds are highly valued by the local community and the Council that any change of use or site alterations are required to retain such features and protect them from the impacts of development.

31 6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of allotments and community gardens are ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10 and ENV11 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice on allotments and community gardens, and on managing them to promote biodiversity and nature conservation, can be found at:

• Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/) • National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (http://www.nsalg.org.uk/) • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (http://www.rspb.org.uk/) • DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Allotments and Community Gardens Habitat Action Plan is linked to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Parks, Public Squares and Open Spaces • Private Gardens • Railway Linesides • Woodlands • Blackbird • House Sparrow • Reptiles • Stag Beetle

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Allotments and Community Gardens Action Plan:

• The Future for Allotments’. The Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report 'The Future for Allotments'. Hosted on the website of the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and provides useful information on the UK Government’s allotments policy (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_urbanpolicy/documents/page/odpm_u rbpol_608059.hcsp) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies ENV1 - ENV11 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

32 9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables are designed to set out some key objectives to be achieved by the partnership organisations for the Allotments and Community Gardens Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To increase uptake and use of allotments.

Target: A 10% increase in the uptake of available allotment plots by 2006.

Action Target Lead Partners Advertise allotment sites and allotment Ongoing LPG associations on Lambeth website, with links to support organisations Promotion of allotment gardening at Ongoing LPG Lambeth Country Show and other events Advertise the advantages and benefits of 2006 LPG, LSR allotment gardening to health and wellbeing in Doctor’s surgeries, medical centres and community facilities Promote the cultural and social diversity, 2007 LPG and the economic and community benefits, of allotment gardening

Objective 2: To promote and embed into the management of allotments and community gardens in Lambeth practices which encourage sustainability, the protection of wildlife and increases in their biodiversity value.

Target: To establish a network providing advice and support (including financial) to allotment and community garden associations by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Encourage adoption and use of ‘Good 2005 LPG, LHS Practice Guide’ (LGA Allotments report) by allotment or related community garden associations in Lambeth Promote ‘green’ allotment or community 2006 LPG, LHS gardening, avoiding the use of chemicals or unsustainable products Establish allotment and community 2007 LPG, LHS garden website and provide information and advice on gardening to encourage and promote wildlife and increase biodiversity value of sites Encourage and support the siting of nest 2008 LPG boxes and other shelters for wild birds, bats and mammals at suitable sites

33 10. Key References

Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (FCFCG). The Community Gardening Starter Pack. Advice on various topics including legal obligations, fundraising and negotiating for a site (http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/).

Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens (FCFCG). Good Practice Case Studies Pack. Examples of good practice as demonstrated by the experience of five different city farms and community gardens (http://www.farmgarden.org.uk/).

Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). Allotments: a Plot Holder’s Guide. A guide on the ODPM website for anyone who rents, or is thinking of renting, an allotment plot. It outlines many useful facts and gives a list of contacts that can answer more questions. (http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_urbanpolicy/documents/page/odpm_ urbpol_608056.hcsp

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LPCT – Lambeth Primary Care Trust LH – Lambeth Housing LHS – Lambeth Horticultural Society LSR – Lambeth Sports & Recreation LWT - London Wildlife Trust GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum PD – Lambeth Planning & Development GLA – Greater London Authority LNHS – London Natural History Society FCFCG – Federation of City Farms & NSALG – National Society of Allotment & Community Gardens Leisure Gardeners RAA – Rosendale Allotments Association SVPOA – Streatham Vale Property Occupier’s BCG – Brockwell Community Greenhouses Association RS – Roots and Shoots VCF - Vauxhall City Farm

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

34 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan The Built Environment

1. Aims

• To highlight the importance of buildings and other features comprising the built environment of Lambeth for wild plants and animals and for local biodiversity.

• To raise and sustain awareness of the need to protect and enhance buildings and built features of biodiversity importance through the formal planning and building control process.

• To promote ‘good practice’ in the design, development and management of buildings and the built environment in Lambeth in order to retain, protect and enhance their biodiversity and nature conservation value.

2. Introduction

• ‘Built environment’ refers to any structure or feature erected, installed or built on, above or under a given location in the Borough of Lambeth. The term ‘built environment’ includes things like domestic and commercial buildings, roofs, walls, bridges, tunnels, hard standing such as car parks and pavements, and structures like electricity pylons.

• The built environment also includes features like school grounds, including both hard and soft landscaped areas within the school. School grounds, many of which are in very heavily urbanised areas of Lambeth, can be some of the most interesting wildlife sites that young people have an opportunity to view and explore, and provide immediate access to nature and conservation and biodiversity through both curricular and extra-curricular activities. Although some schools have very bland and biologically deficient grounds, many others are working hard to add wildlife interest or biodiversity through a range of projects and schemes.

• Built environment includes features that are both vertical and horizontal, such as walls and roofs, respectively. It also includes features that are ‘permanent’ – they have been there for a relatively long time (e.g. historic buildings), or ‘temporary’ – they were designed to be in place for a shorter if rather variable time period, and then replaced by some other item.

• Horizontal, vertical, permanent or temporary – built environment is not just important for people, but also many different wild plant and animal species, and indeed often provides a home for a number of ‘microhabitats’. Many wild species that would normally have used natural features like caves, cliffs, rocks and bare ground have adapted over the centuries to use artificially created sites, as the natural sites have decreased in number and distribution.

• Built environment features differ dramatically in how they look, interact with each other and in their composition, as they are often built of a range of materials such as concrete, stone, bricks, metal, timber, glass and asphalt. All of these materials vary in how attractive they are to wildlife as a habitat or a supply of resources. They also differ in how they age, as some features become more attractive for wildlife as they deteriorate, season or weather. In addition, built features vary enormously in their degree of intricacy and complexity, as well as geographical orientation, and this produces a huge range of opportunities for new microhabitats to develop and mature, and for different species to colonise.

35 • Lambeth is full of built features of all forms, shapes, materials and ages, and so the potential provision of resources for wildlife to colonise, use and disperse out from is substantial.

• The built environment is home to a wide range of plants, birds and mammals. Ferns and flowering plants are found on many buildings and walls, and lichens are can be found on many structures. Even in a heavily built up place like London (and Lambeth), many lichens and mosses have established well on built features, and in turn they provide a habitat for many different species of wild animal.

• The diversity and abundance of insects and other invertebrates using built environment features for shelter, feeding and dispersal in enormous, albeit often poorly understood. One only has to disturb rotten wood or loose brickwork on any building in Lambeth to reveal a multitude of different invertebrate species, many of which are attractive to predators like birds, mammals and other invertebrates.

• Many species of wild bird have readily adapted to use built features, especially in towns and cities where more traditional natural features are absent. For example, swallows (Hirundo rustica), house martins (Delichon urbica) and swifts (Apus apus) readily use buildings instead of their traditional cliff habitats. Other wild birds use many built environmental features as feeding stations, or to monitor and defend territories.

• The black redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros), a relative of the robin which is also extremely rare in the UK, is a bird that has adapted extremely well to using built features in London and along the Thames Estuary.

• Mammals have also adapted well to many built features in towns and cities. Pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus spp.) often form roosts in many modern buildings, not just because there is a distinct shortage of suitable hollow trees in places like Lambeth, but also because domestic houses and commercial premises often have features that provide excellent roosting or nesting places, such as attics, eaves and voids in brickwork.

• Terrestrial mammals like foxes have also found built features attractive, and many a householder can verify the suitability of garden sheds, basements and outbuildings as places for urban foxes!

• Some species that use the built environment are viewed by the public as pests and attempts are often made to control or eliminate them, such as rats and cockroaches. Unfortunately such species are extremely resilient and readily adapt to using other built features as efforts are made to remove them from one building or area – there are just too many suitable resources and opportunities for them. However, most species that use built environmental features do not cause damage or disturbance to the building or us, and should be either tolerated or even encouraged.

• Some species that use the built environment are in decline and some are protected by law. Wild birds, for instance, are legally protected as are their habitats, and so the development, management and use of any built environment exploited by them needs to be conscious of the risk it poses to such species, and the implications for the owner or user.

36 3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• It is virtually impossible to give a figure as to how much ‘built environment’ there is in the UK or in Greater London. One only has to look at an aerial photograph of London to see just how much of the metropolis is covered with ‘hard’ features like buildings, hardstanding, roadways, bridges or walls. A ‘guesstimate’ of 60% built environment cover for Greater London is probably not far off the mark, and that is extremely dependent on where in the city we are looking at, and must be changing all the time as new buildings works start and finish.

• However, aerial photographs are extremely deceptive as they don’t show the depth or complexity of the built environment in a place like London, so that important vertical features like walls and fencing are overlooked, as well as their height and variation in composition, all of which can create numerous microhabitats for many wild species. The way in which buildings and other features change as they rise from the ground, or the different ways different materials change over time are also missed, all of which provide different opportunities for wild species over time and space.

• The built environment is not a ‘solid body’ either – built features are separated from each other by roads, railway lines, streams and walls. Some are useful as ‘wildlife corridors’ and can help species move from one item to another, but can also be ‘wildlife barriers’ if not constructed to benefit movement and dispersal of plants and animals. Therefore it is fair to say that the built environment, especially in a complex place like London, can be very ‘fragmented’ in some situations, but quite the opposite in others.

• The built environment in London is constantly changing over time and space – old features are being removed, altered or changed to different uses, and new features installed (and in their time changed or taken out). Though this might be seen as detrimental to wildlife species as traditional habitats are removed, other species readily adapt to changed or new features, or shift from older ones or more natural areas to colonise. It is the dynamism of the built environment, and its dynamic nature as a wildlife habitat, which makes it interesting to nature conservationists and those involved in promoting and protecting biodiversity.

3.2 Local Status

• The Borough of Lambeth covers an area of 2,727 ha and being such a heavily urbanised Borough, even by London terms, about 80% of this could be classified as ‘built environment’. This means that about 2,180 ha of Lambeth is built environment – in other words, this habitat is potentially the most overwhelmingly dominant of all the many habitats that could be included in a Biodiversity Action Plan, showing just how crucial it is to include it in the Lambeth BAP and ensure species utilising it are offered recognition and protection.

• The majority of built environmental features in Lambeth are privately owned and managed. Whilst private houses and business premises are covered under this heading, ‘privately owned’ also covers features under the control of commercial operations like utility companies (Thames Water, London Energy and Transco), and industrial estates.

• Lambeth Council is also a significant owner and user of the built environment, managing such diverse ‘hard’ features like housing estates, schools, council offices and public highways. Lambeth Council also owns or manages a wide range of parks and greenspaces, and many of these also contain important buildings and hardstandings, which are also important for biodiversity, given their location in natural areas.

37 • Another large portion of Lambeth’s built environment is in the ownership or control of a number of public bodies, such as major roads and highways (Transport for London), railways and railside features (Network Rail), hospitals (St Thomas’s and King’s College Hospitals) and the police or emergency services (e.g. fire, police and ambulance stations).

• Lambeth is incredibly diverse in terms of the type, age and complexity of its built environment features, linked in part to the long and varied history of the Borough, and the many different phases of building and urbanisation that has taken place over the last 500 years or more. This has given Lambeth an incredible richness in terms of opportunities for wildlife to colonise and exploit built features although some are invariably going to be more suitable than others.

• The incredible variety of building and surfacing materials in Lambeth, and the marked variation in age, detail and condition, must be one of the key factors in making built features so attractive to and important for wild plants and animals of all kinds.

• However, as to date nobody has undertaken a detailed survey of which features are most suitable for biodiversity, it is important to recognise the ‘potential’ for wildlife biodiversity in many areas at this stage. More work is clearly needed to pin down key areas of Lambeth and priority the built features that need protection and management.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Public Perceptions. Most people would never think of the ‘built environment’ as being a wildlife habitat! The first impression of many people – especially site owners and managers - is that buildings and other built features are devoid of wildlife, or what is there is not of any intrinsic biodiversity value. This creates a risk that the built feature in question is not managed with respect to the protection or promotion of wildlife species or microhabitats, and it is the visual appearance or state of the building or feature that takes precedence.

In addition, many existing buildings or built features might be taken down, removed or rebuilt on without thinking that they might have some value to wildlife, no matter how small or significant. It is only when the feature has been removed or changed, or is in the process of being lost or changed, that its significance is recognised, and then it may be too late to reverse the situation or rectify matters by creating replacement features or habitat.

• Inappropriate Management. Comparatively little is known about the built environment compared with more obvious habitat types. As a consequence, the requirements of many 'urban' species using built or hard features are poorly understood, and the options for management are unclear or confused. This creates the risk that the actual day-to-day, and future, management of a built feature is inappropriate, even if it might be well intentioned, and as a consequence there is a loss of individual species or species assemblages, or reductions in the distribution and abundance.

• Lack of Legal Protection. Legal powers certainly exist to protect some species using the built environment in Lambeth or anywhere else for that matter. However, these species cannot be adequately protected if their location is unknown, or we know exactly how to manage a built feature to provide that protection. It is difficult for legislators to ‘second-guess’ what protection might be needed for species when we don’t know exactly where they are or what in a built feature has to be safeguarded or managed correctly to do this.

38 • Demolition, Redevelopment and Disturbance. Changes to or the loss of built features are typical and constant within Lambeth’s urban environment; the Borough is constantly undergoing change, redevelopment and reconfiguration – and not just buildings. Roads, railways, communal areas and hard standings are constantly being remodelled as well. Even school grounds, often seen as ‘wildlife sanctuaries’, are constantly undergoing remodelling as new school initiatives place more pressure on space within the school grounds.

Many of plants and animals characteristic of the built environment are tolerant of disturbance; however, many others are not. In addition, many sites become occupied by wildlife when human use of a building has finished, and the ways in which wild plants and animals colonise redundant buildings or hard areas can be seen all over Lambeth. Nevertheless this is often only an intermediate stage before demolition of the buildings and redevelopment of the site, or once the building is reoccupied and wildlife is squeezed out by the needs of people.

• Lack of Integrated Site Management. Many wild species, particularly birds and mammals, have habitat needs which extend over numerous landscapes. In Lambeth, as with London, much of the land and the features on them are owned by many different organisations and people, this makes effective and integrated management for wildlife very difficult. One landowner or user might have a very sympathetic attitude to wildlife and be prepared to manage their site to encourage and retain biodiversity interest, whilst a neighbouring one might take a very different view. Some landowners may argue that it is difficult for them to afford or accommodate any provision for wildlife in their site, and be unaware of what their neighbours might be doing to address that at minimal inconvenience to the site or its users.

• Economic Factors. It is sometimes impractical for landowners or agents to protect urban habitats and hence of the built environment. Retention of certain built habitats or features can sometimes prevent proper maintenance of buildings and structures, or the effective economic use of the land. Inevitably, there has to be some form of ‘trade-off’ between the needs of people and wildlife in any built environment feature, but unfortunately in some circumstances this can be strongly biased towards the needs of humans.

• Human Disturbance. Many urban sites are subject to constant human and mechanical disturbance, including noise and light pollution. Many buildings and built environment features are used almost around the clock, seven days a week, and it is increasingly difficult to offer resident wildlife any ‘breathing space’ from this constant disturbance or intrusion. Some wild plant and animal species tolerate disturbance very well, whilst others certainly do not.

• Pollution. Lichens are a common feature of large swathes of the urban built environment; however, many lichens are very sensitive to air pollution, and this is a constant presence and issue in places like Lambeth. Another particular problem is surface water run-off – it is often contaminated with oil or salt from roads, and this can affect plant species that grow on or close to hard surfaces and on buildings, or are dependent on this water for survival.

Many insects also may not tolerate air pollution, therefore fewer insect eating birds might not be able to survive in built up areas – some believe this is one cause of the recent decline in many once common urban bird species. Former industrial sites, many of which are extremely important to many wild plants and animals, may suffer from historical ground contamination, such as from heavy metals, oils and persistent organic compounds. Whilst some plants and animals tolerate such ground contamination, it is known that others are extremely sensitive, and there are concerns that persistent pollutants can accumulate up the food chain, which potential effects of the local ecosystem and its general health.

• Invasive or Alien Plants. Some invasive alien plant species, such as Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam, can be a problem in urban areas as they displace native species.

39 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• No building or built structure is currently protected by any statutory or non-statutory wildlife designation. In fact, it is probable that few, if any, buildings would meet current criteria for wildlife designation. There does not seem to be any move by Government or any statutory nature conservation bodies to provide a designation that would encompass built features in their own right.

• However, that said, some built features are located within areas designated for nature conservation, e.g. the old military buildings on Orfordness, Suffolk, or buildings at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey, both of which are already SSSIs. Therefore, some built features might gain protection by being located in a designated site, and this is an option that needs to be investigated when considering the boundaries of any future site designations.

• The demolition of buildings and other structures does not always need planning permission so the retention of buildings and other examples of the built environment are not necessarily regulated by the planning system. This can mean that wildlife features are lost and there is no means to prevent this via the planning system.

• New buildings and structures usually require planning permission, as does alteration of existing buildings, and this does offer potential to ‘factor in’ features beneficial to wildlife and biodiversity. There are many examples in London where wildlife features or areas have been included in a new build or site conversion, such as ‘green’ or ‘brown’ roofs, in order to benefit plants, invertebrates and birds, including the Black Redstart.

• Listed buildings receive some protection from the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Such buildings require 'Listed Building Consent' before they can be destroyed or altered. Buildings in Conservation Areas also require planning permission for complete demolition. However, relatively few buildings and structures are protected by this legislation, and thus wildlife, which often finds abandoned or semi-derelict buildings are very attractive habitat, can be lost without knowing.

• Complying with legal requirements relating to public safety or dangerous structures may threaten important sites. If a building or feature has to be removed because it is a danger to the public, then no matter how important it might be for wildlife, there is very little that can be done to prevent habitat or wild species loss.

• Bats often roost in buildings and their roosts are fully protected under Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations, 1994. The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) also gives full protection to bats because of their special requirements for roosting. It is illegal intentionally to damage, destroy, or obstruct access to any place that a bat uses for shelter or protection, or to disturb a bat while it is occupying such a place. Bats often return to the same places each year and so roosts are protected even if there aren't bats there all the time. English Nature and the relevant local bat groups must be informed before any action is intended or taken, and which could affect existing or suspected bat roosts.

40 5.2 National and Regional Action

• A growing number of buildings and built features in London are identified as being of nature conservation value due, at least in part, to the way they have been designed, managed or located, or a the sensitive attitude and approach of their owners and users. Whilst none of these sites has been officially designated as a nature reserve or given some other form of status conferring biodiversity protection, local authorities and nature conservation agencies are working with the landowner or user to develop plans and policies to protect their biodiversity importance.

• The establishment and management of a large number of urban nature reserves in London offers a major opportunity for awareness-raising and advancing the cause of biodiversity conservation in urban areas, and the importance of buildings and built features for wildlife.

• For example, the London Wetland Centre at Barnes, the Deptford Creekside Education Centre or the Greenwich Peninsula Ecology Centre provide people with access to nature in relatively urbanised locations, and are surrounded by buildings and built features of known wildlife importance. These facilities not only provide places for visitors to learn about the importance of the built environment as a wildlife habitat, but also to see how buildings on site have been created and are managed to encourage wildlife to colonise and develop.

• Considerable effort has been undertaken in the UK and in London to design new buildings which have features in them that are beneficial to wildlife as well as people. There are a number of ‘green’ buildings and other initiatives, such as rooftop ‘urban wastelands’ to offset habitats being lost to other forms of built development. Examples include the BedZed development in Sutton, where the whole estate has been constructed to provide numerous features of interest to wildlife, such as green roofs as well as suitable tree plantings.

• A number of endangered or rare species are associated with buildings and the built environment, including many that are legally protected. In demolishing, restoring or altering an existing building, developers need to be aware of the legal and financial, as well as the bad publicity, consequences of destroying habitat or resources for these protected or threatened species.

• Across London ecologists, ecological consultants and local authority officers are working with developers and planning officers to ensure that more and more buildings are assessed or surveyed for wildlife interest before any works commence, and that any wildlife features are either retained in the new building or compensatory features are included. A good example is the increasing interest in ‘green’ and ‘brown’ roofs, which provide habitat that might be lost as a consequence of development on the site or on adjacent sites.

• The black redstart, a bird that favours rubble or scree-containing wasteland and industrial sites, especially close to or along the River Thames frontage, is under threat as these sites are demolished or built on. The London Biodiversity Partnership, London Wildlife Trust and a number of ecological consultants are now working closely with developers to either minimise the loss or removal of features being used by black redstarts, or to include features in the new build that the birds can use instead. A number of successful initiatives have been undertaken in the London Docklands area, around Canary Wharf, and other sites and developers are investigating similar projects along the rest of the Thames.

41 5.3 Local Action

• Although Lambeth Council does not specifically designate or confer protection on any building or other built feature purely on the basis of its actual or potential nature conservation value, officers in Planning, Housing and Parks are increasingly conscious of the importance of buildings and the built environment in the Borough for local wildlife and biodiversity. When proposed applications are submitted to Planning for changes to buildings and the built environment, any which might be of interest or concern in terms of wildlife or biodiversity are forwarded to and examined by officers to see if any issues need to be raised in the application and consent process to benefit local biodiversity interest.

• Lambeth Council officers, working with other nature conservation partners, are aware which areas or zones in the Borough are of importance or interest for local biodiversity, and this also includes the built environment of the Borough. Whilst each and every building in the Borough cannot be surveyed or assessed for biodiversity importance or wild species assemblages, areas of building or built features which are known or thought to be of biodiversity importance are noted and monitored, and any developments or projects that take place in these areas results in enquiries being made to fellow officers or the developers to identify the works being undertaken, and assessments of any potential impacts upon local wildlife and biodiversity being made.

• If developers or officers seek guidance on the impacts of building works or changes in any sensitive areas to local wildlife or require advice on how to mitigate any impacts, then Lambeth Council officers are willing to give such advice and make suggested changes or improvements to the works or plans. If external or professional advice is required to assist in providing such advice, officers are able to contact a number of recognised sources, or to put developers and fellow officers in contact with them.

• During and following development, officers are often contacted for advice on managing a building or built environment feature with regards to landscaping, horticulture or grounds maintenance. In giving such advice, officers also explore opportunities to manage sites to be of increased or continued interest to wild plants and animals, either those already on site (or had been there before the development) or to encourage in new species from other locations or adjacent sites.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of the built environment, particularly with respect to the promotion of biodiversity, include CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• A detailed audit was undertaken in the 1990s by the London Ecology Unit (LEU) as to sites of nature conservation and biodiversity interest in Lambeth. This resulted in the publication of the 1994 LEU report “Nature Conservation in Lambeth”. The Greater London Authority, into which the LEU was subsumed following the reorganisation of local government in London in 2002, is hoping to undertake a re-audit of Lambeth’s open spaces and nature conservation areas in the very near future. This will provide a welcome re-appraisal of the condition and quality of the Borough’s nature conservation assets, and will hopefully include the issue of the built environment, which is now seen as a crucial habitat type for London’s biodiversity.

42 • Further advice and expertise on the management and development of buildings and the built environment in order to protect and promote biodiversity, can be found at:

• CABE Space (http://www.cabespace.org.uk/) • London Brownfields Forum – London Biodiversity Partnership (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/lwt_brownfield_greenfield.pdf) • Association of Local Government Ecologists (http://www.alge.org.uk/) • Green Roofs – guidance on green roofs and wildlife value (http://www.english- nature.org.uk/news/news_photo/Greenroofs.pdf) • English Nature (advice on management plans) (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • RSPB (http://www.rspb.org.uk/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Built Environment Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Acid Grassland • Allotments and Community Gardens • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Parks and Greenspaces • Private Gardens • Ponds and Lakes • Railway Linesides • Tidal Thames • Woodlands • Bats • Blackbird • House Sparrow • Mistletoe • Reptiles • Stag Beetle

43 • Flagship Species of the Built Environment

The plants and animals listed in Table 1 are regarded as ‘flagship species’ characteristic of the built environment in London. Although some are recorded in Lambeth, the intention of the management of sites is to both species already present, but also manage or create habitats and features so as to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

Table 1: Flagship Species of the Built Environment

Species Name Latin Name Comments Rosebay Chamerion angustifolium Classic plant of disturbed ground. willowherb or Historically associated with bombsites of ‘Fireweed’ the Second World War; springs up in areas where there have been fires. Buddleja or Buddleja davidii Ubiquitous across London, as common ‘Butterfly Bush’ on buildings as it is around them! Very popular nectar source for numerous butterflies and other flying invertebrates. False London Sisymbrium loeselii Introduction to London found scattered rocket across wasteland sites or derelict areas. Bumble Bees Bombus spp. Found foraging for nectar in flowerbeds or grasslands around buildings and on wasteland or derelict hardstanding. Common Blue Polyommatus icarus Attractive, widespread species favouring sunny, sheltered grassy vegetation. Larval foodplants include common birds- foot-trefoil and black medick. Small Copper Lycaena phlaeas Survives in a range of habitats and needs warm, dry situations. Often seen in and around wasteland and buildings. Larval foodplants are common sorrel and sheep's sorrel. Black redstart Phoenicurus ochruros A red-tailed, robin-sized bird of the thrush family. One of Britain’s rarest birds. Once known as the ‘power-station’ or ‘bombsite’ bird, it is associated with wasteland and industrial sites. House Sparrow Passer domesticus House sparrows were once a familiar sight in London but now in decline. Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Very cosmopolitan bird of prey, frequently seen in hovering flight, searching for prey. Often uses buildings for nesting sites, and many built areas provide cover for its main prey of small mammals, amphibians and small birds Bats Common Pipistrelle Either use or associated with buildings (Pipistrellus pipistrellus); or features in the built environment. All Soprano Pipistrelle UK bats are legally protected, as are (Pipistrellus pygmaeus); their roots and nesting sites, many of Daubenton’s Bat (Myotis which include buildings or trees within daubentonii); Noctule Bat built areas. (Nyctalus noctula); Brown Long-eared Bat (Plecotus auritus)

44 8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Built Environment Action Plan:

• London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: Wasteland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac06_wasteland.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: Black Redstart Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac18_redstart.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: Peregrine Falcon Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac16_peregrine.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Statement: London’s Exotic Flora (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac28_exotic.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Statement: Urban Wastelands (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/20_urbanwastelands.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables are designed to set out some key objectives that would need to be achieved by the Partnership Organisations for the Built Environment Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates. It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To determine the importance of buildings and built features in Lambeth as habitat for wild species and the promotion of local biodiversity.

Target: Undertake an audit of buildings and other significant built features to identify sites or areas of existing biodiversity value, and areas with potential for improved biodiversity value, by 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a desktop study exercise to 2006 LPG identify areas, sites or features of actual or potential value or interest for wildlife Investigate ‘flagship’ areas, sites or 2006 LPG features, through visits and fieldwork to confirm desktop studies and identify particular habitats or species present Research, collate and refine survey 2007 LPG findings through communications with developers, site owners, project partners and other key officers Publish and distribute audit report (paper, 2007 LPG website, presentations and maps) to identify areas, sites or features of priority importance for biodiversity.

45 Objective 2: To raise awareness and appreciation by planning officers, developers and architects of the importance of buildings and the built urban environment as habitat for wild species and the biodiversity of Lambeth.

Target: To provide professional advice and guidance on the retention of wildlife features in existing or converted buildings, and the inclusion of wildlife-friendly features or areas in new developments or buildings, as well as appropriate site or facility management, by 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake an audit of current or 2006 LPG proposed planning and development policy and practice which protects and promotes biodiversity in the built environment in both the UK and Europe Deliver a series of visits, talks and 2007 LPG training programmes to planning officers, members and other Council staff to highlight the biodiversity importance of the built environment, and how to assess, monitor and mitigate impacts upon wildlife and biodiversity Deliver a series of visits, talks and 2008 LPG training programmes to developers, architects and key landowners/users to highlight the biodiversity importance of buildings and the built environment, and how to assess, monitor and mitigate impacts upon wildlife and biodiversity

Objective 3: To promote better management techniques for the promotion and protection of wildlife and biodiversity in buildings and built features in Lambeth.

Target: Publish a ‘Best Practice for Biodiversity Toolkit’ for the development and management of Lambeth’s built environment and buildings by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a review of good practice 2006 LPG being developed, followed or implemented by local authorities, developers, regulators, landowners and architects on protecting promoting biodiversity in the built environment Circulate, consult on and produce a ‘Best 2007 LPG Practice Toolkit’ for use in planning, developing and managing buildings and the built environment for the benefit and protection of wildlife and biodiversity Develop and service a local network of 2008 LPG interested parties to enable regulators, practitioners, site managers/owners and community representatives, to share knowledge, advice and good practice on promoting biodiversity and nature protection in Lambeth’s built environment

46 10. Key References

Gilbert, O. (1996) Rooted in Stone: The Natural Flora of Urban Walls. English Nature. Peterborough.

Machin, N. (2001). Planning for the Wild: How to Use the Planning System. London Wildlife Trust, London. A downloadable version of the guide can be found at: (http://www.blueplanetinternet.co.uk/rp/resourcefiles/20040507144925planman.pdf)

Wheater, C. P. (1999). Urban Environments. Routledge, London

Yarham, I, Waite, M, Simpson, A and Machin, N (1994). Nature Conservation in Lambeth. Ecology Handbook 26, London Ecology Unit, London

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT – London Wildlife Trust LH – Lambeth Housing (Regeneration) RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds LCR – Lambeth Community Renewal PD – Lambeth Planning & Development EN – English Nature LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority SBEG – South Bank Employer’s Group EA – Environment Agency LHA – Local Housing Associations RTPI – Royal Town Planning Institute PAL – Planning Aid for London

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

47 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Churchyards and Cemeteries

1. Aims

• To promote the protection, management and enhancement of the nature conservation value of cemeteries and churchyards in or under the management of the Borough of Lambeth.

• To sensitively promote the nature conservation value of churchyards and cemeteries in Lambeth, whilst respecting their primary purpose of burial and a space to accommodate grieving family and friends.

• To widen the involvement of all of Lambeth’s faith and cultural communities in managing and celebrating the nature conservation value of churchyards and cemeteries.

2. Introduction

• Churchyards are burial grounds associated with an identifiable church building (e.g. St. Leonard’s Churchyard, St. Paul’s Churchyard). Some churches have also established extensions and detached burial grounds to provide additional space.

• Once a churchyard is full in terms of burials, it is a ‘closed churchyard’. On becoming closed maintenance (but not actual ownership) of many Church of England burial grounds devolves to the local authority (i.e. Lambeth Council). In such circumstances the local authority must defer to the Church (or Church Commissioners) in terms of site management. Occasionally the closed churchyard is termed a ‘church garden’, usually when gravestones have been removed or levelled, and the site is dominated by amenity turf or bedding.

• Cemeteries are burial grounds which are usually interdenominational, and are under municipal or private ownership (e.g. West Norwood Cemetery). They are normally found outside the confines or jurisdiction of a religious meeting place.

• A wide range of habitats are found in cemeteries, including grassland, woodland, scrub and areas of wetland. Species associated with cemeteries and churchyards include those typical of woodland and woodland edge habitat, such as bats, stag beetle, spotted flycatcher, tawny owl and song thrush, as well as the holly blue, speckled wood and orange tip butterflies. The gravestones, monuments and walls of cemeteries and churchyards provide an unusual ‘masonry’ or ‘vertical’ habitat, which is favoured by many species of fern, invertebrate and lichen. Fungi and mosses also feature in many of Lambeth’s churchyards and cemeteries.

• The cemeteries and churchyards of Lambeth make a significant contribution to local public greenspace, often being the only available ‘green lung’ in heavily built up parts of the Borough. They also offer a sanctuary for both local people and wildlife. Cemeteries and churchyards in Lambeth often act as ‘adopted parks’, and many are visited by tourists and by people searching for ancestors for family trees and local history.

• However, it must be remembered that the primary function of burial grounds in Lambeth is for the burial of the dead, their veneration and commemoration, and so access to many monuments and graves needs to be maintained for family and friends. Therefore, sites cannot be allowed to be overrun by wildlife, and a sensible balance needs to be struck between the needs of nature and the needs of people in all of the Borough’s churchyards and cemeteries.

48 3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• There are thought to be 168 cemeteries in Greater London, and these cover approximately 1,300 ha of 1% of the total land area. In many of the Inner London Boroughs, cemetery land forms a significant percentage of the overall area of open space.

• The distribution or cemeteries and churchyards is closely linked to the changing burial needs of the Metropolis over the last 200 years. Churchyards and burial grounds in central London were adequate for burial needs until the early 19th Century.

• In order to overcome the problems of overcrowding city churchyards, the ‘Magnificent Seven’ cemeteries were authorised by Parliament in the first third of the 19th Century. Kensal Green Cemetery was the first to open in 1932, with the other six following in quick succession being West Norwood, Highgate, Nunhead, Abney Park, Brompton and Tower Hamlets. The Magnificent Seven were designed to be large and well landscaped, but over time as these too became full, they have tended to become neglected and subject to urban issues like vandalism and antisocial uses.

• Later public cemeteries are less ostentatious, lie in more suburban parts of London and are regularly maintained by local authorities. Alongside these are churchyards of former villages now within Greater London.

• Although churchyards represent a relatively minor resource in terms of area, their importance for biodiversity relates not just to individual site value, but also distribution throughout London and their contribution to the green space network.

• London is now close to exhausting its supply of burial space. Consequently, new legislation to allow re-use of graves is likely. A few new cemeteries are proposed and new-style ‘woodland burials’ are beginning to take place.

3.2 Local Status

• Although there are three cemeteries managed by Lambeth Council, only one is actually within the Borough itself – West Norwood Cemetery. The other two, Lambeth Cemetery and Streatham Cemetery, are situated within the Borough of Wandsworth. Nevertheless, this Action Plan will also apply to both Lambeth and Streatham Cemetery as their management and development for nature conservation is under the control of the Council, although this will obviously provide benefit to the biodiversity status of the Borough of Wandsworth.

• There are probably over 15 churches in the Borough which have green space within their boundaries, but of these seven are recognised as having ‘churchyards’ or ‘church gardens’ and which have actual or potential nature conservation and biodiversity value.

• These churchyards are scattered across the Borough, and often located at the centre of a historical ‘settlement’ which once had its own parish church. Some churchyards have managed to retain some habitats and species which would have once derived from the woodland, grassland and agricultural landscape which surrounded such churches and settlements until remarkably recently.

• Churches and cemeteries within the Borough boundaries make up about 19.78 ha of land, which amounts to about 0.75 % of the total land area (2,727 ha) of the Borough. This doesn’t include Lambeth and Streatham Cemeteries, as they are outside the Borough boundaries.

49 • The main churchyard and cemetery sites in or managed by the Borough of Lambeth are:

Table 1. Description of the main churchyard and cemetery sites of Lambeth

Site Name Grid Ref Area (Ha) of % of Borough Total Managed by Site Area (19.78)* Lambeth Cemetery TQ 265 714 17.00 N/A LB Lambeth

St. John’s Churchyard, TQ 312 801 0.40 2.02 LB Lambeth Waterloo St. Leonard’s TQ 300 717 0.40 2.02 Church Churchyard, Streatham Commissioners St. Luke’s Church TQ 319 221 0.31 1.57 LB Lambeth Gardens, Norwood St. Mark’s Churchyard, TQ 312 775 0.53 2.70 LB Lambeth Kennington St. Mary’s Church TQ 305 790 0.13 0.03 LB Lambeth Gardens, Lambeth St. Matthew’s Church TQ 310 752 0.53 2.70 LB Lambeth Gardens, Brixton St. Paul’s Churchyard, TQ 293 761 0.48 2.43 LB Lambeth Clapham Streatham Cemetery TQ 268 220 16.20 N/A LB Lambeth

West Norwood TQ 323 222 17.00 86.53 LB Lambeth Cemetery

(*) This does not include Lambeth and Streatham Cemeteries, as although owned and managed by Lambeth Council, they lie outside the Borough boundaries.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline

• Lack of Adequate Resources. Evidence presented to a recent Select Committee on Cemeteries indicated cemeteries are widely believed to be the ‘Cinderella’ service of local government. It also highlighted many historic cemeteries are not seen as a priority category under any National Lottery grant schemes.

Lack of appropriate funding and a poor status often puts cemetery managers under pressure to minimise maintenance costs and they cannot give adequate consideration to protecting or improving nature conservation value of a site. Church councils face identical resource constraints in the management of churchyards.

That said, however, new wildlife friendly cemetery or churchyard management practices are appearing and being encouraged by managers, especially with the growing interest in and practice of ‘green burials’. Some managers are quite interested in making biodiversity enhancements, especially if appropriate training or advice is being provided. Best Value also offers opportunities to advocate a more sustainable management of a cemetery site.

50 • Lack of Appropriate Management. There tends to be a preference for cemeteries and churchyards to look ‘neat’ and ‘ordered’ which if not handled correctly can be detrimental for wildlife and nature conservation interest. The same can also apply if, as part of a cemetery restoration programme, the work returns the site to its original pristine and neat condition, and in doing so removing many wildlife habitats that have developed as a consequence of partial neglect or lower levels of management.

Research has shown that whilst many regular visitors to cemeteries and churchyards value the peaceful and private qualities of sites which encourage and welcome nature, they don’t want to do this by wading through long grass, scrub or bramble to reach graves!

Another issue relates to the protection of graves and monuments from the effects of nature – unchecked growth of vegetation on monuments can cause severe physical damage or lichens and moss can obscure inscriptions. Therefore some degree of compromise to prevent such damage is necessary but this needs to be carefully undertaken to avoid complete loss of nature conservation interest.

• Shortage of Burial Space. The growing shortage of burial space in London has led to such practices as squeezing new graves between old ones or onto road and path verges, or mounding soil on top of old plots to allow new burials to take place. This could have adverse effects on the nature conservation value of the site, if such old or boundary features have been allowed to develop so as to be favoured by wild plants and animals.

The shortage of burial space within Inner London means many grave visitors travel long distances to visit graves. There is a risk that the personal link between a community and its local burial site is slowly lost as fewer and fewer individuals feel they want to make the journey when they have so many other demands upon their time.

There is a general presumption that, in order to address this situation graves will have to be re-used, probably about 75 to 100 years after the last burial took place. There is obviously a risk that any wildlife interest on the old grave could be lost, and so some means to manage this practice so that whole areas of wildlife interest are not obliterated needs to be in place.

Faiths differ widely in their customs and attitudes concerning cremation and burial (and even ‘green burials’), and thus their need for suitable burial space. Therefore, cemeteries will always need to be used for burials even 100 years into the future, so wildlife management needs to be aware of this issue.

• Development Pressure. Existing legislation relating to cemeteries and dating back to 1847 allows private cemeteries to be sold for development. Under the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 grave monuments in municipal cemeteries, unless listed by the Secretary of State, may have no legal protection against removal and destruction. This has allowed the clearance of older sections of some cemeteries, which has tragically also destroyed both the historical and nature conservation interest of these areas and the cemetery as a whole.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• A large number of London’s churchyards and cemeteries are protected by recognition of their historic and nature conservation status in the relevant local authority’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP). By inclusion in the UDP, such sites are provided with a significant degree of protection from development or inappropriate use.

51 • Many of London’s cemeteries are identified in UDPs as non-statutory Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), and comprise a net area of 769 ha, about 56% of the total cemetery area in London. Cemeteries identified as Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation include Highgate, Abney Park, Kensal Green, Nunhead, Tower Hamlets and Morden Cemeteries.

• No churchyards are at present identified as being of Metropolitan Importance, although the Greater London Biodiversity Audit estimated 57 churchyards were classed as being of Borough or Local Importance for nature conservation, with a total area of 88 ha.

• Further protection is offered to cemeteries and churchyards through being declared Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and through policies in UDPs (although at present only four London Boroughs have policies relating specifically to cemeteries).

• A number of London churchyards and cemeteries are included in English Heritage’s ‘Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest’, and others are within local authority Conservation Areas. The historical value of grave monuments and their inscriptions is increasingly being recognised and many are now listed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• Several London cemeteries have active ‘Friends’ groups which in addition to fundraising, historical and nature conservation work, run education programmes and training schemes. The National Federation of Cemetery Friends acts as an information exchange and lobbying body, allowing London groups to benefit from work and expertise elsewhere.

• The London Wildlife Trust works to promote the importance of cemeteries and churchyards as nature conservation resources, through a series of publications, walks and talks, as well as managing two churchyards for their biodiversity importance.

• The former ‘Living Churchyard and Cemeteries Project’ published advisory information, ran open days and began a project on sustainable cemetery management. The Alliance of Religions and Conservation is currently looking at reviving the Project.

• The House of Commons Select Committee’s Cemeteries Report of 2001 made a number of recommendations relating to nature conservation in cemeteries. They suggested that cemetery managers should evaluate the biodiversity potential of their cemeteries and manage accordingly, that the Living Churchyard and Cemetery Project should continue, and that English Heritage and English Nature should develop special assessment procedures to identify and protect nature as well as historical conservation interest.

• A number of government initiatives can also assist with promoting biodiversity. For example, the Audit Commission is reviewing performance indicators for local government, the Home Office is researching basic statistics on the nation’s cemeteries, English Heritage is undertaking a Cemeteries Review project, and a new government advisory group is being formed to disseminate guidelines on training and management plans for cemeteries.

52 5.3 Local Action

• West Norwood Cemetery, one of the original ‘Magnificent Seven’ cemeteries of early Victorian London, has been recognised for many years for its significant heritage value. The Cemetery contains the graves of many eminent persons of the Victorian and Edwardian Era, such as Sir Henry Tate, Mrs Beeton, Sir Henry Doulton and Hiram Maxim. Recognition of the heritage value of the site resulted in a programme of monument, building and boundary wall restoration works, directed by a Scheme of Management (SOM), which began in 2001.

• West Norwood Cemetery’s importance for nature conservation and its contribution to the Borough’s biodiversity has been recognised for many years, due to the abundance of numerous habitat types as a result of past management or the presence of features attractive to wild plants and animals. For this reason West Norwood Cemetery is listed in the Lambeth UDP as a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade 1).

• Recognising this status, West Norwood Cemetery’s SOM is designed to balance the needs of nature with the need to restore monuments and improve public access, and retain wildlife habitat where feasible. Detailed wildlife surveys of the Cemetery were undertaken before the SOM was instituted, and these help direct the annual works programme to ensure areas are retained or are managed on a cyclical basis to allow species to recolonise restored areas or create new habitat opportunities.

• Although Lambeth and Streatham Cemeteries do not have Schemes of Management like West Norwood cemetery, they are recognised for their similar value for local biodiversity, and site management is designed to protect wildlife habitat where possible or acceptable. Wandsworth Council has surveyed both sites as part of a detailed audit of the Borough, and important habitats and species were identified.

• St. Leonard’s and St Paul’s Churchyards were identified by the London Ecology Unit (now part of the Greater London Authority) as Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation. Both sites are described as such in the LEU’s 1994 report ‘Nature Conservation in Lambeth’ as such (West Norwood cemetery is also described in this same report). This status provides both sites with recognition for their wildlife importance and confers additional protection from inappropriate use or development.

• St. John’s Churchyard, St. Luke’s Church Gardens, St. Mark’s Churchyard, St. Mary’s Church Gardens, St. Matthew’s Church Gardens and St. Paul’s Churchyard are classed under the UDP as public open spaces, and as such as offered protection from inappropriate use or development. As ‘closed churchyards’ these sites, plus St. Leonard’s Churchyard, are not in a position to be sold or developed for uses that would conflict with the need to respect them as burial grounds and allow access by families or visitors.

• St. John’s Churchyard, St. Luke’s Church Gardens, St. Mark’s Churchyard, St. Mary’s Church Gardens, St. Matthew’s Church Gardens and St. Paul’s Churchyard are all managed under the 2004-2009 Lambeth Grounds Maintenance Contract (GMC). This means that they are subjected to an annual maintenance programme designed to retain features of importance for landscape character and public access. Although wildlife habitat is fairly restricted at each churchyard, trees, monuments and boundary areas are used by many wild species, such as birds, invertebrates and plants.

53 6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of cemeteries and churchyards, or the wild habitats and species within them, are ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL20, RL21, RL25 and RL27 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice and expertise on the management of cemeteries and churchyards to promote biodiversity, or protect features of landscape or nature conservation interest, can be found at:

• Alliance of Religions and Conservation (http://www.arcworld.org/) • Association of Burial Authorities – information on address for information is found at: (http://www.buildingconservation.com/directory/ad089.htm) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group – information on the Group and its remit: (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/burials/burialsgroup.html) • Cemetery Research Group (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/crg/index.htm) • Council for the Care of Churches (http://www.careofchurches.org.uk/) • English Heritage (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/default.asp) • English Nature (advice on management plans) (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • Friends of West Norwood Cemetery (http://www.fownc.org/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • National Association of Monumental Masons (http://www.namm.org.uk/about_namm.htm) • National Federation of Cemetery Friends (http://www.cemeteryfriends.fsnet.co.uk/index.html)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Cemeteries and Churchyard Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Parks, Public Squares and Open Spaces • Private Gardens • Bats • Blackbird • House Sparrow • Mistletoe • Reptiles • Stag Beetle

54 • Flagship Species of Cemeteries and Churchyards

The plants and animals listed in Table 2 are regarded as ‘flagship species’ – they are characteristic of cemeteries and churchyards in London. Although only some are recorded in Lambeth’s burial sites, the intention of the management should be to both retain species already present, but also to manage or create cemeteries and churchyards so as to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

Table 2: Flagship Species of Biodiversity in Cemeteries and Churchyards

Species Name Latin Name Comments Wall Ferns Aspleniaceae A group of ferns usually associated with the shady permanently damp corners of a churchyard or cemetery. Holly Blue Butterfly Celastrina argiolus Holly blue caterpillars feed on the flower buds of holly and ivy. The butterflies have wings with pale blue undersides and small black spots, and can be seen fluttering around trees and ivy-bound hedgerow, trees and walls in summer. Tawny Owl Strix aluco Mature trees in churchyards and cemeteries provide nest and perching sites for tawny owls. A nocturnal predator feeding on rodents. Lichens e.g. Caloplaca decipiens Extremely slow growing plants often found on stone or brickwork, hence their abundance in cemeteries and churchyards on graves and monuments. Usually very sensitive to air pollution Cuckooflower Cardamine pratensis Plant with pretty pink flowers; timing of blossom often coincides with the spring calling of the cuckoo bird, hence its common name.

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Cemeteries and Churchyards Action Plan:

• London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Cemeteries and Churchyards Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac10_churchyards.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Audit – Cemeteries and Churchyards (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/14_churchyards.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies ENV1 - ENV11, RL20, RL21, RL25 and RL27 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved by Partnership Organisations for the Cemeteries and Churchyard Action Plan to be delivered successfully, and identifies target dates. It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

55 Objective 1: To protect the biodiversity interests of Lambeth’s churchyards and cemeteries.

Target: To create a comprehensive database of sites and their wildlife by 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Establish a network of groups interested 2006 LPG in the nature conservation value and management of Borough burial sites Develop and undertake a survey of burial 2007 LPG grounds to audit habitats, species and nature conservation value Monitor the reuse and development Ongoing LPG proposals in relation to new and existing burial sites in the Borough via the planning consultation process

Objective 2: To promote the management of cemeteries and churchyards to protect and promote nature conservation.

Target: Implement a range of mechanisms to share information, advice and good practice on conservation management of burial sites in Lambeth by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Establish a network of cemetery and 2005 LPG churchyard owners/managers to promote wildlife management and good practice Establish links and communication 2006 LPG network with faith groups in the Borough or using sites for burial Disseminate advice on promoting 2007 LPG biodiversity in burial ground management, on websites, on paper or in training documents Produce, offer and organise training 2008 LPG workshops for burial site managers or maintenance staff as required

10. Key References

Arthur Rank Centre (undated). Living Churchyard Pack, Arthur Rank Centre

Burman, P & Stapleton, H (1988). Churchyards Handbook, 3rd Ed. Church House Publishing

Cooper, N (2001). Wildlife in Church and Churchyard: Animals, Plants and their Management, 2nd Ed. Church House Publishing

Gilbert, O (1989). Rooted in Stone: Natural Flora of Urban Walls. English Nature, Peterborough

Rugg, J and Duncan, J (1994). The Management of Old Cemetery Land: a Report of the University of York Cemetery Research Group. Shaw and Sons

Yarham, I, Waite, M, Simpson, A and Machin, N (1994). Nature Conservation in Lambeth. Ecology Handbook 26, London Ecology Unit, London

56 11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LCC – Lambeth Cemeteries & Crematoria GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor LWT - London Wildlife Trust LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum PCC – Parish Church Councils EN – English Nature LPD – Lambeth Planning & Development WCP - Wandsworth Council (Parks) LNHS – London Natural History Society FWNC – Friends of West Norwood Cemetery BTCV – British Trust for Conservation GLA – Greater London Authority Volunteers LSP – Lambeth Strategic Partnership

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

57 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Parks and Greenspaces

1. Aims

• To encourage good nature conservation practice in Lambeth’s parks and greenspaces, and promote a greater diversity of wildlife habitat and abundance of wild plants and animals.

• To raise awareness in people, schools and businesses of the importance of Lambeth’s parks and greenspaces in terms of the biodiversity of both the Borough and London.

• To encourage a greater involvement by residents in their local parks and greenspaces for a wider range of positive uses, including landscape and nature conservation.

2. Introduction

• Parks and open spaces have been a major part of the lives of people living and working in Lambeth for almost two centuries. Many of the Borough’s major parks and open spaces have a rich history going back to Victorian or Edwardian times. Some were originally private estates bough by public subscription to save them from development, whilst others were deliberately created from existing open land, commons or the clearance of old properties. Many of the Borough’s parks were created and laid out to provide healthy air and free space for the labouring classes or provide low-income families with recreational facilities.

• After the Second World War, planning legislation and major urban regeneration schemes were instituted to encourage the creation of new parks and open spaces to provide people with places for recreation, education and relaxation. A number of Lambeth’s public parks and greenspaces were created in the last 50 years, often on the site of land cleared of housing or industrial premises or which had been demolished by bombing during World War Two.

• Parks and open spaces are crucial for the quality of life for people living and working in cities like London. They provide opportunities for relaxation, recreation, and play and to observe and enjoy landscape and wildlife. They act as the ‘green lungs’ for people living in major urban centres who for whatever reasons are unable to live in or visit the wider countryside.

• Parks and greenspaces are also important in that they often provide the ‘environmental’ element in improving the quality of people’s lives, giving them immediate access to wildlife and fostering a sense of environmental responsibility and interest in nature conservation. Many parks and open spaces provide wild plants and animals with vital resources, and enable them to visit people’s homes and gardens, so providing pleasure and delight.

• London is internationally acclaimed for its parks, yet sadly this enormous resource of open space is not normally managed or designated to promote wildlife. The general perception is that parks and greenspaces are there for access, recreation and leisure, and that nature conservation takes second place. This is an attitude which is changing in many quarters, as more people and managers recognise the significant biodiversity status of their local park.

• As development extends into the countryside surrounding Greater London, especially into the ‘Green Belt’, more and more people increasingly recognise the importance of London’s parks and greenspaces as a safe haven for wildlife, and as a vital component of the City’s biodiversity status. The demand for sites to be managed to reflect this status is growing.

58 3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• It is estimated that of 30,000 urban parks and greenspaces in the United Kingdom, about 5,000 are considered by their managers to be of national or local historic importance (ILAM Report ‘Local Authority Owned Parks: Needs Assessment Phase 1’). This is probably the same for sites in Greater London.

• In 1992 the Audit Commission estimated that a further 17,300 parks and ornamental gardens across the UK are in the hands of private bodies or charitable trusts. This is also the case in London (and indeed in Lambeth) – some famous parks or greenspaces are managed in this way, e.g. Mile End Park, Syon House Gardens or Waterloo Millennium Green.

• An aerial photography survey of Greater London in 1981 indicated that parks and public greenspaces comprised about 12,000 hectares or 8% of London’s land area. Sport pitches made up about 5,000 ha (3%) and grounds of schools and other institutions about 2,500 ha (1.5%). However, as some sports and school grounds land has been lost to development in since 1981, the percentage contribution made by parks and public greenspaces will have invariably risen in the last 23 years.

• Traditionally the landscape management of London’s parks tended to have a formal quality, often featuring elaborate flower planting and bedding schemes, neat lawns and ornate buildings like summerhouses, fountains, bandstands and aviaries. However, repeated cost cutting by local authorities or other landowners has led to deterioration in the quality and detail of formal landscaping in many sites.

• This deterioration in landscape quality has been concurrent with increasing reliance on external contractors to undertake horticultural or grounds maintenance work in parks and public greenspaces, and not just by local authorities. The 1992 Audi Commission report found that contractors managed about 50% of the UK’s parks and public greenspaces.

3.2 Local Status

• The Borough of Lambeth has 64 officially designated ‘parks and public greenspaces’, which are managed by Lambeth Council’s Parks and Greenspaces Unit.

• A commercial Grounds Maintenance Contractor (GMC) – called Cleanaway Landscapes - maintains these 64 sites under a 5-year grounds maintenance contract, which runs from April 2004 to March 2009.

• Repairs and capital works to each of the 64 parks and public greenspaces is undertaken by officers from Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces, who act as the Client Managers to the GMC and monitor their performance against a range of contract targets.

• The GMC is responsible to maintaining standards relating to cleanliness (e.g. litter removal, bin emptying and graffiti removal), horticultural quality (e.g. grass cutting, bedding and shrub management) and provision of public amenities (e.g. maintaining toilets, paddling pools, marking out and maintaining sports pitches).

• Security in the Borough’s 64 parks and public greenspaces is provided by the ‘Lambeth Parks Ranger Service’ (LPRS). The LPRS consists of a team of qualified and trained Council officers to provide the public and park user groups with reassurance as to their safety and wellbeing, and offer advice and encouragement to legitimate users of facilities.

59 • There are approximately 270 ha of land in Lambeth which is designated as ‘public parks and greenspace’, which amounts to about 9.9% of the total land area (2,727 ha) of the Borough. There are also a number of small sites which, although privately owned, are managed and promoted as parks for the public to access, use and enjoy.

Table 1. Description of the principal parks and greenspaces in Lambeth

Site Name Grid Ref Area (Ha) % of Borough Total Ownership (270.00) Agnes Riley TQ 295 739 1.51 0.56 LB Lambeth Gardens Archbishop’s Park TQ 308 792 3.93 1.46 Church Commissioners Brockwell Park TQ 316 741 51.99 19.26 LB Lambeth

Clapham Common TQ 287 748 77.54 28.72 LB Lambeth & LB Wandsworth Kennington Park TQ 313 776 14.39 5.33 LB Lambeth

Larkhall Park TQ 299 766 5.47 2.03 LB Lambeth

Myatt’s Fields Park TQ 318 767 5.12 1.90 LB Lambeth

Norwood Park TQ 326 713 14.28 5.29 LB Lambeth

Rush Common TQ 309 748 3.71 1.37 LB Lambeth

Ruskin Park TQ 325 757 14.70 5.44 LB Lambeth

Streatham Common TQ 305 709 26.12 9.67 LB Lambeth

Streatham Rookery TQ 309 708 1.83 0.68 LB Lambeth

Waterloo Millennium TQ 313 802 0.58 0.22 Waterloo Green Green Trust Windmill Gardens TQ 305 743 1.56 0.58 LB Lambeth

Vauxhall Park TQ 305 777 3.16 1.17 LB Lambeth

60 • Most of the 64 parks and greenspaces managed by Lambeth Parks have some degree of biodiversity value, containing as they do features or areas which are known or believed to have nature conservation interest. The net area(s) within each site vary considerably, being dependent on size, location, origin, management regime and the proximity of other areas which act as ‘green corridors’ or reservoirs for wild plants and animals to colonise from.

• Four of the 64 sites managed by Lambeth Parks are proposed Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), and recognised as such for their biodiversity value. Ten other sites are Sites of Borough or Local Importance for Nature Conservation in the London Ecology Unit (LEU)’s 1994 report ‘Nature Conservation in Lambeth’ because of the presence of habitats or species of importance for the Borough’s biodiversity.

• Many of the Borough’s parks and public greenspaces have Parks User or ‘Friends’ groups, who work in partnership with Lambeth Council to manage and develop their local open space. Many Friends groups are aware and acutely sensitive about the nature conservation interest of their local site, and the need to manage areas of biodiversity importance appropriately.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Public Perceptions. Natural areas of woodland and scrub in parks and public greenspaces can be associated in the ‘public eye’ with concerns over personal security, especially for women and people on their own. Long grass and wildflower meadows might indicate a sense of neglect, poor management or an ‘uncared for’ attitude to the open space. People also complain that long grass or scrub areas accumulate litter and hide dog or hazardous wastes.

There can be conflict in some parks and greenspaces between the need for ‘tidiness’ and provision of resources for wildlife, if management is not handled sensitively and users are properly consulted or made aware of the reasons for relaxed management in certain areas.

• Financial Constraints. Parks and greenspaces across the UK have long been subject to severe financial constraints, particularly following the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT), and now with Best Value.

Whilst this has affected all aspects of greenspace management, it has also had ramifications for the creation and management of ecological areas within public open spaces. For instance, funds might not be available for new mowing machinery suitable for wildflower meadows, or the cost of maintaining such meadows may be prohibitive compared to that for amenity turf. Cost cutting on flowerbed management might necessitate the use of herbicides which will in turn affect wildlife, and cost cutting on staffing reduces flexibility to undertake conservation works, which often are more resource-hungry than standard horticulture.

• Contract Specification Problems. It is difficult to state, in a money-led, technical contract specification document, how to manage features or areas so as to benefit both the needs of wildlife and demands for tidiness, cleanliness and safety. For instance, how do we define shrubbery or hedgerow management which looks tidy but allows for the accumulation of leaf litter which then benefits invertebrates and many birds and mammals which feed on them, e.g. hedgehogs, robins and shrews?

The tight timescales for many modern grounds maintenance contracts is also a problem for activities that will benefit nature conservation in parks and greenspaces. It can be difficult to have sufficient flexibility in a contract to permit ‘fine tweaking’ as new wildlife habitats evolve or extend, or to alter the sequence of management regimes to accommodate the needs of nature, such as when wild birds nest earlier than anticipated or nest in new locations.

61 • Staff Training. There is a need for training in the ecological management of parks and greenspaces, including assessing the impacts of traditional gardening methods on habitat creation and management. This training is needed by both contract managers and their staff, as well as by contract monitoring staff within the local authority or landowner.

Contract operational staff can lack sufficient skills in horticulture, even before nature conservation management, to assess situations as they encounter them or appreciate why, when and how they are being asked something specific. A high staff turnover in both local authorities and contractors exacerbates the problem as trained and skilled individuals leave and fail to pass on their accumulated knowledge and experience to new staff.

• Vandalism and Dumping. Many parks and public greenspaces suffer frequent attacks from vandalism, which can impact upon wildlife areas, such as the deliberate arson of meadow grassland. This can make site owners, managers and users naturally reluctant to entertain such risk areas, and revert to short mown amenity grassland for safety and costs reasons. Newly planted trees, mature trees and hedgerows also suffer abuse, and this can deter not only use by wildlife but also people from attempting to be innovative in having such features.

Some parks and greenspaces suffer from occasional or repeated acts of flytipping and dumping; wilder areas are often more vulnerable as offenders can hide activities in these without the risk of discovery. Dumping can smother wildlife interest in areas, or make managers reluctant to retain them in order to remove the nuisance. Some dumping can involve toxic or polluting waste, which can damage soil or groundwater quality in these areas.

• Invasive Plants and Weeds. Dumping or the inappropriate disposal of garden or horticultural waste can introduce invasive or alien plants, like Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed, Sycamore, Rhododendron, Cherry Laurel or Buddleja, to many parks and greenspaces. These plants can dominate indigenous wild plant species or shade out the normal ground flora, so affecting species richness and distribution in the open space, especially within wildlife areas. The effects on site biodiversity are obvious as a consequence. The use of herbicides to control them obviously creates its own ecological problems (see below).

• Pesticides. Many modern grounds maintenance contracts rely to a lesser or greater extent on the use of pesticides (herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, molluscicides, rodenticides) to control or eradicate a range of plant and animal pests. The objective is often to keep things like lawns, bedding, pathways and hardstandings free of weeds and mosses, etc., and to keep costs low by the use of chemicals rather than manual labour to address the problem.

The short- and long-term impacts of commercial pesticides on wildlife, and not just that in parks and greenspaces, are still poorly understood. However, there is growing concern about the indiscriminate use of such complex chemicals upon natural ecosystems. Local authorities and site managers are under increasing pressure to find alternatives when it comes to public parks and greenspaces, especially where effects upon humans are also a concern.

• Damage by Animals, Including Dogs. Dog waste is now a major public health issue, and there is evidence it can affect wild flora through effects on soil chemistry and nutrient levels. People who exercise their dogs in parks can, if not careful, increase the level of disturbance to wild animals, especially birds. Balanced against that must be the fact that dog walkers help ensure a park or greenspace is regularly occupied and monitored, so helping increase security and deterring crime or vandalism. Other wild animals can cause damage to parks if not managed, e.g. bark stripping of young trees by grey squirrels, muntjac deer and voles.

62 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• All of the 64 parks and public greenspaces managed by Lambeth Parks are protected from development or loss by inclusion in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Both the current UDP (released 1998) and the new UDP (currently in Draft Deposit stage) recognise and attach great importance to the Borough’s parks and greenspaces for many functions, including nature conservation and biodiversity. Many of the larger parks are designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or as Urban Open Space.

• A number of public gardens and squares in Lambeth are listed in a register of historic landscapes maintained by English Heritage. Lambeth Council, as the Local Planning Authority, is required to consult with English Heritage regarding developments or changes to management which could affect these listed sites.

• Many of Lambeth’s parks and public greenspaces are within Conservation Areas, and this confers additional protection from inappropriate developments (both surrounding and actually within the open space), some of which could adversely affect their landscape and nature conservation value.

• A number of parks and public greenspaces in Lambeth were ‘covenanted’ or donated ‘in perpetuity’ to the Council for the benefit of the public and for their use and enjoyment. Although so far none of these donations specifically mention an obligation to provide areas of nature conservation interest or protect or promote resident wildlife, the fact they guarantee the retention of such areas of open space means efforts to create or manage a wildlife interest are both possible and welcomed.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• A DEFRA Minister is being made responsible for overseeing the development of a vision and proposals for parks and open spaces which the Government wishes to see created in future.

• Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) – Sport and Recreation – is being reviewed to give local planning authorities a clearer framework for assessing the needs for open spaces.

• Significant funding has been provided through the National Lottery to restore and improve parks and greenspaces across the UK. A proportion of this money will invariably be for the creation, management and protection of areas and features within parks and greenspaces that have wildlife as well as heritage conservation value. Many management plans to both access money and to deliver on allocated funding will give consideration to the promotion of nature conservation within sites, and have specific actions designed to achieve this.

• The London Parks and Green Spaces Forum is a wide partnership of organisations promoting a network of accessible quality green space to make London healthier and more sustainable.

• CABE Space is a new initiative, funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), looking at good practice in the design, management and maintenance of parks and open spaces in towns and cities. CABE Space works with local authorities and other bodies responsible for public space to think holistically about greenspaces, and residents' health and well-being, routes to school and work, and recreation through play and sport. Its goal is to ensure everyone in England has access to well designed and well looked after public space.

63 5.3 Local Action

• The Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan was adopted in 2002 and provides a framework whereby changes or improvements to parks and public greenspaces are made in partnership between Lambeth Council, Park User Groups and local communities. The Strategic Plan provides an opportunity for proposals to make changes to the management, restoration and structure of a local open space which will benefit wildlife and biodiversity to be raised, consulted upon and delivered on that are acceptable to all interested parties.

• The Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Forum (LPGF) is a consultative body made up of representatives of Parks User (‘Friends of’) Groups, Members and Parks Officers, which debates and advocates on strategic greenspace management and development issues. The Forum regularly discusses and provides guidance on initiatives and opportunities to improve the biodiversity value of the Borough’s parks and greenspaces, and nature conservation is an important feature in many Agenda items.

• Eardley Road Sidings, Knight’s Hill Wood, Palace Road Gardens and Unigate Wood are sites incorporated into the new Lambeth Grounds Maintenance Contract (GMC), which are recognised for their significant nature conservation interest and importance for the Borough’s biodiversity. Conservation Management Plans are being commissioned for Eardley Road Sidings, Knight’s Hill Wood and Unigate Wood, in order to direct works designed to retain and enhance their biodiversity and landscape value. These Management Plans will also assist the Council in securing additional funding for the enhancement of the sites.

• Management Plans for Eardley Road Sidings, Knight’s Hill Wood and Unigate Wood will also assist the Council in delivering on its commitment to have all three sites managed and maintained for declaration as Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). LNR status will provide added protection from disposal or development, but also from inappropriate management or works which would adversely affect their biodiversity and landscape importance.

• A number of other important parks and greenspaces in Lambeth are in the process of having Management Plans produced for them, which will direct work to protect their landscape, heritage and amenity character, as well as promote management that will create new or expand existing wildlife habitats. Examples include Brockwell Park, Clapham Common, Streatham Common, Myatt’s Fields Park, Lambeth Walk Open Space and Norwood Park.

• Many of the Borough’s parks and public greenspaces have areas which are managed deliberately for the benefit of wild habitats and species. These are identified in the Grounds Maintenance Contract specification and instructed to be maintained as such by Parks Client Officers in conjunction with the relevant Park User Group.

• For example, appropriate areas of traditionally close mown grassland are being encouraged to develop into wildflower meadows or rough grassland by reducing the mowing frequencies and timing cuts to avoid the main flowering periods.

• A number of hedgerows and shrublines within some parks and greenspaces are being managed to try and make them more attractive or structured for wildlife, especially where the hedgerow is made up of native species. Opportunities are being looked at to plant more native hedgerows in parks where existing hedgelines are deteriorating or becoming ‘gappy’.

• Management Plans for the Borough’s parks and greenspaces fully consider and integrate the need to protect and manage trees and woodland areas, and the same applies to lakes, ponds and marginal wetland features.

64 6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of parks and greenspaces, and the promotion of biodiversity, include CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• A detailed audit was undertaken in the 1990s by the London Ecology Unit (LEU) as to sites of nature conservation and biodiversity interest in Lambeth. This resulted in the publication of the 1994 LEU report “Nature Conservation in Lambeth”. The Greater London Authority, into which the LEU was subsumed following the reorganisation of local government in London in 2002, is hoping to undertake a re-audit of Lambeth’s open spaces and nature conservation areas in the very near future. This will provide a welcome re-appraisal of the condition and quality of the Borough’s nature conservation assets, and will invariably include many parks and greenspaces, some of which appeared in the original 1994 LEU audit and 1994 report.

• Further advice and expertise on parks and greenspace management, and on promoting biodiversity in public open space management, can be found at:

• CABE Space (http://www.cabespace.org.uk/) • ILAM (http://www.ilam.co.uk/) • Association of Local Government Ecologists (http://www.alge.org.uk/) • Greenspace (Urban Parks Forum) (http://www.green-space.org.uk/) • DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/index.htm) • English Nature (advice on management plans) (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • RSPB (http://www.rspb.org.uk/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Parks and Greenspaces Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Acid Grassland • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Private Gardens • Ponds and Lakes • Railway Linesides • Woodlands • Crucian Carp • Bats • Blackbird • House Sparrow • Mistletoe • Reptiles • Stag Beetle

65 • Flagship Species of Parks and Public Greenspaces

The plants and animals listed in Table 2 are regarded as ‘flagship species’ characteristic of parks and public open spaces in London. Although some are recorded in Lambeth’s parks and greenspaces, the intention of the management of the such sites should be to both retain species already present, but also manage or create habitats and features so as to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

Table 2: Flagship Species of Park and Greenspace Biodiversity

Species Name Latin Name Comments Buttercups Ranunculus spp. Bulbous buttercup, an early flowering buttercup, grows in less intensively managed lawns. Meadow buttercup grows in areas of longer grass. Lady’s Bedstraw Galium verum Occurs in old lawns and often an indicator of a long history as a garden. Oxeye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Attractive brightly coloured member of daisy family; highly attractive to insects. Bumble Bees Bombus spp. Found foraging for nectar in flowerbeds or in meadow grassland rich in flowers. Great Tit Parus major Found widely in parks and gardens with a diversity of small and large trees. Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus Relict populations found in suburban and a few central London parks and greenspaces, but known to be declining. Holly Blue Butterfly Celastrina argiolus Small butterfly with caterpillars feeding mainly on holly and ivy, but also uses some other shrubs. House Sparrow Passer domesticus House sparrows were once a familiar sight in London’s parks and gardens, but now in decline. Meadow Brown Maniola jurtina Typical butterfly of areas of long Butterfly grassland, so long as the mowing regime takes account of overwintering larval and adult stages. Robin Erithecus rubecula Very popular with the general public and children; associated with shrubberies and wooded areas of parks and gardens Six Spot Burnet Zygaena filipendula Colourful day flying moth, favouring Moth areas of long grassland. Song Thrush Turdus philomenos National BAP species, in serious decline both nationally and regionally.

66 8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Parks and Greenspace Action Plan:

• UK Lowland Wood-Pasture and Parkland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=5) • UK Ancient and/or Species-Rich Hedgerows (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=7) • UK Lowland Meadows (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=10) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Parks, Squares and Amenity Grassland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac12_parks.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Statement – Parks, Squares and Amenity Grassland (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/19_parksamenitygrass.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables are designed to set out some key objectives that would need to be achieved by the Partnership Organisations for the Parks and Greenspace Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates. It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To improve knowledge and understanding of the nature conservation interest and biodiversity value of Lambeth’s parks and public greenspaces.

Target: Undertake a Borough-wide audit of public parks and greenspaces to identify sites and areas of existing biodiversity value, and areas or sites with potential for improvement to increase biodiversity value through appropriate management, by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a desktop study exercise as to 2005 LPG important sites, and areas within sites, known or believed to be of biodiversity value for the Borough Undertake a Phase 1 field survey of 2006 LPG Lambeth’s parks and greenspaces to identify key areas and habitats for nature conservation value Research, collate and evaluate existing 2006 LPG data on habitat condition and species content of sites and areas identified for nature conservation value Publish findings of audit (paper, website, 2008 LPG presentations) to identify key nature conservation sites, areas and habitats within parks and public greenspaces, for use by public, park user groups, site managers and key partners

67 Objective 2: To promote good management for nature conservation in Lambeth’s parks and public greenspaces

Target: Publish a ‘Best Practice Guide’ for park and greenspace biodiversity by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a comprehensive review of 2005 LPG other Local Authorities, community trusts and other landowners in Greater London as to good practice in the management of parks and public greenspaces for the protection and promotion of biodiversity To circulate, consult on and produce a 2006 LPG ‘Best Practice Guide’ for the nature conservation management of parks and public greenspaces in Lambeth To develop a programme of training and 2007 LPG guidance for grounds maintenance and site managers to support the Best Practice Guide and identify opportunities for implementation to increase parks and public greenspace biodiversity To develop and launch a Borough 2008 LPG network to enable practitioners, site managers, contractors and community groups to share knowledge, good practice and novel techniques

Objective 3: To improve public and user group knowledge and awareness of wildlife in, and the biodiversity importance of, Lambeth’s parks and public greenspaces.

Target: To deliver a programme of talks, walks, information and training to Members, key officers, schools, community organisations and park user groups by 2008

Action Target Lead Partners To deliver a programme of talks, walks 2005 LPG and training on nature conservation in parks and greenspaces, for the benefit of parks user groups, officers, Members, contract managers and key partners To deliver a programme of talks, walks 2006 LPG and training on managing parks and greenspaces for the benefit of nature conservation, to parks user groups, officers, Members, contract managers and key partners To deliver a training programme to parks 2008 LPG user groups, officers, Members, contract managers and key partners on identifying wildlife and simple wildlife monitoring techniques, to help assess impacts of changes in site management and development on biodiversity.

68 10. Key References

Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000). Urban White Paper: “Our Towns and Cities: the Future”, HMSO

DTLR (2001). Green Spaces, Better Places. Interim Report of the Urban Green Spaces Task Force. HMSO

Flint, R. (1985). Encouraging Wildlife in Urban Parks: Guidelines for Management. London Wildlife Trust, London

Greater London Authority (GLA) (2001). Scrutiny of Greenspaces in London. Report for the Greenspaces Investigative Committee, GLA, London Yarham, I, Waite, M, Simpson, A and Machin, N (1994). Nature Conservation in Lambeth. Ecology Handbook 26, London Ecology Unit, London

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum TFL - Trees for London EN – English Nature PD – Lambeth Planning & Development PT – Peabody Trust LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority BTCV – British Trust for Conservation MPGA – Metropolitan Parks and Gardens Volunteers Association LGF – London Parks and Greenspaces Forum

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

69 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Ponds and Open Water

1. Aims

• To encourage good nature conservation practice in Lambeth’s ponds and open water bodies, to promote a greater diversity of wildlife habitat and abundance of wild plants and animals.

• To raise awareness in people, schools and communities of the biodiversity importance of Lambeth’s ponds.

• To encourage greater involvement by residents and local communities in the management and development of Lambeth’s ponds for a wide range of positive uses, including nature conservation and recreation.

2. Introduction

• Ponds and areas of open water within Lambeth have a rich history associated with them. Whilst some ponds are in parks and other public open spaces, others are on private land or in sites not normally accessible to the public. Nevertheless, all came into being through various routes, and come in all shapes and sizes and are used for many different functions.

• Lakes, ponds and reservoirs are classified under the London Biodiversity Action Plan as ‘areas of standing open water’. Reservoirs, by definition, are artificially created water bodies, some of which enclose very large areas of water, and are used in London for the storage and supply of water for drinking and other domestic functions.

• All the lakes in London probably resulted from the damming of streams or rivers to create water features in parks and other formal landscapes, or as a consequence of mineral extraction activities, mainly for sand and gravel.

• Some of London’s ponds probably had natural origins, but most surviving ones may be remnant farm ponds or marl and clay pits, some fed by natural spring waters. Most ponds in London, especially more recent ones, were dug deliberately for aesthetic or nature conservation purposes in parks, gardens, schools and open spaces. Many modern ponds would not naturally hold water and are lined, either with artificial liner material or puddled clay.

• Ponds, lakes and open water bodies have immense value for local communities in urban areas as they provide access to water for a variety of recreational, educational, aesthetic and nature conservation activities. London’s ponds and lakes are used for fishing, swimming, boating, socialising, entertainment, environmental education and nature conservation, and many have associations or groups who work to manage, protect or develop them.

• Accessible water bodies are relatively restricted in London, and people would otherwise have to travel considerable distances to parts of Kent, Essex, Surrey and Sussex for the above activities if such resources were not available within the City. Therefore, people living around or using ponds, lakes and open water features in London are very protective of them, and efforts to fill them in, drain them or restrict their use is fiercely resisted.

70 • Alongside their recognition as cultural, recreational and aesthetic resources, ponds and lakes in London are now increasingly valued for their contribution to nature conservation and biodiversity. Many ponds are rich in habitats, plants and animals that are increasingly restricted or uncommon in London, or act as a ‘refuge’ for wildlife as other suitable habitat is lost or experiences a decline in management and quality.

• Ponds and other water bodies are also important, particularly in urbanised areas like Greater London, in terms of helping to manage and regulate the movement and drainage of water from sources such as springs, streams, rainfall and urban runoff. Ponds and lakes have been recognised for centuries as an effective tool to not only ‘capture’ water for uses such as power, agriculture, drinking and sport, but also prevent it flowing away too quickly or causing flooding problems in roads, houses and gardens.

• There are numerous examples, even in London, of areas or locations where ponds and lakes have been filled in or built over and as a result there have been problems with erosion, flooding or waterlogging because natural or runoff water cannot be controlled any more. The response has often been to ‘blight’ areas as being at increased risk from flooding or erosion, with subsequent impacts upon property values and insurance premiums, and often requiring new and expensive drainage to try and rectify the problem.

• Many ponds and lakes in London are used for environmental education purposes, both formal and informal, as they offer a stimulating opportunity for children and adults to learn about wildlife that associates with water bodies or wet areas. Many ponds are located within schools for this reason, or are in parks or nature sites accessed by school parties or adult visitors. Ponds and lakes are now seen by conservationists, educationalists and site managers as a tool to raise the awareness and interest of people in urban wildlife, nature conservation and biodiversity, as well as in landscape management and history - ponds and lakes often have a rich local history associated with them.

• However, many of London’s ponds and lakes have become affected by neglect, vandalism or poor management, and their nature conservation status as well as their aesthetic and recreational value have deteriorated as a consequence. Many ponds and lakes have been lost to neglect or development, but others are protected and are slowly being brought back to life by site restoration projects or the actions of local people and interest groups.

3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• The London Wildlife Habitat Survey of 1984-1985 showed that there was at least 1,744 hectares of standing open water bodies within Greater London. However, this figure in most certainly an underestimate as the Survey focused on larger water bodies and excluded the majority of smaller ponds that are known to be scattered across the City.

• Boroughs like Enfield, Waltham Forest and Hillingdon have a comparatively high proportion of standing open water because of the presence of large reservoirs (Waltham Forest and Enfield) or extensive former gravel workings (Hillingdon).

• Surveys in the 1980’s counted at least 1,834 individual lakes, ponds and other significant open water bodies across Greater London; these surveys did not manage to count all garden or school ponds. Some Boroughs obviously have a greater number of ponds and open water features than others, with Boroughs like Havering, Barnet and Hillingdon having figures of 343, 191 and 153, respectively. These outer London Boroughs have high numbers due to the abundance of former farm ponds remaining in more rural parts of the Green Belt.

71

• Inner London Boroughs like Tower Hamlets, Kensington and Chelsea, Islington and Hackney have far fewer water bodies, with numbers of 13, 6, 3 and 9, respectively. However, the inner London Borough site totals would significantly increase if private garden ponds were included.

• It has been difficult to place the extent of open water in London in a national or regional context, partly because of the complexity of the ponds, lakes and reservoirs. However, the concentration of large reservoirs in and around London, many of which are important for bird populations, is highly significant. There is no doubt that London’s ponds, lakes and reservoirs make an important contribution to the City’s biodiversity. However, the size, complexity and management of an individual water body obviously influences its nature conservation interest.

• Smaller water bodies tend to provide valuable habitat for amphibians like common frog, palmate newt, great crested newt and many species of dragonfly. Where there are dense stands of vegetation such as Greater Reedmace (Typha latifolia), a diverse range of other invertebrates are supported, such as hoverflies, soldierflies, butterflies and moths.

• Larger water bodies such as lakes and reservoirs are noted especially for their wildfowl. Most of London’s larger lakes will support species such as pochard and tufted duck, and where fish are present, cormorants are regularly seen. Better quality larger water bodies will support additional species such as gadwall, shoveler and great crested grebe.

• London’s water bodies contain a variety of marginal and submerged vegetation. Nationally scarce plants like mudwort (Limosella aquatica) and marsh dock (Rumex palustris) occur in selected ponds. More typical plants in London’s ponds include yellow iris (Iris pseudacorus), greater pond sedge (Carex riparia) and lesser reedmace (Typha angustifolia). Larger deep- water bodies contain submerged or floating aquatics like spiked water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), rigid hornwort (Ceratophyllum demersum) and yellow water lily (Nuphar lutea).

3.2 Local Status

• The London Wildlife Habitat Survey of 1984/1985 and research by the London Ecology Unit (LEU) indicated 23 ponds and similar areas of open water in Lambeth. However, this figure is incorrect as smaller ponds or those in inaccessible locations, including private gardens or school grounds, were omitted from the surveys, so the actual figure is probably higher.

• The net area of all ponds and open water bodies in Lambeth is small, possibly amounting to no more than 3.5 hectares in total, or less than 0.13% of the total land area of the Borough. Compared to Outer London Boroughs, the average size of ponds and open water features in Lambeth is quite small, but in terms of the other ‘Inner London Boroughs’ the average size is probably similar and reflects a similar history of creation, location and management.

• Nevertheless, even though they make up such a small fraction of the total land area of Lambeth, its ponds and open water bodies make a highly significant contribution to the heritage and landscape character, and to the nature conservation value of the Borough. Many of these ponds have a rich history associated with them. They also contain many historical features which provide a link back to their creation and past management, and play an important role in the cultural value placed on many sites by the local community and visitors.

• Many of Lambeth’s ponds contain a number of important aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife habitats, many of which are now extremely localised or uncommon in the Borough. These habitats in turn contain wild plant and animal species that are of immense interest for aesthetic and educational activities, or are themselves restricted in distribution and abundance across the Borough, as traditional habitat has become reduced or lost.

72

• The majority of the larger ponds and open water bodies in Lambeth are in public spaces, such as parks like Ruskin Park and Brockwell Park, or open greenspaces like Clapham Common. However, many are in smaller parks or public greenspaces like Palace Road Nature Gardens, Agnes Riley Gardens or Streatham Rookery. Park or public open space ponds are managed by Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces, in partnership with its current Grounds Maintenance Contractor (GMC) and/or local community groups or stakeholders.

• Some of Lambeth’s ponds and open water bodies are in private grounds or where access is restricted for various reasons. Although not normally accessible to the general public without prior arrangement, they still have significant landscape and nature conservation value to the Borough as a whole. Examples include ponds on private land such as at Tate Gardens and Lambeth Palace, or where access is for site users only for reasons of privacy or safety, e.g. Lorn Road Allotments, Stockwell Primary School or Wynter House

Table 1. Description of the principal ponds and open water bodies in Lambeth

Site Name Grid Ref Area % Total Ownership (m2) (30,410 m2) Agnes Riley Gardens Pond (1) TQ 295 739 120 0.40 LB Lambeth Brockwell Community TQ 315 741 20 0.066 LB Lambeth Greenhouses Pond Brockwell Park Ponds (3) TQ 314 740 5,348 17.59 LB Lambeth

Clapham Common Ponds (3) TQ 288 748 16,837 54.98 LB Lambeth & LB Wandsworth Harleyford Road Garden Pond TQ 305 779 15 0.05 LB Lambeth (1) Lambeth Palace Gardens TQ 306 792 350 1.15 Church Pond (1) Commissioners Lorn Road Allotments Pond TQ 311 765 10 0.03 LB Lambeth (1) Oasis Nature Garden Pond (1) TQ 301 766 15 0.05 LB Lambeth Palace Road Gardens Pond TQ 308 731 120 0.40 LB Lambeth (1) Roots & Shoots Garden Pond TQ 312 789 15 0.05 Roots & Shoots (1) Ruskin Park Pond (1) TQ 325 757 1272 4.18 LB Lambeth Stockwell Primary School TQ 308 758 12 0.04 LB Lambeth Pond (1) Streatham Rookery Pond, TQ 310 709 66 0.22 LB Lambeth Streatham (1) Tate Gardens Pond, TQ 309 711 3700 12.17 Tate Gardens Streatham (1) Residents Wynter House Pond, TQ 310 760 2500 8.22 LB Lambeth Stockwell (1)

73 4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Neglect and Lack of Management. Ponds and open water bodies need to be actively managed to arrest or hold back the normal process of ‘natural succession’. This is where an open body of water slowly silts up and becomes colonised by marginal vegetation, leading in time to its conversion into swampy then dry land. This process results in the loss of aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats and species and their replacement by those typical of dry land, e.g. grassland, scrub and woodland. Properly managed ponds are prevented from undergoing natural succession so that areas of open water plus marginal aquatic habitats are retained.

Ponds that are not managed or neglected sooner or later succumb to natural succession, so that important aquatic (e.g. submerged and floating vegetation) and marginal wildlife habitats, and the plant and animal species that depend on them are gradually lost. Replacing lost habitat and species by digging out a new pond is often not the answer, as it is difficult for species to colonise from other and older ponds once these are lost.

• Inappropriate or Overzealous Management. Modern grounds maintenance contracts tend to have regimes for pond, lake and open water maintenance that are basic, focused on horticultural and aesthetic standards and driven by cost, particularly following the introduction of Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) and Best Value. Such maintenance regimes do not put nature conservation management for ponds as a priority unless there is an additional cost to be paid by the site owner or manager for specialised operations or tasks.

This situation tends to result in ponds, especially in urban or public open space areas, being managed to keep the area looking neat and safe, so that marginal habitat is rigorously thinned out or cut back without consideration to the needs of wildlife. Maintenance work is often done according to contract timetables so that areas of marginal habitat or open water are removed, cut back or dredged at inappropriate times of the year or seasons, resulting in the removal of important shelter, feeding, nesting or overwintering resources for many wild animals, and the removal of overwintering, flowering or dispersal stages of many wild plants.

• Recreational and Leisure Uses. Conflicts can often occur on ponds, lakes and open water bodies where there is demand for many and varied uses such as fishing, boating, swimming and bankside leisure activities like picnicking, music, events and dog walking. Pressure on the banks of a water body, as well as on the expanse of water itself, might ‘squeeze out’ or confine areas of wildlife importance or use to limited locations, or the noise and disturbance by such activities might drive out or deter wildlife from making effective use of the water body. Areas designated for wildlife on a pond or water body might, no matter how well managed or protected, become affected by activities on either side or on the surrounding land, so that they cannot function for the purpose they were created.

• Pollution. Many urban water bodies, whether of standing and moving water, are increasingly affected by pollution from many different sources. There is growing evidence that such pollutants directly or indirectly affect wildlife habitats and species present in lakes, ponds, rivers and streams. This might arrive at the point where they can no longer survive, are forced into smaller areas, or become more vulnerable to other adverse impacts due to the chemical, physical and ecological consequences of the pollution.

Many urban ponds suffer from pollution caused by inappropriate use or disposal of pesticides and fertilisers, oil wastes, fuels or food debris, or runoff from adjacent roads, buildings and amenity grassland. Such pollutants equally affect the plants and animals in them, often smothering or poisoning them, and causing direct extinction or reducing their ability to survive other environmental pressures or insults.

74 • Vandalism and Dumping. Many urban ponds and lakes suffer terribly from being used as dumping sites for items as varied, but equally damaging to the environment, as car tyres, builder’s waste, asbestos, waste oil, scrap metal and old electrical appliances like fridges and cookers. However, many ponds also suffer from litter being thrown in or allowed to be blown in, as a result of poor site management or inconsiderate site users.

Such materials not only reduce the aesthetic quality of the water body and its surroundings, but also can have direct or indirect impacts upon wildlife habitats and species in or around the water body. These dumped materials pollute the water body, smother important submerged or marginal habitats, or encourage pests or vermin into the locality such as rats, mice and carrion birds, with effects upon nesting birds or other natural animal life.

Many ponds and open water bodies suffer badly from regular and indiscriminate acts of vandalism, such as damage to surrounding fencing, signs, seating and paths, or dumping of such items and other materials into the water body itself. Many pond banks, weirs or sluices, designed to control water levels, are often vandalised, which results in a drop or rise in water levels and the possible loss of many important wildlife features or habitats.

• Introduced or Invasive Plants and Animals. Many ponds, lakes and reservoirs across Britain are affected or threatened by the deliberate or accidental introduction of a range of alien or invasive plant and animal species. If allowed to colonise, establish and disperse unchecked, many of these species can compete with native plants and animals in ponds and open waters, sometimes to the point where indigenous species are out-competed, suppressed or even excluded. In many cases the consequence might be the actual loss of a number of important wild plant and animals species from the water body or area. This can then result in a gradual or even a sudden deterioration or elimination of many different aquatic or semi-aquatic habitats, as a result of the reductions in species composition or diversity, with dramatic impacts on local biodiversity and environmental quality.

For example, amphibians such as newts, frogs and toads can suffer if certain fish species are deliberately or accidentally introduced to ponds in which they breed. Predation by fish on amphibian eggs and larvae can drastically reduce breeding populations or their ability to recolonise at a later date. Populations of Britain’s native White-Clawed Crayfish have been devastated by the ‘Crayfish Plague’, a fungal disease introduced along with the American Signal Crayfish. Attempts to reintroduce the White-Clawed Crayfish to many restored ponds or water courses have been hampered by problems in eliminating not only the disease itself but also alien breeds of crayfish which act as vectors to spread the disease, and compete with native crayfish for food and shelter.

Many British ponds and lakes have suffered drastically from the introduction of aggressive alien aquatic plant species like Water Fern, Water Hyacinth, Canadian Pondweed and New Zealand Pygmyweed. These plants rapidly spread out across the water body, blanketing the water surface or filling up the water body itself, excluding other native species by competing for available light, nutrients and rooting substrates.

• Direct Loss or Infilling for Safety Reasons. Many traditional ponds and lakes across London have been lost as a consequence of changes in site or land management, where the pond or lake is no longer regarded as essential to operations or use of the land. Many ponds have been lost as a result of developments like new housing, industrial estates or the laying down of new hardstanding, often because the ponds are not protected by existing legislation or recognised under planning controls as in need of protection. Some ponds have also been deliberately filled in because of concerns of the safety of children using or accessing sites, and concerns by landowners to avoid litigation or prosecution from injuries or deaths as a consequence of this.

75 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• None of the ponds or open water bodies in Lambeth have specific designations designed to confer protection because of their nature conservation status, e.g. Local Nature Reserve or Site of Special Scientific Interest. However, a number of ponds are situated within sites classified as Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), either of Local or Borough importance for Lambeth (London Ecology Unit, 1994).

• All of the Borough’s SNCIs are recognised as such in the current Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for Lambeth (adopted 1998) and in the new UDP currently at Draft Deposit stage. As a result, any ponds within SNCIs in Lambeth are provided with protection from inappropriate changes of use (e.g. development) and must be managed to protect and promote their importance for nature conservation and local biodiversity.

• A number of ponds in Lambeth are situated within sites that are within Conservation Areas, designated as Metropolitan Open Land, or are on the register of historic landscapes maintained by English Heritage. All of these designations confer protection on such listed sites, and by inference on the ponds and water features contained within them.

• The three ponds on Clapham Common, being part of a registered Metropolitan Common, also have protection through legislation designed to protect the open character of the Common.

• In addition, two of the ponds on Clapham Common, Eagle and Mount Ponds, are registered coarse fisheries, and as such are managed to provide local anglers with facilities for fishing. Both ponds are also covered by National Fisheries Byelaws and local Codes of Conduct designed to prevent or minimise use of the Ponds which might cause conflict between the needs of anglers and those of wildlife, landscape quality and other legitimate site users.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• Although there is currently no single body responsible for the protection and management of ponds, lakes and open water bodies across the UK, a number of Government agencies and non-Government organisations are active in promoting greater awareness of the landscape, recreation and biodiversity importance of Britain’s ponds, lakes and reservoirs.

• Prominent Government agencies in terms of promoting the biodiversity importance of ponds and other standing water bodies include the Environment Agency, DEFRA and English Nature, and they frequently provide guidance and good practice on their respective websites and through published material, as well as regular promotional campaigns and events.

• The Ponds Conservation Trust and Pondlife are two charities which provide advice and information to local authorities, land owners and managers, community groups and regulators on the need to protect and manage ponds and open water features for the benefit of both people and wildlife. Both provide advice to planning authorities on the protection of ponds from development loss or inappropriate use, and provide information and training on managing ponds for biodiversity as well as recreational and access.

• A number of ponds and open water features across the UK and in London have benefited from funding provided by specialist charities and the National Lottery. Although the funding might not have been solely or primarily for nature conservation, these ponds often have management plans associated with them that are designed to protect and enhance their value for biodiversity as much for heritage and landscape protection and development.

76 5.3 Local Action

• The wildlife and environmental education value of many of Lambeth’s ponds, including the majority of those listed in Table 1, was identified in a detailed audit undertaken in the 1990s by the London Ecology Unit (LEU), now part of the Greater London Authority (GLA).

• Many of the ponds listed in Table 1 are described as important for local biodiversity in the 1994 LEU publication “Nature Conservation in Lambeth”, although they are usually mentioned within the context of the larger sites in which they are situated. Because many of these larger sites are classified as Sites of Borough or Local Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs), the ponds within them are also conferred with similar status and should be protected and managed as such to retain and enhance their biodiversity value for Lambeth.

• The ponds in Agnes Riley Gardens, Brockwell Park, Clapham Common, Palace Road Gardens, Ruskin Park and Streatham Rookery are in sites managed by Lambeth Parks and incorporated into the Lambeth Grounds Maintenance Contract (GMC). As such they receive a programme of management designed to retain these ponds as open water. However, the current style of pond management is around cleanliness and safety, and through the use of this Habitat Action Plan and progressive improvements in the management regimes greater emphasis will come to be placed on retaining and encouraging wildlife and natural features.

• Some of Lambeth’s key ponds, e.g. those at Harleyford Road, Lorn Road Allotments, Oasis Nature Gardens, Stockwell Primary School and Wynter House, are not managed by Lambeth Parks or under the Lambeth GMC. All these ponds are on land owned by Lambeth Council, but they are either managed by different contractors or by community bodies which lease the land from the Council. The management regimes for each pond on such sites varies considerably, but in general the intention is to protect the open character of the pond so as to provide site users with a resource for activities such as education and recreation, and to provide a wildlife habitat and species resource where permissible.

• Lambeth Palace Pond and Tate Gardens Pond are both on land that is privately owned and managed, and where public access and use is limited. Nevertheless, both ponds are managed to protect their landscape and heritage character, and this appears to also benefit their importance for wild flora and fauna and local biodiversity.

• A number of parks and public greenspaces in Lambeth are in the process of having management plans produced for them which will direct work to protect their landscape, heritage and amenity character as well as promote new or expand existing wildlife habitats. Examples where such management plans will invariably benefit and protect the nature conservation value of ponds within the site include Brockwell Park and Clapham Common.

• The ponds in Brockwell Park have recently benefited from a series of works designed to restore their heritage character as well as retain or create wildlife habitat alongside balanced and appropriate improvements in public access, use and enjoyment. These works were directed through a plan produced by the Wetland Advisory Services and undertaken by commercial companies skilled in sensitive habitat management restoration activities.

• Eagle and Mount Ponds at Clapham Common benefited from a series of works in 2002 to address a number of issues adversely affecting the environmental quality of both ponds, particularly oversiltation, excessive fish populations and lack of adequate marginal habitat cover. Whilst these works, undertaken in partnership with the Environmental Agency and the Clapham Angling Preservation Society (CAPS) provided obvious benefits in terms of restoring both ponds as viable fishing venues, they also provided equal benefit to biodiversity in terms of new or extended wildlife habitats.

77

• Urban ponds and lakes also need to be recognised for their importance in terms of managing and regulating the flow of water from natural and artificial sources, so helping reduce or prevent some of the adverse impacts resulting from flooding, waterlogging or erosion where water cannot be captured or directed away from sensitive areas.

• Many ponds were created, extended or managed to help regulate water flow, and continue to provide this important function – in some cases, as urban development has reduced or constricted the traditional floodplain or natural drainage routes, their role has become increasingly important in helping regulate excessive water flow. This factor needs to be recognised by landowners, land users or developers as an important element of the local hydrology and drainage system.

• There is also considerable potential for the creation and management of ponds and other standing water features in new building developments or where existing sites or estates are being rebuilt or reconfigured. This is not just to provide a feature that will be important for the aesthetic, landscape or biodiversity quality of the site, but also to help collect, manage and disperse water flow across, into and off the site, so helping minimise or prevent flooding, waterlogging or erosion.

• The problem of floodplain or drainage restriction is just as much of an issue on new development sites as it is on existing ones, and this needs to be recognised by developers and planning authorities and ponds can, if properly designed and managed, help to address or reduce the adverse and financially damaging impacts than can follow.

• Lambeth Council, working closely with the Environment Agency and Thames Water, is committed to advising and working with residents, businesses, developers and other statutory authorities to promote the benefits of retaining and managing ponds and other water bodies in the Borough as a means to prevent or minimise the adverse and economically damaging impacts of flooding, erosion and waterlogging. New developments are scrutinised as to their potential impacts upon local hydrology or surface water management, and advise is given to developers and planning officers if the creation and management of ponds or surface water features may help prevent or alleviate any flooding or waterlogging issues.

• Developments are also closely scrutinised to identify if any existing ponds or water features will be removed or lost as a consequence of the development, or if the proposed changes to site use or layout may affect the biodiversity value of any existing ponds. Advice is given to developers or planning officers as to how the development can be modified or managed to protect any known or potential biodiversity value of existing ponds, or to help prevent or alleviate any future flooding or water management problems.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of ponds and open water, and the promotion of biodiversity, include CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

78 • Further advice and expertise on pond management, and on promoting biodiversity in ponds and areas of open water or wetland, can be found at:

• Ponds Conservation Trust (http://www.pondstrust.org.uk/) • Environment Agency: Ponds Facts (http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/water/213866/ponds/?lang=_e®ion=) • DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/index.htm) • English Nature (advice on management plans) (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • RSPB (http://www.rspb.org.uk/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/) • Clapham Angling Preservation Society (information on sustainable fisheries and nature conservation management) (http://www.claphamangling.co.uk/)

• A number of publications are produced, either at cost or free, by a range of charities or Government agencies, to help advise and guide site managers, planners or community groups as to ‘good practice’ in terms of maintaining existing, or creating new, ponds for the benefit of biodiversity.

• The Ponds Conservation Trust produce a free factsheet titled “The Importance of Ponds: a Guidance for Planners and Developers” which provides plenty of factual information (http://www.brookes.ac.uk/pondaction/pondsforplanners.pdf!)

• The Ponds Conservation Trust also produce an excellent book titled “The Pond Book”, priced £14, which is full of practical advice on the management of ponds for wildlife, public access and enjoyment (http://www.brookes.ac.uk/pondaction/publications.htm!)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Ponds and Open Water Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Allotments and Community Gardens • Parks and Public Greenspaces • Private Gardens • Crucian Carp • Bats • Reptiles

• Flagship Species of Ponds and Open Water

The plants and animals listed in Table 2 are regarded as ‘flagship species’ characteristic of ponds and standing open water bodies of the type recorded in Inner London Boroughs like Lambeth. Although some are recorded in Lambeth’s ponds, the intention of management of should be to both retain species already present, but also manage or create habitats and features so as to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

79 Table 2: Flagship Species of Pond and Open Water Biodiversity

Species Name Latin Name Comments Daubenton’s Bat Mysotis daubentonii Common bat with preference for feeding over and around standing and running water bodies, especially canals, rivers and large open ponds or lakes. White Clawed Austropotambius pallipes Britain’s only native crayfish. A relatively Crayfish small member of crayfish family, with whitish or place coloration to claws. Highly endangered species with significant decline in distribution. Great Crested Triturus cristatus Britain’s largest native newt, identified by Newt prominent crest on back of breeding male. The bellies of adult males and females are orange-yellow with distinct black spots and patches. Dragonflies and Anisoptera & Zygoptera Large winged predatory insects with Damselflies large compound eyes and colourful abdomens. Larvae develop in, and adults hunt and defend territories on and around, many types of water body. Mallard Duck Anas platyrhynchos Very common duck, ancestor of all domestic ducks. Male (drake) with iridescent green head and yellow beak, female less colourful. Very cosmopolitan and active user of ponds and open water for feeding, courtship and breeding. Spiked Water Myriophyllum spicatum Submerged plant with whorls of spiny Milfoil leaves beneath surface; occasionally small flowers penetrate the surface. Yellow Water Lily Nuphar lutea Floating aquatic plant with broad green oval leaves and bright yellow flowers. Favours standing water bodies. Roach Rutilus rutilus One of the most common fish in the UK, found in still waters, rivers and canals. A good indicator of the quality of ponds and open waters as fisheries. Pondweed Potamogeton spp. Family of submerged or floating aquatic plants, often with broad, flat leaves. Some species common in standing water, others quite rare.

80 8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Ponds and Open Water Habitat Action Plan:

• UK Eutrophic Standing Waters Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=23) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Statement 12 – Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/13_lakes_ponds.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives that need to be achieved by the Partnership Organisations for the Ponds and Open Waters Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates. It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To improve knowledge and understanding of the nature conservation interest and biodiversity value of Lambeth’s ponds and other bodies of open water.

Target: Undertake a Borough-wide audit of ponds and open water bodies to identify current nature conservation status, or with potential for improvement to increase biodiversity value through appropriate management, by 2006.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a desktop study exercise to 2005 LPG identify and map all ponds and open water bodies, of known or potential biodiversity value, in the Borough Undertake a field survey of Lambeth’s 2006 LPG ponds and open water bodies to assess their condition and current wildlife status Evaluate and publish results of audit 2006 LPG (paper, websites and presentations) on condition and wildlife status (or future potential) of ponds and open water bodies in Lambeth partners

81 Objective 2: To promote ‘good practice’ in the management of ponds and other bodies of open water in Lambeth to benefit local wildlife and retain or improve their biodiversity status.

Target: Publish a ‘Biodiversity Best Practice Guide’ for pond and wetland management in Lambeth by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a review of Local Authorities, 2005 LPG community trusts and other landowners in Greater London as to good practice in the creation and management of ponds and open waters for the protection and promotion of biodiversity To circulate, consult on and produce a 2006 LPG ‘Good Practice Guide’ for the nature conservation management of ponds in and wetlands Lambeth To develop a programme of training and 2007 LPG guidance on the creation and sustainable management of ponds and wetlands for biodiversity and public enjoyment To develop a Borough network to enable 2008 LPG practitioners, site managers, contractors and community groups to share knowledge and good practice on the creation and management of ponds and wetlands for wildlife

Objective 3: To improve public and user group knowledge and awareness of wildlife in, and the biodiversity importance of, ponds and wetlands in Lambeth.

Target: Deliver a programme of talks, walks, information and support to Members, key officers, schools, community organisations and park user groups by 2009

Action Target Lead Partners To deliver a programme of talks, walks 2006 LPG and training on the benefits of and opportunities for creating and managing ponds and wetlands for biodiversity, environmental education and public recreation to key stakeholders To develop a service providing advice 2007 LPG and support to community groups and schools in increasing the use of ponds and wetlands in the Borough for educational and environmental activities To identify and secure funding, both from 2009 LPG the Council or external sources, to assist community groups and schools in creating ad managing ponds for nature conservation and environmental education purposes

82 10. Key References

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998). Lowland Ponds Survey 1996. Final Report. DETR, London

Langton, T. (1984). The Greater London Pond Survey. London Ecology Unit, London

Ponds Conservation Trust (2002), The Pond Book. Ponds Conservation Trust, BMS, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP

Yarham, I, Waite, M, Simpson, A and Machin, N (1994). Nature Conservation in Lambeth. Ecology Handbook 26, London Ecology Unit, London

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum PD – Lambeth Planning & Development EN – English Nature LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority BTCV – British Trust for Conservation LGF – London Parks and Greenspaces Forum Volunteers EA – Environment Agency CAPS – Clapham Angling & Preservation Society

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

83 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Private Gardens

1. Aims

• To highlight and protect the overall resource for wildlife provided by private gardens in the Borough of Lambeth.

• To improve private gardens in Lambeth as habitat for a range of wildlife species.

• To encourage a greater awareness of biodiversity in private gardens by residents, and to minimise practices or techniques which adversely impact upon wild habitats and species.

2. Introduction

• Private gardens are defined in the London Private Gardens Habitat Action Plan as ‘private open space surrounding residential dwellings where householders have sole responsibility for management’.

• Private gardens form an important part of the landscape of both London and the Borough of Lambeth, providing many people with places for frequent contact with nature.

• Private gardens are some of the most varied areas of green space in London, and range in size from tiny 'pocket handkerchief' backyards in Central London, to elaborate landscaped parkland in London's mansions and the leafy suburbs.

• Garden ponds support many amphibians and dragonflies, and dense undergrowth provides good breeding sites for small birds, many of which have suffered significant declines in the wider countryside. Hedgehogs, bats, butterflies are frequently associated with garden habitat. Larger gardens and gardens adjoining areas of semi-natural habitat, may help support grass snakes, badgers and birds such as woodpeckers.

3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• Over the last 100 years the rapid growth of suburban London resulted in large areas of low- density housing steadily enclosing larger areas of open green space, or the creation of small green spaces – either way this has resulted in many individual gardens right across the city.

• Together the City’s private gardens add up to a substantial area of open land. The former London Ecology Unit (LEU), now part of the Greater London Authority (GLA), carried out an analysis of aerial photographs taken in 1981 and found that private gardens comprised approximately 20% of the net area of Greater London. This is roughly equivalent to 30,000 hectares of open land, and makes private gardens the biggest single ‘habitat’ in the City.

• Not surprisingly, based on such research and historical knowledge, the mosaic of gardens spread across Greater London is now recognised as providing valuable habitat for a significant number of common wild plants and animals.

84 3.2 Local Status

• In Lambeth the distribution of private gardens is not homogenous. Because of a number of complex historical, social and economic factors, most private gardens are situated in the southern central half of the Borough – Streatham, Norwood, West Dulwich, Balham, Clapham and Herne Hill. These areas experienced far lower levels of social or high-density housing development, and many gardens remained intact or in close contact with adjacent ones. These areas form the ‘suburban’ parts of the Borough, and gardens were created as developers built private estates over the last century.

• There are still many private gardens across the northern half of the Borough (Brixton, Stockwell, Camberwell, Kennington, Vauxhall and Waterloo), some very famous and rich in wildlife. However, the abundance of high density social housing or housing estates in the north of the Borough means many historical estates or gardens have been lost to more recent developments, so these areas do not show the same degree of garden ‘interconnectivity’ or continuity as the southern half.

• As with any other London Borough, difficult to accurately quantify the area of the Borough of Lambeth covered by private gardens. However, the London ‘rule of thumb’, that about 20% of the City is covered with private gardens, is taken to be about right for Lambeth.

• On that basis and with Lambeth being 2,727 ha in total area, there must be about 550 ha of land which could be designated as ‘private garden’. Nevertheless, there needs to be a more detailed and accurate survey of the actual area covered by private gardens, as this probably fluctuates widely as new developments are commissioned or householders design or extend existing garden space.

• Private gardens vary markedly across Lambeth as to size, shape, contours, content, management and suitability for wildlife. Some private gardens are certainly very large, and some may be communal, servicing private developments where residents don’t have their own individual gardens. Some private gardens are relatively small, but depending on how they are used and managed, make a significant contribution to local biodiversity.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Management Style. The style of management certainly has a profound effect on the wildlife associated with private gardens. An intensively managed garden, or one largely lawn and hard surfacing, will support far fewer wild species than a garden which contains a range of habitats such as shrubs, climbers, long grass, a pond and dead wood. The pressure to keep garden maintenance simple and cost-effective, or where householders don’t have time to manage gardens to provide many different wildlife-friendly areas or features, is a major issue across the whole of London as much as it is in Lambeth.

• Planting. Plants used in a garden have a major impact on the wildlife it supports. Some plants certainly improve a garden’s wildlife value. For example, ivy is a seasonally important source of nectar and berries, provides nesting and roosting habitats for birds, and is the caterpillar food plant to the holly blue butterfly. Pyracantha, hawthorn and the female holly provide autumn berries for thrushes.

Some garden plants have comparatively little value for wildlife, for example double-flowered or cultivated varieties of wild plants which produce little or no nectar. Some plants may even be harmful to wildlife, for example exotic problem species like parrot’s feather, and Spanish bluebell, which hybridises with the native bluebell.

85 • Pesticide Use. Excessive use of pesticides is now thought to be one of the major causes of the decline of certain species, especially many garden birds and hedgehogs. Pesticides can reduce available food, such as snails, which are eaten by song thrushes. They may also have more direct effects, for example insecticides may kill insects beneficial to gardens as well as target species whose destruction is desired by gardeners.

Organic gardening is becoming more popular, and this means more environmentally friendly pest management methods. However, there is still a high degree of ignorance about environmental pest control, and the desire for ‘quick fix’ solutions tends to limit the choice of pest control methods for most London gardeners.

• Scale and Location. The size of a garden and the extent to which it is connected with adjacent open land is a major factor influencing the wildlife that will use it. However, all gardens are potentially valuable, and there is no minimum size for a wildlife garden.

• Planning Controls. New targets for housing in London, reflecting social, economic and demographic changes, have and are still driving demand for suburban ‘infill’ or ‘backland’ development – new buildings in older gardens. This has resulted in a loss of garden habitat in many locations. Many Boroughs have planning policies to try and discourage this activity.

Since the 1960s people have aimed for the ideal of a small house with its own private garden. However, there has been a reduction in the size of gardens provided in many new developments, as developers try to ‘cram in’ as many residential units as they can to maximise their financial return, which limits how much land they retain as garden space, whether it is communal or individually portioned.

• Other Factors. Although many gardeners are more and more aware of 'wildlife gardening', 'wild gardening', or 'natural gardening', there is still a considerable variety of interpretation on such methods, not helped by the many different television gardening programmes!

Gardeners are also significant consumers of many environmental resources. The garden industry often obtains and supplied gardeners with unsustainable products such as wild plants, peat, tropical hardwoods and natural stone, collected from threatened habitats around the world or even in the UK. The transport of goods and the use of resources in the manufacture of garden products are issues for all gardeners to be aware of in reducing their ‘ecological footprint’ or causing ecological damage elsewhere.

Garden centres and growers right across London have a significant role to play in marketing appropriate plants and products, and reducing gardener’s reliance on unsustainable items.

Gardeners often assume that the best way to get ‘wildlife in a garden’ is to take it from the wild. Many wild plants and animals are still being removed from the countryside, and even nature reserves, to supply the increasing demand for ‘wild plants’ by gardeners and some garden centres. Many gardeners fail to appreciate that such wild plants rarely thrive in maintained gardens, and may even introduce many pests or diseases to the garden, which are then hard to manage or eradicate

86 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• Private gardens or estates are rarely protected from development purely on the basis of resident biodiversity; however, some gardens might have been acquired as or converted into Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation.

• Nevertheless, biodiversity is often a factor included in planning policies to protect garden land, e.g. Conservation Area status and Tree Preservation Orders, as these are designed to protect trees or heritage and landscape resources in areas as well as individual gardens. Many of the private gardens in Lambeth that have known or suspected biodiversity value are in Conservation Areas or are in locations which have formal Tree Preservation Orders attached to them.

• A variety of animals using private gardens in London and Lambeth are protected to various degrees by current wildlife legislation. This means any attempts to intentionally kill such species or disturb their nesting and breeding sites, or block migratory or movement routes, could render the garden owner or manager liable to prosecution. Some good examples of legally protected animals using private gardens include bats, slow worms, great crested newts, common lizards and grass snakes.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• ‘Wildlife gardening’ is gaining acceptance and understanding across the UK, particularly as a result of aggressive promotion by the media. The broad popular appeal of wildlife gardening has lead to various articles, books and programmes including the BBC's popular 'Charlie's Wildlife Gardens' series.

• Permanent demonstration wildlife gardens have been created to inspire and educate the public about sustainable gardening and the promotion and protection of biodiversity. Examples include ones at the Natural History Museum, the London Wildlife Trust's Centre for Wildlife Gardening, London Zoo, the Wetland Centre, and in various city farms and community gardens. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew also has several areas managed to attract wildlife and educate the public. Wildlife gardens at flower shows in London are popular with the public and have won recognition from judges.

• There has been an explosion in the amount and quality of information for wildlife gardeners, including from Gardening Which?, Royal Horticultural Society, London Wildlife Trust and Froglife. Many London Boroughs produce wildlife gardening information for their local residents and site managers.

• A variety of training programmes, talks and practical events are organised each year by groups like BTCV, London Wildlife Trust, Horniman Museum and the Worker's Education Association. Many mainstream horticultural courses include units on wildlife and organic gardening and many more landscapers and landscape architects have a much better understanding of how to create and manage a wildlife garden.

• Froglife have a ‘London Pond Doctor’ service, which offers free advice to gardeners on how to make their gardens attractive to amphibians.

• To assist gardeners in choosing appropriate plants for their region, Flora for Fauna have produced a database, selectable by postcode, which is accessible on the internet.

87 • There have been public surveys across the UK which invite gardeners to send in findings on easily recognised species. For example, over six thousand records of stag beetle sightings were recorded in surveys carried out by the London Wildlife Trust, LB Bromley and the People’s Trust for Endangered Species. A London Wildlife Trust ‘Wildlife in Gardens’ survey attracted 4400 responses and was further developed by various local authorities and borough partnerships.

• On a national scale, the Garden Birdwatch survey is collated annually by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and currently has around 400 surveyors in London. Likewise an ongoing National Butterfly Survey is carried out by Butterfly Conservation, and the Garden Mammal Survey is carried out by the Mammal Society on a national level.

5.3 Local Action

• There is an unknown, but hopefully large and growing, number of gardeners in Lambeth who manage their gardens in an environmentally sensitive way, so as to protect wildlife and promote diversity. Many gardeners in Lambeth are active in environmental, nature conservation and sustainability organisations or initiatives, and transfer knowledge learnt through these activities into a more sensitive way of managing their own gardens.

• Lambeth Parks officers frequently receive enquiries about and requests for information regarding wildlife in private gardens and private green areas, and what they can do to encourage or protect wildlife. Parks officers readily provide advice by phone, email or letter where appropriate, and will send residents information on where to seek further information or assistance, or where to go to see ‘good practice’ and obtain inspiration.

• Although at present Lambeth Parks does not have specific guidance notes, leaflets or factsheets around wildlife gardening, officers often send out copies of publications produced elsewhere which are of good quality and proven value, e.g. those produced by LWT, RSPB or the RHS. Parks officers often send callers ‘hyperlinks’ to locations where free downloads of guidance material can be obtained, or people can make free requests for printed material to be sent to them.

• Parks officers are limited in the amount of time they can give gardeners in site visits to advise on wildlife gardening, but often meet interested or committed individuals at events, fairs or the Lambeth Country Show, and are able to give practical advice or share good practice.

• The Lambeth Horticultural Society (LHS) is a membership-based community association which represents the interests of the Borough’s amateur and professional gardeners or horticulturists. The LHS meets on a regular basis, disseminates information and news to members on gardening topics, and runs a garden goods shop from a site in Norwood. The Lambeth Horticultural Society organises the annual Lambeth Flower Show, which is based at Brockwell Park and part of the Lambeth Country Show in late July.

• Many Lambeth Horticultural Society members are keen wildlife gardeners, or interested to learn more about environmentally friendly gardening. Therefore, the LHS acts as an excellent means to disseminate advice and good practice through the Borough’s gardening community and their own networks. Many LHS members are active with local environmental groups, active members of national wildlife or gardening organisations like the RHS, RSPB and LWT, or involved with many Lambeth schools and community centres. Lambeth Parks works with the LHS to widen awareness of sustainable or wildlife gardening.

88 • There are a healthy number of ‘wildlife gardens’ based within the Borough of Lambeth, which provide a fantastic opportunity to inspire and educate local people about sustainable gardening and the promotion and protection of biodiversity. Examples include the Ecology Garden at Vauxhall City Farm; Harleyford Road Community Garden; the Roots and Shoots Wildlife Garden; the wildlife garden area at Brockwell Community Greenhouses, Brockwell Park; and the wildlife area at Lorn Road Allotments.

• A number of the Borough’s wildlife gardens have been recipients of funding, provided either by Lambeth Council or from external sources, to help create, develop and widen awareness of their value for biodiversity and education. Many of the Borough’s wildlife gardens are designed to be attractive to young people as well as local residents and client groups; many are very popular with local schools, and provide an ideal opportunity to inspire the next generation of future wildlife gardeners!

• Lambeth is also home to the Museum of Garden History (MGH), which is based next to Lambeth Palace, the London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Museum is a nationally recognised centre of gardening history and excellence, and provides visitors with information on how gardening has changed through the centuries, as well as running special displays and events. The Museum works closely with local schools to raise awareness and interest in gardening. The Museum takes a very keen interest in wildlife gardening, and describes in many displays how traditional gardening was very wildlife-orientated and how modern gardening needs to adopt more sustainable attitudes and practices.

• Lambeth Palace itself is famous not just for being the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and its splendid architecture, but also for one of the most beautiful private gardens in London. Lambeth Palace Gardens are not normally open to the general public, apart from occasional open days, but its management is very much around retaining and enhancing traditional features, and in a sensitive way that benefits local wildlife. For this reason Lambeth Palace Gardens is a Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation for Lambeth, and is resident to many different wild plants and animals, particularly around its pond, which is of very high biodiversity value in its own right.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of private gardens, and the promotion of biodiversity in them, include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• A detailed audit was undertaken in the 1990s by the London Ecology Unit (LEU) as to sites of nature conservation and biodiversity interest in Lambeth. This resulted in the publication of the 1994 LEU report “Nature Conservation in Lambeth”.

• The Greater London Authority, into which the LEU was subsumed following the reorganisation of local government in London in 2002, is hoping to undertake a re-audit of Lambeth’s open spaces and nature conservation areas in the near future. This will provide a welcome re-appraisal of the condition and quality of the Borough’s nature conservation assets, and it is to be hoped it will evaluate private gardens for their biodiversity importance.

89 • Further advice and expertise on wildlife gardening and garden management to promote biodiversity, and information which can be sent or emailed to or downloaded by local residents, garden managers and landscapers, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/index.htm) • English Nature (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • RSPB Gardens Site (http://www.rspb.org.uk/gardens/) • BBC – Wildlife Gardening Information Web Pages (http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/basics/techniques/organic_wildgardens.shtml) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • London Wildlife Trust – Gardening for Wildlife (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/resources2.php?MemberID=&SelSubjectID=7) • London Wildlife Trust Centre for Wildlife Gardening (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/reserve.php?reserve_id=73) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/) • Royal Horticultural Society Wildlife Gardening (http://www.rhs.org.uk/research/biodiversity/index.asp) • “Wild About Gardens” (http://www.wildaboutgardens.org/) • Natural History Museum Wildlife Garden (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/museum/garden/) • Gardening Which? Biodiversity Information Campaign (http://www.which.net/gardeningwhich/campaigns/biodiversity.html) • British Trust for Ornithology Garden Birdwatch (http://www.bto.org/gbw/index.htm) • Museum of Garden History (http://www.cix.co.uk/~museumgh/) • Lambeth Palace – Information on the Palace Gardens (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/palace/detail.html)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Private Gardens Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Churchyards and Cemeteries • Ponds and Lakes • Woodlands • Bats • Blackbird • House Sparrow • Mistletoe • Reptiles • Stag Beetle

90 • Flagship Species of Private Gardens

The plants and animals listed in Table 1 are regarded as ‘flagship species’ characteristic of private gardens in London. Although some are recorded in Lambeth’s gardens, management of the such sites should be to both retain species already present, but also manage or create habitats and features to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

Table 1: Flagship Species of Private Garden Biodiversity

Species Name Latin Name Comments Ladybird Coccinellids Very popular insects; obvious threats include excessive pesticide use and destruction of hibernation sites. Bumblebee Bombus spp. Present in most gardens, especially with nectar-rich garden flowers. Small tortoiseshell Aglais urticae Very distinct butterfly, caterpillars feed in butterfly colonies on well-lit nettle patches. Holly blue butterfly Celastrina argiolus Notable for having two generations with different caterpillar foodplants: berries of holly and the flower buds of ivy. Dragonflies Odonata Need medium to large sunny open ponds, without fish, which shelve gently and have appropriate marginal planting. Common frog Rana temporaria Found across London, provide fascination to many. Need sunny ponds for breeding, damp cover for hunting and undisturbed places for hibernation. Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Found in shrubby corners of gardens. Prefer to hide from view but with distinct and explosive trilling song. Blackbird Turdus merula Admired for its fine singing. Present throughout London wherever there are low dense shrubs and lawns. Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus A very popular species, loved by gardeners for eating slugs. Absent from central London. Threats include road traffic, steep-sided ponds, consumption of slugs dying from slug pellets.

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Private Gardens Habitat Action Plan:

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan - Urban Habitat Statement (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=754) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Private Gardens Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac11_privgardens.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Statement – Private Gardens (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac25_gardens.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

91 9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the Private Gardens Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates. It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: Assess the biodiversity status of private gardens in the Borough of Lambeth

Target: Compile baseline information on wildlife in gardens in Lambeth by 2006.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a desktop and field audit of 2005 LPG the priority areas of the Borough to target for promoting wildlife gardening Undertake a modified version of the Ongoing London Wildlife Trust’s ‘Wildlife in Garden’ survey for selected Lambeth households in priority areas Increase annually the level of resident Ongoing participation in the BTO’s Garden Birdwatch survey Compile and publish survey information 2006 LPG as to wildlife in Lambeth gardens

Objective 2: To raise the profile and public awareness of wildlife gardening in Lambeth, and successfully promote cost-effective alternatives to the use of pesticides and other wildlife- unfriendly practices in private gardens.

Target: Publish and promote a wildlife gardening guide (or ‘toolkit’) by 2006, and successfully launch a ‘Best Wildlife Garden’ award scheme or award category in any ‘Borough in Bloom’ competitions by 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Promote and raise the public profile of 2005 LPG demonstration wildlife gardens in Lambeth, which can show ‘good practice’ to interested wildlife gardeners. Produce a wildlife gardening ‘toolkit’ for 2006 LPG Lambeth’s wildlife gardeners, both active and potential. Promote information on wildlife 2006 LPG gardening talks, events and training to residents and gardeners in Lambeth Deliver a wildlife gardening event or 2007 LPG display at the Lambeth Country Show to promote wildlife gardening and biodiversity to the wider audience Develop and launch a sponsored ‘Best 2007 LPG Wildlife Garden’ award scheme for Lambeth, or create a similar award category in ‘Borough in Bloom’ schemes

92 10. Key References

Honey, M R, Leigh, C & Brooks, S J (1998). The flora and fauna of the newly created Wildlife Garden in the grounds of the natural history museum. The London Naturalist No. 77

Owen, J (1991). The Ecology of the Garden. Cambridge University Press.

Vickery, M (1998). Gardening for Butterflies. The British Butterfly Conservation Society Ltd.

Yarham, I, Waite, M, Simpson, A and Machin, N (1994). Nature Conservation in Lambeth. Ecology Handbook 26, London Ecology Unit, London

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum LNHS – London Natural History Society LHS – Lambeth Horticultural Society BTCV – British Trust for Conservation GLA – Greater London Authority Volunteers MGH – Museum of Garden History LIB – London in Bloom RHS – Royal Horticultural Society VCF – Vauxhall City Farm

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

93 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Railway Linesides

1. Aims

• To raise awareness of the importance of railway linesides in Lambeth as a significant wildlife habitat resource and their contribution to the biodiversity of the Borough and Greater London.

• To raise awareness of the importance of Lambeth’s railway linesides, not just as a refuge for wildlife, but also as ‘green corridors’ enabling new or existing wildlife species to migrate into and through, and disperse across, the Borough, facilitating colonisation of new or enriching the biodiversity value of existing areas or habitats.

• To encourage more sensitive and sympathetic management of the Borough’s railway corridors and lineside habitats to both protect and enhance their current biodiversity status, without conflicting with the needs of railway and public safety or economic pressures.

2. Introduction

• ‘Railway Linesides’ is a broad term to describe vegetated lands adjacent to operational above-surface railways. This includes land adjacent to lines operated by companies like Network Rail, and London Underground where part or all of the railway lines are above ground. Closed railway routes – those no longer in railway ownership – are not included, nor are sections of lines operated by London Underground below the surface.

• Vegetated lineside land includes railway embankments, cuttings, areas around stations and by junctions, above tunnel mouths, and derelict sidings and marshalling yards. All of these features are on land owned and/or managed as part of the railway network.

• Habitats present on railway linesides include grassland, scrub, woodland and ruderal vegetation – wetlands are noticeable by their absence. Railway lines were laid on ground that was relatively stable and free draining to avoid landslips, flooding or subsidence affecting rail operations. Therefore, most lineside land is either on natural ground that meets these criteria and is dominated by a hard surface geology of gravel, sand or rock, or on ‘made’ ground where substrates were imported or relocated to provide a suitable base for the rail lines.

• In many cases the natural topography of an area was radically modified to allow railway lines to pass through or other facilities to be built. Embankments have been created to allow lines to pass over low-lying or unstable ground; cuttings to allow lines to pass steep ground, and tunnels cut to allow the lines to pass through hills or under roads and buildings. All of these features have also allowed for the creation of new areas of vegetation which have become colonised by wildlife habitats and species.

• Railways still criss-cross much of the United Kingdom, and much of the original lineside land is still present. In some cases it has expanded as some lines have been lifted in response to surplus capacity or when old routes have been abolished. Railway lineside land provides many wild species with a means to spread, colonise and disperse across large areas, acting as ‘green corridors’ for the movement of wild plants and animals where more traditional routes for movement may not exist or be fragmented due to development or other pressures.

94 3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• London’s railway network was largely created between 1836 and 1936, and was both a reaction and stimulating effect to the rapid growth of the capital. Although much of the network was cut into and through open countryside when it was first built, most of London’s rail network has subsequently become part of the city’s urban landscape and, through the process of natural colonisation, now provides significant areas of wildlife habitat.

• It is conservatively estimated that there are approximately 797 km (or 492 miles) of open operating railway corridors across Greater London. This does not include closed railway lines, such as the Horniman Railway Trail in Lewisham and the Parkland Walk in Haringey, which are managed for nature conservation and/or amenity.

• The open railways and the lineside land around them are owned predominantly by two major companies: Network Rail and London Underground Limited (LUL) - a number of these rail corridors are used by both underground and surface rail trains. Smaller lengths of London’s railway are owned and/or managed by Docklands Light Railway (DLR), Tramlink in Croydon and a few private industries.

• Most London boroughs contain between 10 and 35km of railway corridor. Only four contain more than 40km (Bromley, Croydon, Lewisham and Brent), whilst two contain less than 5km (Westminster and City of London). Some boroughs have larger lineside networks than others proportional to their area. The best include Lewisham, Tower Hamlets, and Newham; the poorest include Westminster, Redbridge and Camden. The total area of railway corridors has yet to be calculated, as has the total area of linesides of wildlife value.

• In inner London railways are mostly elevated on viaducts or in deep cuttings and tend to support very limited biodiversity. Outside of the city centre, linesides become broader and begin to support vegetation. Towards the London borders significant areas of semi-natural habitat are included within the railway corridor.

• Lineside habitats are largely a legacy of the countryside they were originally built through and subsequent management, together with the indirect impacts of railway operation. Linesides were once managed intensively and although sometimes trees were planted to screen residential properties, the majority were maintained as grassland.

• From the 1920s, with a change to electrification and increasing labour costs, management became more relaxed, especially after the Modernisation programme of 1955. From the 1970s scrub and woodland began to appear on the more rural stretches, to the extent where many of today’s railsides support recent sycamore woodlands – often the only significant stands of woodland in many inner London areas.

• Significant changes to the railway network and land area have occurred since the mid-1980s, and with privatisation development pressures have seen further land-take, particularly on derelict marshalling yards. New railway projects have led to corridors being created, often at the expense of semi-natural habitat (e.g. Addington Hills in Croydon), but such projects now require environmental assessments and with heightened public sensitivity are unlikely to proceed without considerable ecological compensation.

• London’s railway network supports significant areas of biodiversity importance. A total of 838 ha of lineside were identified as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation for London by the London Ecology Unit (LEU)

95

• The range of habitats, from chalk cliffs to early successional wasteland, together with a relative lack of human disturbance, provides a rich diversity of fauna and flora. In inner London they often support significant woodland and rough grassland. Sunny grass embankments may be havens for butterflies, grasshoppers, slow worm and kestrel, whilst woodlands can support great tit, great spotted woodpecker and sparrowhawk. Derelict marshalling yards with a free-draining, alkaline substrate often support a diverse range of ruderal plants, before succeeding towards birch scrub and woodland.

• A number of plants and animals are characteristic of London’s railway linesides. Plants like as everlasting sweet pea, rosebay willowherb and Oxford ragwort have spread through the development and operation of railways, and sycamore is the predominant tree species. Buddleja occupies lineside ballast and cracks in railway structures. Some ‘pest’ species such as Japanese Knotweed and giant hogweed have also taken root, often in large monocultures.

• Well-vegetated linesides act as ‘green corridors’ and the combined network of railways helps the movement of species along them between adjoining sites either through direct movement (e.g. mammals) or dispersal assisted by the movements of trains (e.g. seeds of plants). Thus railway linesides add to and benefit from the ecological integrity of adjacent open green spaces and wildlife habitat.

3.2 Local Status

• According to the LEU, there is 23.41 kilometres of ‘railway corridor land’ within the Borough of Lambeth, which equates to about 2.9% of the London total. The LEU estimates that there is 28.9 hectares of railway lineside land in Lambeth classified as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) – whether of Local or Borough importance; this equates to 3.34% of the London total for railside SINCs.

• All of the railside land in Lambeth is owned, as far as can be ascertained, by Network Rail, who is also responsible for its management and maintenance. Stations and other railside facilities in Lambeth are also owned by Network Rail, but leased to or used by four Train Operating Companies (TOCs): Southern, South Eastern, Thameslink and South West Trains. All the rail lines owned or operated by London Underground in Lambeth are below surface (Victoria and Northern Lines) and as such they are excluded from this Action Plan.

• At a rough estimate about 40 ha of land in Lambeth can be classified as ‘railway lineside’, either on the ground or raised above ground level and with the potential to be managed or developed for nature conservation benefits. This amounts to about 1.47% of the total land area (2,727 ha) of the Borough.

• However, although making up a very small proportion of the Borough’s total land area, railway linesides in Lambeth make up a significant contribution to the biodiversity status of the Borough, out of all proportion to their actual net area. The 1994 LEU Report “Nature Conservation in Lambeth” identified large sections of the Borough’s railside land as important enough to be classified as Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) for Lambeth, regardless of whether they are SNCIs of Local or Borough Importance.

• Table 1 summarises the known areas of railway lineside in Lambeth, either already classified as SNCI or with potential for management to benefit nature conservation.

96 Table 1. Description of the areas of railway lineside in Lambeth of known or potential importance for nature conservation and biodiversity

Site Name Grid Ref Area (Ha) % of Borough Ownership Total (40.00) Clapham Old Town TQ 293 763 2.50 6.25 Network Rail Loughborough Junction TQ 324 758 3.00 7.50 Network Rail Peabody Hill Railway TQ 321 736 2.20 5.50 Network Rail Linesides Streatham Railsides 13.00 32.50 Network Rail Streatham Hill Cutting TQ 304 727 Leigham Vale Junction TQ 317 726 Streatham Cuttings TQ 310 723 South Streatham Railsides 10.00 25.00 Network Rail Tooting Bec - Eardley Road TQ 296 708 Streatham Common – Norbury TQ 300 701 Tulse Hill Junction TQ 319 732 4.80 12.00 Network Rail West Norwood Railsides TQ 326 715 4.50 11.25 Network Rail

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Poor or Inadequate Management. Railway linesides are important ecologically because of the ‘mosaic’ of habitats they support. Rough grassland and ruderal habitats, by virtue of their decline elsewhere in London, are relatively common on railway linesides, and so lineside management should be structured to maintain these.

However, current railside management is designed to meet operational and safety standards, and geared to the prevention of trees growing too near tracks, especially those with a mucilaginous leaf litter (e.g. sycamore and ash). As a result a 15m swathe is regularly clear felled adjacent to railway lines. Unfortunately this is inadequate to maintain existing grassland, nor to restore grassland which has since turned to scrub and woodland.

The likelihood is that on all but the poorest of soils, railway linesides in London become dominated by low sycamore/ash scrub, banking onto stands of oak/sycamore woodland, and maintained as such. Additional management in areas of existing railside grassland is needed to maintain their biodiversity interest, but current management is often not geared towards this as a primary objective.

• Development Pressures. One of the main threats to the biodiversity of London’s railway linesides is loss of habitat through development and occasionally operational requirements. Although development of railway land began in the 1960s on a number of closed lines, it sharply increased during the 1980s, with the loss of large marshalling yards and reduction of space around junctions to housing.

With railway privatisation this threat may have increased, as both Network Rail and its predecessor Railtrack have an obligation to maximise their assets, and this could include selling off redundant land for development.

97 Some railway corridors will be exempt from loss to development due to their slope, structure or narrowness (many such sites in Lambeth are in this category) but larger areas of flat land, especially those adjacent to existing residential areas, are under increasing pressure. Only a few railway sites are ‘protected’ in many Borough Unitary Development Plans (UDPs), and many other areas are seen as being ‘operational land’ or with the potential for development.

Recent proposals to improve or create new strategic rail links, e.g. the Channel Tunnel Rail Link or London Crossrail, could require existing railway corridors to be dramatically widened, so removing substantial areas of existing railway lineside habitat without necessarily providing for replacement habitats due to lack of space.

• Contract Management Problems. The increasing use of contractors for lineside management operations has meant works are driven increasingly by financial and contract performance targets with little leeway for landscape or nature conservation considerations to be factored in. Many contractors plan and undertake work according to rigid contract timetables and specifications, and are reluctant to alter work timings or patterns to take into account nature conservation issues when they are encountered out of season or routine.

• Management Perceptions. ‘Traditional’ management within the railway industry is felt by some in the nature conservation sector to have an in-built bias against vegetation on or close to railway lineside land. This poor perception might stem in part from the fact vegetation can be viewed as a threat to the smooth and safe running of railway operations. For example, there may be concerns about mature trees shedding leaves or branches falling onto and blocking rail lines, or trees and branches falling onto moving trains and putting passenger and staff safety at risk. There may also be concerns about scrub and ruderal grassland acting as potential sources of fire, especially in urban locations where there is a high risk of arson.

Some managers or contractors might feel it is better to remove the risk altogether by vigorously cutting back any lineside vegetation. Increasing concerns by the rail and transport industry over litigation from injured parties following accidents might be instilling a ‘better not wait for it to happen’ attitude, and managing linesides to remove any future, as well as any present concerns.

• Vandalism and Dumping. Areas of railway lineside suffer from flytipping and vandalism, including the deliberate arson of meadow grassland and scrub. This can make railway land operators reluctant to retain such risk areas, and keep linesides closely mown or free of fire risks or places for flytipping to be dumped or hidden.

• Invasive Plants and Weeds. A range of highly invasive or alien plants, such as Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed, Sycamore, Rhododendron, Cherry Laurel and Buddleja are now abundant along many sections of railway lineside. These plants dominate indigenous wild plant species or shade out the normal ground flora, so affecting species richness and distribution on the lineside. The use of herbicides to control them obviously creates its own ecological problems (see below), killing off native or more traditional plant species.

• Pesticides. Railway maintenance companies can come to view herbicides as a cheap and effective way to control not only invasive plants choking up the railway linesides, but also to keep scrub, grassland and woodland under check, and prevent them becoming a safety and operational problem. However, herbicides are fairly indiscriminate in the plant species and habitats they control or remove, and many indigenous or native species can be adversely affected or eliminated as a consequence if application is inappropriate or not managed.

98 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• The following sections of railway lineside land in Lambeth are protected from development or loss by inclusion in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI):

• Peabody Hill Railway Linesides (part of Peabody Hill) – Borough Importance • Streatham Railsides – Borough Importance • South Streatham Railsides - Borough Importance • West Norwood Railsides - Borough Importance

• Both the current UDP (released 1998) and the new UDP (currently in Draft Deposit stage) recognise and attach great importance to railway lineside land for nature conservation and biodiversity. As well as protecting railway linesides as ‘green corridors’, the UDP recognises the need for Network Rail and developers to consider the wildlife interest of railside land surplus to operational requirements before applying for any change of use.

• Public access to all railway lineside land in Lambeth is severely restricted for obvious health and safety reasons; permission to access any railside land must be sought from Network Rail and only then following a thorough safety induction programme. All railside land in Lambeth is covered by the National Railway Byelaws, which prohibits unauthorised public access or certain activities by neighbouring land owners or users which could impede or obstruct normal rail operations, or pose a safety risk to railway staff, commuters or the general public.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• Network Rail, who own and are responsible for directing the management and maintenance of most of the UK’s surface rail network, recognise the nature conservation importance of railway lineside. Network Rail have issued an Environment Policy which states that they will ensure heritage features and habitats under their care are protected, and they will assess their maintenance and investment plans to avoid or reduce any adverse environmental impacts (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cache/Network Rail Env Policy.pdf).

• To complement and deliver their Environmental Policy, Network Rail have a Safety and Environmental Plan which identifies targets and objectives to protect, maintain and enhance any nature conservation interest on railway land under their ownership and control (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cache/SafetyPlan_screen res.pdf).

• Network Rail have recently produced a Corporate Biodiversity Action Plan, which details the actions to be undertaken to protect, manage and enhance the biodiversity interest of the Network Rail land estate. The Biodiversity Action Plan provided guidance to Network Rail managers, staff, contractors and train operators as to appropriate activities and procedures to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on railway wildlife.

• A number of major proposals for changes or additions to the national rail network, including some key developments in Greater London, are subject to a comprehensive review of their environmental impacts both during and after construction. These appraisals include assessments on adverse or positive impacts upon local wildlife and nature conservation interest. Examples include the Channel Tunnel Rail Extension, the proposed Crossrail development in London, and the Docklands Light Railway Extension, as well as proposals for extensions to the London Underground Network and the Croydon Tramlink into Lambeth.

99 5.3 Local Action

• Lambeth Parks and Planning have developed links to key personnel within and acting for both Network Rail and London Underground Limited, which allows for dialogue regarding proposed and ongoing railway management operations within the Borough. This enables officers to be notified of proposed railway maintenance works, which might impact upon existing areas of nature conservation interest, whether railside land itself or adjacent areas. This provides officers with opportunities to advise on or approve of works which might affect biodiversity, and identify mitigation or compensatory measures during or following any railside operations.

• Lambeth Planning will inform relevant officers of any proposed or intended changes of use or developments on railside land deemed surplus to operational requirements, e.g. sale for housing or use as industrial units. This enables officers to comment upon any proposed developments where they may impact upon the biodiversity of the site or an adjacent area, and to seek mitigation or compensatory actions as part of the approval process.

• Eardley Road Sidings, Peabody Hill and Norwood Park, which are all Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) for Lambeth, are adjacent to existing operational railway land which is also of SNCI status. Council officers monitor any railside operations which might impact upon the above SNCIs, or any operations within the above three sites which might adversely affect the nature conservation status of the railside land.

• Lambeth Council encourages local residents, user groups and Members to notify relevant officers or departments of any activities or operations on railway land in the Borough which might have an adverse effect on local nature conservation, whether on the railway land itself or on any adjacent site. Council officers can then investigate the alleged incident to see if any of the operations are potentially damaging to local wildlife or the nature conservation status of a site, and take further appropriate action to prevent damage or loss.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of railway lineside habitats for biodiversity, include CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• A detailed audit was undertaken in the 1990s by the London Ecology Unit (LEU) as to sites of nature conservation and biodiversity interest in Lambeth. This resulted in the publication of the 1994 LEU report “Nature Conservation in Lambeth”, which described many of the railway linesides in Lambeth, and identifies their importance for biodiversity and nature conservation.

• Further advice and expertise on the importance of railway linesides for biodiversity, and their management to promote and protect wildlife on or near them, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/Science/GeneticResources/Access/In- Situ/Railtrack.asp) • Network Rail (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/index.htm) • London Underground (http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/about/report/environment/) • London Wildlife Trust – advice on the importance of railway linesides: (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/resourcefiles/20040625141747Wild+rail+linessides. doc) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/)

100 7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Railway Lineside Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Acid Grassland • Woodlands • Bats • Blackbird • House Sparrow • Reptiles • Stag Beetle

• Flagship Species of Railway Lineside Habitat

The plants and animals listed in Table 2 are regarded as ‘flagship species’ characteristic of railway lineside habitat in London. Although some are recorded on railway land in Lambeth, the management of railway linesides should be to both retain species already present, but also manage and create habitats to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise.

Table 2: Flagship Species of Railway Lineside Habitats.

Species Name Latin Name Comments Oxford Ragwort Senecio squalidus Relative of the Common Ragwort, introduced from Southern Europe. Spread through much of UK often via railway linesides. Open clusters of bright yellow flower heads, popular with many pollinating insects Rosebay Epilobium angustifolium Familiar widespread perennial, often Willowherb abundant on railway land. Lanceolate leaves arranged spirally up stem. Pinkish purple flowers, 20-30mm ‘Railway Poplar’ Populus x canadensis A hybrid or subspecies of the native ‘Regenerata’ Black Poplar, sometimes called the Manchester Poplar. Once extensively planted along railway land, due to its high resistance to soot and pollution. Grasshoppers and Order Orthoptera Many species found in open grassland Crickets and scrub on railside habitat; can be quite abundant. Slow Worm Anguis fragilis Legless lizard with shiny skin. Prefers an open or semi-open habitat, feed on slow moving prey, particularly small slugs. Common Lizard Lacerta vivipara Widely distributed in UK, common on open railside habitats. Distinct patterning, frequently basking in open on warm or sunny days. Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Very common bird of prey, often seen hovering over open or scrub habitat along railway linesides. Hunts small mammals, especially voles and mice.

101 8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Railway Linesides Action Plan:

• London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Acid Grassland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac07_acid.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Statement HA14 – Railway Linesides (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/15_railwayline.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables are designed to set out some key objectives to be achieved by the Partnership Organisations for the Railway Lineside Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

Objective 1: To improve knowledge and understanding of the nature conservation interest and biodiversity value of railside land within Lambeth.

Target: Undertake a Borough-wide audit of railway land to identify sites and areas of existing biodiversity value, and areas or sites with potential for improvement to increase biodiversity value through appropriate management, by 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake a desktop study exercise as to 2005 LPG important sites, and areas within sites, known or believed to be of biodiversity value for the Borough Undertake a field survey of railway land 2006 LPG to identify key areas and habitats for nature conservation value Publish findings of audit (paper, website, 2007 LPG presentations) to identify key nature conservation areas and habitats within the Borough’s railway land

Objective 2: To promote good management of railway land in Lambeth for the benefit of nature conservation and resident habitats and species.

Target: To establish a partnership with railway land operators and interest groups by 2007

Action Target Lead Partners To contact and identify key individuals 2006 LPG and units within railway land management organisations, their contractors and land leaseholders To establish a communications and 2007 LPG information sharing network with all key partners as to good practice and advice on railway land management to protect and promote biodiversity

102 Objective 3: To improve public and commercial knowledge and awareness of wildlife in, and the biodiversity importance of, railway land in Lambeth.

Target: To deliver a programme of talks, walks, information and training to rail land owners and operators, Members, officers, schools and community organisations by 2008

Action Target Lead Partners To prepare a programme of talks, walks 2006 LPG and training on nature conservation on railway linesides, for the benefit of rail operators, land owners and key partners To deliver a programme of talks, walks 2007 LPG and training on managing railway land for the benefit of nature conservation, to rail operators, land owners and key partners To deliver a training programme to rail 2009 LPG operators, land owners and key partners on identifying wildlife and simple wildlife monitoring techniques, to help assess impacts of changes in site management and development on biodiversity.

10. Key References

Parks, R. (1997). Ecological Report for the Northern Line (3 Volumes). Paul Norton Associates, for London Underground Limited, London

Yarham, I, Waite, M, Simpson, A and Machin, N (1994). Nature Conservation in Lambeth. Ecology Handbook 26, London Ecology Unit, London

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust NR – Network Rail RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds LUL – London Underground Limited PD – Lambeth Planning & Development RECs – Rail Engineering Contractors LNHS – London Natural History Society TSOCs – Train/Station Operating Companies EN – English Nature RPL – Rail Property Leaseholders GLA – Greater London Authority

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

103 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Tidal Thames

1. Aims

• To conserve and enhance the wildlife habitats, species diversity and local distinctiveness of the Tidal Thames within Lambeth.

• To promote public awareness and greater appreciation of the nature conservation importance of the Tidal Thames within both Lambeth and Greater London as a whole.

• To provide greater protection of the Tidal Thames within Lambeth, as a consequence of raising its profile not only with the general public but also with developers and through the statutory planning process.

2. Introduction

• The London Biodiversity Action Plan describes the Tidal Thames as a “partially enclosed area of water and tidal shore which receives saline water from the North Sea and fresh water from the River Thames together with its numerous tributaries and land run-off”.

• The Thames has been traditionally known as ‘London’s River’ or ‘Old Father Thames’, and has played a central role in directing and influencing the growth and well-being of the City of London. It is probably the best known river in the United Kingdom, and attracts millions of tourists to view and enjoy the many sights along it.

• Over a fifth of the UK population live within a few miles of it, and each day thousands pass over, along and under it. The Thames is a transport route, a drain, a view, a development site, a tourist and visitor attraction, and just as importantly, a wildlife resource and corridor.

• Numerous habitats and species are present along the entire length of the Thames, and are closely linked to London’s identity, history and development. The Tidal Thames is a classic example of a ‘recovering ecosystem’ which is of great ecological importance not only to London, Kent and Essex but also to life in the North Sea and upstream catchments of the upper Thames.

• The Lambeth Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan covers the stretch of the Thames foreshore which runs along the northern boundary of the Borough of Lambeth, from Vauxhall Cross to the Oxo Tower/Gabriel’s Wharf complex. The Plan links into both the London Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan, which itself is component of a Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan being prepared across London, Essex and Kent

• The London and wider Tidal Thames Action Plan’s cover a complex mosaic of habitats along the full length of the River Thames, together with its tributaries up to their tidal limits. The Lambeth Plan, limited as it is by the Borough’s political boundaries, concentrates primarily on those habitats and wildlife features known or believed to be present in or along the Thames where it is within the Borough boundaries. Nonetheless it acknowledges the importance of habitats and species which utilise the whole length of the river, because what happens in Lambeth as regards developments or habitat management will have impacts outside the Borough and on the whole ecosystem.

104 3. Current Status

3.1 National and Regional Status

• The Tidal Thames is part of the Greater Thames complex, one of the most important areas for wildfowl and wading birds within the UK. The Greater Thames Estuary comprises the rivers Thames, Medway, Crouch, Roach, Blackwater and Colne. It is London’s largest continuous wildlife corridor supporting species and habitats found nowhere else in the capital.

• The London Action Plan rightly calls the Tidal Thames a ‘wildlife superhighway’, providing a crucial link and migration route for many different species. For example, some fish like dace migrate very short distances from fresh to brackish water, but others, for example, eels, over- wintering wildfowl and waders, and summer visiting house martin and common tern, migrate hundreds or thousands of miles.

• The Tidal Thames within Greater London is approximately 67 km in length, and forms part of one of the longest rivers in Britain. It supports a diverse mix of inter-connected habitats, which vary in relation to physical, chemical and biological factors as well as human impact.

• The key ‘semi-natural’ habitats in London are open water, intertidal mud, sand and shingle, and small areas of saltmarsh. A few reedbeds are scattered along the Thames and in its tidal creeks, and most of the Thames islands (Eyots or Aits) support secondary woodland.

• The flood defences and other structures along the River Thames provide their own habitats, and have been colonised by estuarine and riverine flora and fauna. Even where vertical flood defence walls occur (as they do right through Lambeth), a surprising variety of different plant and invertebrate species have become established, providing an important food source for the many different species of fish that now occur in the London Thames.

• There has been a general trend of recovery and improvement within the Tidal Thames since the 1960s, as a result of improvements in water quality and habitat. Today, the Tidal Thames in London supports a diverse flora and rich populations of invertebrates, fish and aquatic birds. Since 1957, 119 species of fish have been recorded.

• The distribution of fish and other species varies in relation to the distribution of suitable habitat, water quality and salinity along the River Thames. However, variations in these three factors occur over space and time, as well as in relation to the daily tidal cycle and the changing seasons.

• The whole of the Tidal Thames in Greater London is currently classified as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (London Reference M31), and thus represents the largest nature conservation sites in the Metropolis. This classification includes not just the tidal foreshore but also the river bed constantly submerged at low tide, inlets and creeks along its length, and the vertical walls of flood defences, wharves and jetties.

105 3.2 Local Status

• Approximately 3.2 kilometres of the Tidal Thames foreshore runs through the Borough of Lambeth, along its northern/north western boundary. This equates to about 4.5% of the total length of the Tidal Thames. In area terms the Tidal Thames in Lambeth covers about 4 hectares to the mid-river political boundary with Wandsworth, Westminster and Southwark However, though relatively short in length, the section of the Thames running through Lambeth is one of the best know because of the many tourist attractions along the Albert Embankment and South Bank.

• The Thames in Lambeth extends from a point roughly halfway between Blackfriars and Waterloo Bridges (at the Oxo Tower Complex) to another point which is about 300 metres upriver from Vauxhall Bridge. As well as the Albert Embankment itself, its frontage includes such famous landmarks as the South Bank Centre (the National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall and Hayward Gallery), along with Jubilee Gardens and the London Eye, the Oxo Tower, Coin Street Community, the old GLC Hall, St. Thomas’ Hospital and the MI6 Headquarters.

• The section of the Thames in Lambeth was once fed by a tributary called the River Effra, but recent developments have completely obscured its route and it is now a buried or ‘lost’ river of London. The Effra originated on the escarpment around Upper Norwood and Crown Point, and flowed through West Norwood, Herne Hill, Brixton and Kennington before emptying into the Thames immediately upstream of Vauxhall Bridge. The only modern sign of its entry into the Thames is a metal valve low down on the river embankment beside Vauxhall Bridge, through which the Effra’s current contents flow.

• The entire section of the Tidal Thames within Lambeth is a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation (Reference M31), and is the only ‘site’ in Borough with this high status. The designation covers the tidal foreshore, submerged riverbed and all vertical walls, flood defences, wharves and jetties within the Borough boundary.

• Lambeth straddles two important ecological ‘zones’ of the Tidal Thames. The Thames around and upstream of Vauxhall Bridge can be categorised as the ‘Freshwater Zone’, characterised by freshwater species and habitats like gravel foreshore, islands (Aits and Eyots), marginal vegetation, inlets, back channels, vertical hard flood defences, scrub and over-hanging trees.

• The plant and animal species within the Freshwater Zone reflect both various habitats and the fresh water dominance. Freshwater shrimps and snails provide a valuable food source for freshwater fish such as dace and roach, and summer visitors such as flounder, smelt and goby. Overhanging vegetation, backwaters and islands provide nesting and roosting sites for many birds like mallard and heron.

• Downstream of Vauxhall Bridge the Thames is an area of transition between the upper Freshwater Zone to the lower saline, more estuarine zone down to the North Sea. Most of the Tidal Thames within Lambeth is in this transitional, or ‘Brackish Zone’. This section of the Tidal Thames is under considerable stress from the rise and fall of the tide and the as a consequence changing proportions of fresh and saltwater.

• Vertical and hard flood defence walls dominate the habitats within the Brackish Zone of the Thames in Lambeth, although there are some creeks, docks and inlets along its length. Species within the Brackish Zone must be able to withstand wide variations in salinity. Although the substrate in the Zone is mainly clay or mud, and dominated by tubificid worms, the main food source for overwintering wildfowl and waders, there are areas of shingle and sand deposited by tide and currents. These often have their own species and microhabitats, and make the Thames in Lambeth surprisingly diverse in terms of species and habitats.

106 4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Development and Habitat Loss. The Tidal Thames has a long history of development-led encroachment – indeed, during the Roman period the Thames in Lambeth was much wider than it is now. Despite stronger planning legislation, foreshore habitat loss is still occurring as a result of riverside redevelopment. Although this is not as significant in Lambeth, given the already developed nature of the foreshore in the Borough, regeneration of riverside sites does cause considerable concern, as small areas of wildlife interest could be lost as a result.

• Water Quality. Water quality standards in the Thames have been improved considerably over the last 100 years, but London is still heavily dependent on its Victorian sewage network. During periods of heavy rain, combined sewer overflows can discharge diluted sewage into the Tidal Thames, and under conditions of low river flow and heavy rain this can lead to fish kills. There are a number of sewage discharge points both up- and downstream of the Lambeth Thames foreshore, plus storm water discharge points within it (the Effra itself acts as a storm water overflow), which makes the Thames within Lambeth relatively vulnerable.

• Water Quantity. During the summer months the Tidal Thames experiences low freshwater flows as a result of upstream abstraction for drinking water. This means that saline tidal waters penetrate further upstream into the upper freshwater river, bringing with it marine animals but also estuarine silts. Silt deposited on areas of gravel foreshore can change the habitat and lead to a reduction in invertebrate diversity. Because the Tidal Thames in Lambeth is at this ‘transitional’ (Brackish) zone, there is concern that there may be significant effects on the local habitats and species within the Thames at this point.

• Barrages and Weirs. A number of tidal barrages and weirs have been introduced to the Thames at Richmond for navigation, and at Barking and Wandle Creeks to promote regeneration. These barrages and weirs remove or limit the normal tidal range, creating an impounded basin upstream of the structure for all or some of a tidal cycle. Barrages alter the ecology of the river, restricting species movement, destroying the low tide feeding habitat upstream of the structure, and increasing siltation. The close proximity of the Wandle Barrage to the Lambeth Thames foreshore has raised some concerns over its environmental effects.

• Problem Species. Certain exotic or problem plants and animals, like Japanese Knotweed, Floating Pennywort and Chinese Mitten Crab have become established along the Tidal Thames. Further research is required to determine the effect of these species on local biodiversity. Although there is little natural foreshore habitat in Lambeth for exploitation by aggressive burrowing animals or colonising plants, the effect of problem plants out-competing those on the vertical walls of the Thames embankment in the Borough are not known.

• Maintenance Dredging. Dredging involves removing deposits of sands, gravels and muds to maintain navigation access throughout the River Thames. Removal and alteration of these deposits can result in the loss of species, while the redistribution of sediment results in changes to normal river flows. Much more research is required to quantify the short- and long-term impacts of dredging on the biodiversity of the Tidal Thames within Lambeth.

• Public Perception. The majority of people living and working in Lambeth are often unaware of the wildlife value of the Tidal Thames as its passes through the Borough, never mind the rest of London. There is a misconception that due to its brown colour, the river is ‘dirty’ and devoid of life, which is totally untrue. The fact much of the Thames in Lambeth is hidden behind hard flood defences and relatively inaccessible tends to exacerbate the problem.

107 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• The Tidal Thames and its foreshore in Lambeth are protected from the effects of adverse or inappropriate development by inclusion in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Both the current UDP (released 1998) and the new UDP (currently in Draft Deposit stage) recognise and attach great importance to the Tidal Thames foreshore and the flood defence walls for many functions, including nature conservation and biodiversity.

• The Thames’ status as a Site of Metropolitan Importance (M31) is recognised in the Lambeth UDP. This non-statutory designation, identified by the London Ecology Unit (now part of the Greater London Authority) and adopted by the Mayor of London, signifies that the River Thames and its tidal tributaries are of major importance for nature conservation in the Capital.

• The Tidal Thames within Lambeth is not covered by any statutory nature conservation designation. However, many protected species associated with the Thames in London pass through or may use the Thames where it is within Lambeth, such as the kingfisher and some bats, while the twaite shad, a fish, is likely to become more frequent in the near future. Marine mammals such as the common seal, harbour porpoise and bottle nosed dolphin, occasionally stray into the Tidal Thames and are protected to varying degrees.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• Although of undoubted international and national importance for so many diverse and challenging activities and uses, no single organisation oversees the management and regulation of the Tidal Thames. As a result of this concern, the Thames Estuary Project (TEP) was formed in 1993 to provide a focus for the range of organisations, individuals and activities linked to the Tidal Thames.

• Key outputs by the TEP include the preparation of a “Management Guidance for the Thames Estuary” and creation of the Thames Estuary Partnership, which plays a key role in the co- ordination of the many uses, activities and interests of the Tidal Thames.

• Through the TEP advice on management issues for the Tidal Thames is available from statutory organisations such as the Environment Agency, English Nature, the Port of London Authority, Local Authorities, Greater London Authority and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Voluntary and non-statutory organisations also provide advice and undertake activities, including London Wildlife Trust, Groundwork Trust, Thames 21, BTCV, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

• Considerable effort has and continues to be made into improving the water quality and ecological value of the Thames, and in maintaining this improved quality – both important in retaining and enhancing the biodiversity value of the Thames and its foreshore habitats. Particular effort is being invested in the means to obtain ‘early warning’ to any adverse changes in water flow or quality, and to respond quickly and effectively to ensure both wildlife and water quality are adequately protected.

• The Environment Agency operates a network of water quality monitoring stations along the Tidal Thames, which are designed to provide round the clock data on the condition of the river, and to allow the Agency and its partners to respond appropriately. Incidents such as accidental or deliberate discharges of sewage or other noxious materials can therefore be recorded and closely monitored as to their spread and potential effect, and appropriate responses made to alleviate or control the impacts.

108 • Thames Water operates a special barge on the Tidal Thames which can pump oxygen back into the water so helping keep dissolved oxygen levels at a level which protects fish and other aquatic wildlife. This is important in maintaining and promoting biological diversity especially for species which are relatively sensitive to water quality and dissolved oxygen availability. The barge can be deployed to reaches of the Thames known to be vulnerable to low oxygen levels as a result of natural factors or planned sewage or effluent discharges, or in response to emergencies such as accidental or deliberate discharges of sewage or effluents or abnormal climatic or water flow conditions. Thames Water and the Environment Agency work closely together to both monitor water quality and respond to any concerns, including deployment of the oxygenating barge or alterations in water abstraction or sewage discharge rates to try and help alleviate the problem.

• There have been substantial improvements over the last 50 years in the quality of the water in the Tidal Thames, mainly due to changes in the management and treatment of sewage, which at one time was pumped into the Thames with minimal treatment or without consideration as to its effects on water quality and resident wildlife.

• Thames Water, the principal sewerage authority on the Tidal Thames, has made year-on- year improvements in the efficiency of its sewerage treatment plants, and in the quality of effluent that is discharged into the river, all of which have had positive impacts upon the quality of the water in the Thames and the biodiversity of the river as a whole.

• In recent years a number of incentives, grants and partnership funds have been targeted at habitat management and creation along the Tidal Thames. These include Environment Agency partnership projects, cross-river partnership schemes, Bridge House Estates Trust Fund grants and Groundwork partnership projects via the Single Regeneration Budget. The majority of projects are site-specific but cover a range of habitats and involve a range of organisations and individuals.

5.3 Local Action

• Although the biodiversity importance of the Tidal Thames within Lambeth is recognised in the Borough’s current UDP under sections relating to the protection of landscape and nature conservation, the UDP also includes sections specific to North Lambeth, which also includes protection of wildlife and biodiversity.

• Sections V18 and V19 (Vauxhall), and Sections W17, W31, W32, W33, W34 and W35 (Waterloo) of the current Lambeth UDP refer to the importance of the Tidal Thames and Thames foreshore, and the need to regulate development or riverside activities to protect its unique character. The Lambeth UDP also refers to the Tidal Thames under Strategic Policy G19, which provides a commitment to promote the wildlife potential of the Thames where it runs through the Borough alongside other activities.

• Any proposed development or change of use to any facility, building or site along the Thames foreshore in Lambeth is subject to rigorous scrutiny and evaluation through the statutory planning and consultation process. A number of major developments have taken place, or are currently proposed, along the frontage of the Tidal Thames in the Borough, and the potential environmental impacts upon water quality, river flow, flood management, landscape and nature conservation have to be thoroughly examined given the high status of the Thames and the numerous planning policies attached to its protection.

109 • A number of developments along the Lambeth Tidal Thames have required modifications in order to avoid long-term adverse effects upon the environmental quality of the Thames or the foreshore, particularly where changes to the river frontage could cause disruptions to normal water flow or scouring of the river bed, so affecting resident habitats or species.

• The Cross River Partnership (CRP) is an appropriately named initiative, funded through the Single Regeneration Budget, and involving four Thames-bounded local authorities (Lambeth, Southwark, Westminster and the City of London. The CRP frequently undertakes projects designed to regenerate areas in North Lambeth which abut onto or are influenced by the Thames and its foreshore, including bridges, new transport links, reuse of redundant buildings or sites, and providing employment and housing opportunities.

• A number of CRP projects offer significant potential to stimulate greater awareness and use of the Thames in Lambeth as an economic or community resource, or to raise its profile in terms of its rich cultural and social heritage. CRP offers opportunities to also raise awareness of the ecological importance of the Tidal Thames in Lambeth as well as in the other three partner Boroughs, as well as improving managed access to and positive use of the foreshore or riverside open spaces to benefit wildlife and biodiversity.

• A number of major regeneration initiatives are proposed for much of the Thames riverside where it passes through Lambeth, especially the Albert Embankment and South Bank. Whilst these initiatives concentrate on structural changes to much of the existing buildings and access routes along and up to the riverside flood defences, the potential for adverse effects upon the Thames foreshore and resident wildlife habitats needs to be evaluated, and monitored both during and after any development works.

• A number of events and activities have taken place in the Borough which have allowed volunteers or members of the public safe access to and use of the Thames foreshore to help raise awareness of its history and importance for heritage and nature conservation. These events have also included ‘clean-ups’ designed to make people aware of the need to manage and maintain the Thames so as to prevent loss of habitats and other features from pollution, dumping of rubbish or inappropriate uses of the foreshore and frontage.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of the River Thames, its foreshore and adjacent landscape, and the promotion of biodiversity, include CD1; ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10 and ENV11; RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35; V18 and V19; and W17, W31, W32, W33, W34 and W35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• A detailed desktop and field audit was undertaken in the 1990s by the London Ecology Unit (LEU) as to sites of nature conservation and biodiversity interest in Lambeth. This resulted in the publication of the 1994 LEU report “Nature Conservation in Lambeth”. The report recognised the high nature conservation status of the Tidal Thames in Lambeth, and the need to manage it accordingly.

• It is hoped a future review of Lambeth nature conservation areas will be undertaken through the Greater London Authority (who have assimilated the LEU) which will provide a welcome re-appraisal of the condition and quality of the Tidal Thames and its associated habitats where present within the Borough.

110

• Further advice and expertise on the management and sustainable use of the Thames and other tidal river ecosystems, and on promoting biodiversity in them, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/index.htm) • Environment Agency (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/regions/thames/) • English Nature (advice on management plans) (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • RSPB (http://www.rspb.org.uk/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/) • Thames Estuary Partnership (http://www.thamesweb.com/) • Port of London Authority (http://www.portoflondon.co.uk/) • River Thames Society (http://www.riverthamessociety.org.uk/) • Thames Explorer Trust (http://www.thames-explorer.org.uk/) • Thames Path (http://www.thames-path.co.uk/) • Thames 21 (http://www.thames21.org.uk/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Tidal Thames Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Parks and Greenspaces

• Flagship Species of the Tidal Thames for London (Lambeth)

The plants and animals listed in Table 1 are regarded as ‘flagship species’ characteristic of the Thames within or adjacent to Lambeth. The intention of the management of the Thames in Lambeth should be to both retain species already present but also manage and create habitats and features to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

111 Table 1: Flagship Species of Tidal Thames Biodiversity

Species Name Latin Name Comments Hemlock water- Oenanthe crocata Large white-flowered umbellifer dropwort characteristic, colonising cracks and crevices. Parsley-like leaves highly toxic. Flounder Platichthys flesus A sea fish spending its juvenile months in the Tidal Thames. The river provides a nursery area for fish spawned in the North Sea. Shallow waters, creeks and foreshore provide fish fry with habitat and food during spring and summer. Salmon Salmo salar Last known naturally spawned Thames salmon caught 1833. The Thames Salmon Rehabilitation Scheme was set up in 1979 and salmon reintroduced to the Thames. A regular salmon run has occurred since 1982 and in 1993 over 500 fish returned. Additional protection under the EU Habitats Directive 1994. Smelt Osmerus eperlanus Cousin of the salmon with characteristic smell of cucumber. Particularly good indicator of water quality, once again spawning amongst the gravels and shallow waters near Wandsworth. Common Tern Sterna hirundo Summer visitor to the Tidal Thames. Breeds on derelict structures and purpose built ‘tern-rafts’ on adjacent docks. Regularly seen fishing on the River, tributaries and dock basins. Grey Heron Ardea cinerea Found throughout most of the Tidal Thames, except in the central stretch, at all times of the year. Particularly associated with the upper freshwater river, islands and backwaters. Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Characteristic of the middle and lower reaches of the Tidal Thames. Associated with mudflats, creeks and, at high water, derelict barges, jetties and other undisturbed roost sites. Teal Anas crecca Over-winters on the Tidal Thames, mainly associated with the lower river, mudflats and saltmarsh.

112 8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Tidal Thames Action Plan:

• UK Mudflats Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=34) • UK Sublittoral Sands and Gravels Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=44) • UK Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=59) • Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan – Thames Estuary Partnership (http://www.thamesweb.com/page.php?page_id=10&topic_id=1) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac08_thames.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Audit – HA10 The Tidal Thames (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/11_thames.rtf) • Strategic Planning Guidance for the River Thames 1997 (RPG3B/9B) (http://www.go- london.gov.uk/planning/downloads/rpg3b.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1; ENV1 - ENV11; RL16-29 and RL35; V18-19; and W17 and W31-35

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables are designed to set out some key objectives that would need to be achieved by the Partnership Organisations for the Tidal Thames Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To ensure that all relevant strategic and plans or initiatives recognise and reinforce the biodiversity importance of the River Thames within Lambeth.

Target: Full integration and inclusion of the Lambeth Tidal Thames Habitat Action Plan, its objectives and actions, into all relevant Lambeth strategies, policies and processes by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Identify and establish a network of key 2005 LPG Council officers and Members developing, implementing and monitoring plans and policies relevant to the Tidal Thames, biodiversity or development Advocate and lobby to ensure that all 2006 LPG planning proposals and development applications along the Tidal Thames are evaluated against the Habitat Action Plan and potential ecological impacts Incorporate Tidal Thames Habitat Action 2008 LPG Plan objectives and actions into all relevant Borough plans and policies at consultation and final stages

113 Objective 2: To secure appropriate management for existing and new habitats and species within the Tidal Thames in Lambeth.

Target: Produce and advocate ‘good practice’-based guidance and management to all relevant stakeholders by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Identify all habitats (e.g. river walls and 2006 LPG other structures) and locations (e.g. buildings/paths/river interface) in Lambeth Tidal Thames, and evaluate as to appropriate management guidelines and procedures to protect habitats, species and biodiversity Produce and advocate good practice 2007 LPG guidelines on the appropriate management and use of all habitats and locations in the Lambeth Tidal Thames Develop and implement an advice and 2008 LPG information distribution and training programme on good practice for developers, planners, site managers, etc.

Objective 3: To increase and support public understanding and appreciation of the habitats and species, and the nature conservation importance, of the Tidal Thames in Lambeth.

Target: To deliver a programme of talks, walks, information and training to Members, key officers, schools, community organisations, businesses and developers by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners To deliver a programme of talks, walks 2008 LPG and training on the nature conservation and landscape importance of the Lambeth Tidal Thames for the benefit of relevant community groups, officers, Members, site managers, schools and other key partners Promote and support foreshore and Ongoing LPG riverside events and activities within the Lambeth Tidal Thames to promote public appreciation of the local wildlife, riverside habitats and landscape Identify further opportunities for Ongoing LPG promoting public, business and local authority understanding and appreciation through education and events

114 10. Key References

Environment Agency (1996). Tidal Thames: Landscape Assessment and Design Guidelines (Final Report). Compiled by Cobham Resource Consultants/Llewelyn Davies.

Environmental Agency (undated). The Thames Tideway and Estuary Fact File. Environment Agency, London

Yarham, I, Waite, M, Simpson, A and Machin, N (1994). Nature Conservation in Lambeth. Ecology Handbook 26, London Ecology Unit, London

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds EN – English Nature PD – Lambeth Planning & Development EA – Environment Agency LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority BTCV – British Trust for Conservation T21 – Thames 21 Volunteers TEN – Thames Education Network TW – Thames Water TEP – Thames Estuary Partnership WWT – Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust TET – Thames Explorer Trust PLA – Port of London Authority TGLP – Thames Gateway London Partnership SBEG – South Bank Employer’s Group

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

115 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Woodlands

1. Aims

• To protect existing woodland sites within Lambeth for the benefit of biodiversity and for both current and future generations of local people.

• To increase the quality and biodiversity of Lambeth’s woodlands.

• To increase the area of woodland in Lambeth, particularly in areas of the Borough where there is currently a deficiency of or little accessible woodland.

2. Introduction

• London contains a network of woodlands that spread from the Green Belt almost to the centre of London. It is the natural habitat of much of London, and makes a vital contribution to the biodiversity of the region. Many woods have public access, affording London’s residents a retreat from the pressures of living in an urban environment.

• No lower limit is put on how small a ‘wood’ can be. In inner London Boroughs, like Lambeth, just a few trees might be considered a wood. Mature scrub is often included in the overall area of woodland, as given time it will develop into immature woodland and so help to increase the available area of woodland in a Borough, or replace those areas lost to development or other forms of management.

• Woodland provides a valuable resource for public enjoyment and improving the quality of life; it is used for walking, playing, recreation, education and exercise. Woodlands are also important to us for their heritage value, and often have a rich cultural, historical and landscape history associated with them, or the people who owned, managed or lived in them.

• There are essentially two types of woodland: primary or secondary, but these describe the site of the woodland and not the type of woodland or the actual age of the trees. Primary woodland is woodland known or accepted to be on a site that has been continuously wooded since prehistoric times. Secondary woodland described a site that has not been continuously wooded but where woodland has grown up or trees were planted at some stage.

• Woodland has ‘structure’ – it varies both with height and across the ground it covers. Woodland structure is important in terms of biodiversity; the more variation in the woodland structure, the greater the biodiversity tends to be. Woodlands with gaps in the tree canopy, where trees have dies or been removed, allow new habitats to form within the wood, where grasses, field layer plants, shrubs or young trees can establish and grow up. Woodlands can be deliberately managed to encourage different ages of tree growth or tree cover, or different species of tree type, and this all helps to increase and promote biodiversity.

• Woodland is arguably one of the UK’s richest wildlife habitats, yet it is extremely vulnerable to both the loss of actual habitat and changes in management, both of which have drastic impacts on its species richness. Over 40 UK woodland species have died out over the last 100 years, and a further 140 woodland species have declined in both numbers and distribution that they are now described in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as ‘requiring urgent action’ to save them.

116 3. Current Status

3.1 National Status

• Countryside surveys of Great Britain and Ireland estimate the total woodland cover for the UK to be about 12% (CS 2000).

• The amount of broadleaved woodland in the UK has increased during the last century (1900- 2000) by about 5% to 1.5 million hectares.

• The forest cover for England is only about 7%, although there is considerable regional variation. In Greater London, woodland cover is about 4.5% of the total area, which equates to approximately 7,300 hectares.

3.2 Local Status

• There are approximately 17 ha of identified woodland sites in Lambeth, which amounts to about 0.62 % of the total land area (2,727 ha) of the Borough.

• The main woodland sites in Lambeth are as follows:

Table 1. Description of the main woodland sites in Lambeth

Site Name Grid Ref Area (Ha) of % of Borough Total Ownership Woodland* Woodland (17.0) Eardley Road TQ 292 702 2.80 16.47 LB Lambeth Sidings Woods Knight’s Hill Wood TQ 318 712 0.25 1.47 LB Lambeth

Palace Road Nature TQ 308 731 0.48 2.82 LB Lambeth Gardens Peabody Hill Wood TQ 320 736 4.0 23.53 Peabody Trust

Streatham Common TQ 311 708 8.58 50.48 LB Lambeth Woodlands Unigate Wood TQ 309 716 0.89 5.23 LB Lambeth

(*) Not all of each named site is covered with woodland, and the area of woodland may only contribute a proportion of the total site area

• Most of the woodland cover in Lambeth is found in the southern half of the Borough, in Streatham and Norwood; there is a clear deficiency of woodland cover in the northern half.

• Virtually all of the woodland found in Lambeth is believed to be ‘secondary woodland’ – if any primary woodland remains, it is almost impossible to prove through an absence of historical records. All of the woodland sites described above appear to have developed on sites which were cleared of any primary woodland centuries ago and were used for other purposes. The woodland developed naturally following abandonment or was encouraged through tree plantings plus a relaxed management style.

117 4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline

• Habitat Fragmentation. All the woodland sites in Lambeth are physically isolated from each other, with no effective ‘green connections’ between them. This restricts the opportunity for woodland plants and most woodland animals to move between sites, so sustaining existing or enriching their species diversity.

• Lack of Appropriate Management. Most woodlands in Lambeth have not been managed well to date, either because of a lack of funding to undertake the required work, or an absence of a management plan to direct this work. Although all of the sites are included in a number of grounds maintenance contracts, these are not designed for the management of woodland or to maintain woodland biodiversity.

• Amenity Use. Woodlands have become popular places for recreational sports or pastimes, some of which are acceptable if properly managed or located in the woodland, such as horse riding, cycling, jogging, dog walking, and cross country running. However, excessive use for these activities or by activities which are less acceptable, such as motorcycling, can affect the biodiversity of woodlands by disturbing wild animals, causing erosion or compaction of fragile soils, or causing internal habitat fragmentation as paths and rides widen and woodland and scrub is pushed back.

• Dumping and Vandalism. Many woodland sites in Lambeth are often targets for the illegal dumping of household, industrial or building wastes, because they are less public and offenders often escape discovery or evidence is obscured. Flytipped waste smothers valuable woodland ground cover, can introduce pollutants or invasive weeds, attracts vermin if it contains organic or food matter, and discourages public use as the site becomes unsightly.

• Invasive Plants and Weeds. Dumping of garden or horticultural waste can introduce invasive or alien plants like Japanese Knotweed, Giant Hogweed, Sycamore, Rhododendron, Cherry Laurel or Buddleja. All these plants can dominate indigenous woodland species or shade out ground flora, so affecting the species richness and distribution of the woodland, and reducing its biodiversity value.

• Damage by Animals. Grey squirrels can strip the bark of many tree species, including beech, sycamore, hornbeam and oak, causing stunting and sometimes tree death. Browsing by rabbits and deer, principally muntjac, which are now recorded on the outskirts of Greater London and certainly becoming more common, can also damage trees and ground flora.

• Disease and Pests. Dutch elm disease has caused structural and species changes in woodlands containing elm trees. Other diseases such as alder and oak dieback, and sudden oak death syndrome, may be serious problems in the future, along with the Asian longhorn beetle pest. Although diseases might harm any forestry interest if there were future plans for this in Lambeth, much of this damage is natural and not necessarily harmful to biodiversity.

• Development of Land. Substantial areas of Lambeth once covered by woodland have been lost to development over the last three centuries, particularly from housing or roads. This has increased the degree of woodland habitat fragmentation and affected biodiversity. All the remaining woodlands in Lambeth are in prime development areas of the Borough, and unless protected by planning designations or management, could be lost to future developments.

118 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• All of the woodland sites described in Table 1 are protected through inclusion in the Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (UDP), both the current UDP and the new UDP currently in Draft Deposit stage. The UDP both recognises these woodlands as important open spaces and provides them with protection from development or inappropriate use.

• All publicly owned woodland sites in Lambeth are covered by legislation which prevents the felling or maltreatment of amenity trees – Tree Preservation Orders – unless undertaken by authorised personnel or contractors or as part of a predetermined maintenance programme.

• Trees in a tended area (not growing wild) are protected from vandalism by the Criminal Damage Act 1971; trees growing wild are also covered by this Act except in respect of their foliage and fruit.

5.2 National Action

• The National Forest, is an initiative in the Midlands covering nearly 200 square miles where 30 million trees will be planted.

• The Forestry Commission’s Biodiversity Research programme, started in 1995, aims to conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the UK’s woodlands.

• A principle objective of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) is to increase public awareness of the importance of woodlands as a biodiversity resource.

• The London Woodland Advisory Group, which represents tree and woodland interests in London, acts as a working group for the London Parks and Green Spaces Forum. Regional Advisory Committees are set up on a regional basis under the 1967 Forestry Act with the remit to advise on the implementation of national issues on forestry and woodland policy. The London Regional Advisory Committee was formed in 2003.

• The London Parks and Green Spaces Forum, a wide partnership of organisations aiming to promote a network of accessible quality green space as a major contribution towards a healthier and more sustainable world city.

• The Green Arc, a partnership of organisations aimed at linking and expanding the green islands of north and east London through the creation of a mosaic of woodlands and other habitats and the sensitive management of other open land.

• The Green Grid Network works on strategic links and improving green spaces in the Thames Gateway. The Green Gateway seeks to support and influence greening of the Thames Gateway through use of trees especially along Green Grid lines and in areas of social deprivation.

• Thames Chase is a Community Forest covering 40 square miles of East London and South Essex. The Thames Chase Partnership has planted 451 hectares of new woods since 1990, increasing woodland cover from 8% originally to 13% in 2003, with a target of 30% by 2033. It has also created large areas of wetland and meadows.

119 5.3 Local Action

• Peabody Hill Woodland is a potential recipient of funding from the ‘Capital Woodlands’ grant scheme, which is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). The Peabody Trust, working in partnership with the charity Trees for London, proposes to undertake a phased programme of woodland management and restoration to improve public access, create new wildlife habitat and increase the structural diversity of the Woodland.

• Trees for London is a charity based in Kennington Park which works with local authorities and community groups to increase public awareness of the importance of trees, whether on the public highway, in woodlands, in private gardens or on estates. Trees for London undertakes many tree planting and management activities in Lambeth, especially with schools and park user groups. Trees for London also provides a training programme to offer young adults career opportunities in arboriculture, horticulture and community development.

• Eardley Road Sidings, Knight’s Hill Wood, Palace Road Gardens, Streatham Common Woodlands and Unigate Wood are all incorporated into the new Lambeth Grounds Maintenance Contract (GMC) and the Lambeth Tree Maintenance Contract (TMC). This means that all 5 sites will benefit from an annual programme of maintenance, management and aftercare designed to retain features of importance for landscape character, public access and biodiversity value.

• Conservation Management Plans are being commissioned for Eardley Road Sidings, Knight’s Hill Wood and Unigate Wood, in order to direct a programme of works designed to retain and enhance their biodiversity and landscape value for the Borough. Management Plans will also assist the Council in securing additional funding for the management or enhancement of these sites, as well as directing capital investment which is both appropriate and timed.

• Management Plans for Eardley Road Sidings, Knight’s Hill Wood and Unigate Wood will also assist the Council in delivering on its commitment to have all three sites managed and maintained ready for declaration as Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). LNR status will provide added protection from disposal or development, but also from inappropriate management or works which would adversely affect their biodiversity and landscape importance.

• Lambeth Parks was awarded £550,000 in September 2004 from the Lambeth Opportunities Fund (LOF) for the management of existing tree stock, and the planting of new tree stock. Whilst the majority of this will need to be allocated to street trees, a proportion will be used on park trees. Trees in Eardley Road Sidings, Knight’s Hill Wood, Palace Road Gardens, Streatham Common and Unigate Wood that require management, removal or replacement could be factored into the programme. In undertaking any pruning or planting works in these sites, the emphasis will be on works that retain or enhance biodiversity value, or the planting of trees that are native or indigenous to these woodland areas.

• Lambeth Parks has a policy of not felling any dead trees in its parks and open spaces unless there is a risk to public safety. Even then, as much of the dead tree as possible is left as ‘standing dead wood’, because of its recognised biodiversity value. Any felled branches or any trees that have to felled in entirety are left behind on site as ‘fallen dead wood’ for the very same reasons.

• Lambeth Parks always gives priority to native or indigenous tree species when considering any tree planting works in any woodland area within its parks or open spaces. Exceptions are made only if there are clear heritage, landscape or aesthetic reasons for selecting an ornamental or non-native species. Only native species will be planted in any Council managed woodlands because of the need to protect biodiversity.

120 6 Advice and Information

• A 20% canopy cover is required for a stand of trees to quality as “woodland” in the National Inventory of Woodland and Trees.

• This level of tree cover is also a minimum requirement for a stand of trees to qualify for a Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) from the Forestry Authority which would assist with management or the planting of additional tree stock. The WGS covers management works on sites down to 0.25 ha – it is hoped that Lambeth Parks will be able to bid for WGS grants for all of its managed woodland sites to assist with management and development.

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection and management of trees and woodlands are ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL20, RL21, RL25 and RL27 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice and expertise on woodland management and biodiversity can be found at:

• The Tree Council (http://www.treecouncil.org.uk/) • The Woodland Trust (http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/) • Tree Advice Trust (http://www.buildingconservation.com/directory/ad196.htm) • DETR Circular 36/78 ‘Trees and Forestry’ • Forestry Commission (http://www.forestry.gov.uk/) • DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/rddteam/forestry.htm) • English Nature (advice on management plans) (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/) • London Tree Officer’s Association • British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (http://www.btcv.org/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/londonissues/) • Trees for London (http://www.treesforlondon.org.uk/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Woodland Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Parks, Public Squares and Open Spaces • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Private Gardens • Railway Linesides • Bats • Mistletoe • Stag Beetle

• Flagship Species of Woodland

The plants and animals listed in Table 2 are regarded as ‘woodland flagship species’ – they are characteristic of woodlands in London. Although only some are recorded in Lambeth’s woodlands, the intention of the management of the Borough’s woodlands should be to both retain species already present, but also to manage or create woodlands so as to offer opportunities for species not presently to colonise over time.

121 Table 2: Flagship Species of Woodland Biodiversity

Species Name Latin Name Comments Bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta A well-loved ‘national flower’; British speciality providing a wonderful spring display in ancient woodlands. Wild Service Tree Sorbus torminalis A rare tree, though relatively abundant in Greater London. Has edible berries called ‘chequers’ or ‘chokers’. Thick white blossom in May, striking red- copper leaves in autumn. Hornbeam Carpinus betulus Important populations of this tree in London. Grey, sinewy trunk, with toothed leaves and a very hard wood. Badger Meles meles A very familiar animal; nocturnal, legally protected and relatively common in south London woodland. Bats Various species Many bat species roost in trees; 12 of Britain’s 16 bat species have been recorded in London, and are often found in or close to woodland. Common Muscardinus avellanaruis Famous from ‘Alice in Wonderland’; Dormouse legally protected, but rather rare in London due to limited suitable habitat. Great Spotted Dendrocopos major Attractive bird, often seen and heard Woodpecker drumming trees for insects. Speckled Wood Pararge aegeria Common, well camouflaged butterfly, Butterfly active in woodland clearings. Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus Very large beetle, with males having highly modified mouthparts or ‘antlers’. London is a nationally important stronghold for the stag beetle.

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Woodland Action Plan:

• Plant Health Act 1967 and the Forestry Act 1967 (http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/netregs/sectors/278241/558073/?version=1&lang=_e) • UK Lowland Beech and Yew Woodland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=2) • UK Wet Woodland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=4) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: Woodland Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac03_woodland.pdf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Audit - Woodlands (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/02_woodland.pdf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies ENV1 - ENV11, RL20, RL21, RL25 and RL27 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

122 9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables are designed to set out some key objectives that would need to be achieved by the partnership Organisations for the Woodland Action Plan to be delivered successfully, and identifies where appropriate key target dates. It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To increase the public benefit and understanding of, and community involvement in, Lambeth’s woodlands.

Target: Woodland use for access, education and community projects to be increased by 50% by 2010.

Action Target Lead Partners Improve public access to, enjoyment of 2007 LPG, PT and community involvement in, four ‘flagship woodlands’ Improve public enjoyment and 2007 LPG understanding of Lambeth’s woodlands, and strengthen links between communities and local woodlands Create, and service ‘Friends’ groups for 2008 LPG Lambeth’s woodlands or have woodlands ‘adopted’ by existing community groups

Objective 2: To increase the biodiversity of existing and proposed woodland in Lambeth.

Target: Each woodland to be under or included in a site conservation management plan, which identifies key actions to retain and increase woodland biodiversity value by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake surveys of habitats, flora and 2005 LPG fauna within woodland sites Produce, consult on and approve 5-year 2005 LPG, PT management plans for each woodland area in Lambeth Control or remove invasive tree species 2008 LPG, PT within woodland, e.g. sycamore, elder Control or remove invasive or pest shrub 2008 LPG, PT species within woodlands, e.g. Japanese Knotweed, cherry laurel, rhododendron Increase number and distribution of 2008 LPG, PT glades and open areas within woodlands to improve canopy diversity and new areas of habitat Retain dead wood (standing or fallen) 2008 LPG, PT and create deadwood log piles for wood- dwelling flora and fauna

123 Objective 3: To protect existing woodland, and to increase woodland cover, within Lambeth.

Target: Increase woodland habitat by 5% by 2012

Action Target Lead Partners All woodlands sites included in new 2005 LPG Unitary Development Plan for Lambeth and provided with statutory protection from development, sale or intrusion Procedure for woodlands adjacent to 2005 LPG proposed developments to secure planning gain money (Section 106) to fund conservation management or access improvement works Undertake survey of Borough to identify 2006 LPG areas of woodland deficiency, and locate suitable planting sites Establish procedure for planting and 2007 LPG managing new woodland areas resulting from planning gain money or other funds Produce a plan for securing external 2007 LPG funding for improving existing or planting new woodlands Three woodland sites to be declared 2008 LPG, PD Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)

10. Key References

Bradshaw, A, Hunt, B & Walmsley, T (1995). Trees in the Urban Landscape. E & FN Spon. Rackham, O (1987). The History of the Countryside. Dent & Sons.

Peterken, G (1981). Woodland Conservation and Management. Chapman & Hall, London.

Greater London Council (1986). A Nature Conservation Strategy for London: Woodland, wasteland, the Tidal Thames and Two London Boroughs; Ecology Handbook 4.

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LTOA - London Tree Officers Association GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor LWT - London Wildlife Trust LPF – Lambeth Parks Forum RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds EN – English Nature TFL – Trees for London FC – Forestry Commission WT – Woodland Trust PT – Peabody Trust PD – Lambeth Planning & Development GLA – Greater London Authority LNHS – London Natural History Society

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

124 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Bats

1. Aims

• To reverse the current population declines in London's bats.

• To raise awareness of the legally protected status of bats and their habitats, and the need to consider the needs of bats in any ongoing or future management works or developments.

• To redress Londoners’ misconceptions about bats and secure their status as culturally valued species.

2. Introduction

• Bats are highly adapted nocturnal mammals, and the only mammals to have evolved powered flight. People often think of them as ‘flying mice’, but they are in fact more closely related to humans than to rodents and form a special group of their own: the Chiroptera, which is Greek for ‘hand-wing’.

• Most people often only see bats at dusk and even then for the briefest moments. The furtive nocturnal habits of bats have resulted in many popular misconceptions about them, and even a misplaced fear of them. Modern horror stories, films and the media have not helped to improve this public image.

• Recent scare stories about ‘rabies’ being brought into the UK by bats, and thought to have resulted in the death of at least one bat worker, have also created a sense of suspicion about bats and their benefits to people. However, the risk of injury or death from bats is very small indeed, and bats are not effective in spreading human or domestic animal diseases.

• All British bats are insectivores – they only eat insects. In fact, British bats can be seen as acting as “natural insecticides”, in that they consume huge numbers of insects and a wide variety of insect prey. A single pipistrelle bat can eat as many as 3000 midges in a night, so helping keep nuisance insects like this under check.

• With the loss of natural roost sites in trees and woodlands, many bats have adapted to living in buildings. Many people are surprised to discover these unexpected lodgers in their homes for a short period during the summer, when female bats need somewhere warm to raise their young. The increasing reliance of bats on buildings for roosting greatly focuses conservation efforts on people's tolerance and goodwill.

• Bats are a superb indicator of the quality of the environment in London because their complex ecological requirements make them highly sensitive to environmental changes. The decline of bat species diversity and populations is now a major concern, as it indicates a major issue in the health of the human environment as well.

• All of London's bat species are dealt with collectively in this particular plan. This is because all efforts to protect and promote bats are concerned with of Britain’s bat species. Furthermore, all of Britain’s bat species, and their roosts, are equally protected by law. The conservation problems faced by all bats are believed to be generally similar, so measures proposed here are likely to be of benefit to a number of species.

125 3. Current Status

• At least eight species of bat are known to breed in Greater London (Table 1). The two pipistrelles (Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus) are by far the most common and still occur in all London Boroughs. The noctule and Daubenton’s bats are regularly recorded and are known to be fairly widespread.

• Little is known about the current status of most species nationally, although available evidence suggests an overall decline in populations. Both the common and soprano pipistrelles are thought to have declined by 70% between 1978 and 1993 (Harris et. al. 1995).

• A recent repeat survey in London found that there has been a statistically significant decline in the bat population of Greater London since the mid-1980s, particularly for the noctule, Leisler's bat and the serotine (Guest et al., 2000).

Table 1. Bat Species Recorded in London

Species Latin Name UK Status London Status Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Endangered Extinct Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros Endangered Extinct Whiskered bat Myotis mystacinus Vulnerable Rare Brandt's bat Myotis brandtii Vulnerable Rare Natterer's bat Myotis nattereri Vulnerable Scarce Daubenton's bat Myotis daubentoni Not Threatened Frequent certain areas Serotine Eptesicus serotinus Vulnerable Rare Noctule Nyctalus noctula Vulnerable Widespread Leisler's bat Nyctalus leisleri Vulnerable Scarce Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus Not Threatened Common Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus Not Threatened Common Nathusius's pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii Rare Rare Brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus Not Threatened Scarce

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Loss of Maternity Roost Sites in Buildings or Trees. The destruction of, disturbance or damage to vulnerable maternity roosts in buildings and trees can result from a lack of public awareness and understanding of bats, as well as ignorance of the legislation protecting them.

• Loss of and Disturbance to Other Roost Sites. Hibernation and other seasonal roost sites can also be disturbed or damaged. Sites include buildings (mainly their roof spaces), trees, bridges and various underground structures, such as cellars, tunnels and disused mines.

• Loss of Feeding Habitats. Changes in land use can result in the loss of insect-rich feeding habitats such as wetlands, woodlands and grasslands.

• Pesticides and Timber Treatment. Bats are very sensitive to the effects of many types of chemical pesticide, especially those used in the treatment of timbers in buildings to control woodworm or fungal rot. Many traditional timber treatment agents are highly persistent and cumulative in animal tissues, and may build up to sub-lethal or lethal doses in roosting, breeding and hibernating bats. Inappropriate applications, either too high a dose or at the wrong time, can have devastating impacts on bats in buildings.

126 • Disturbance to Commuting Routes. Flight paths to and from feeding areas and roosts may be disturbed through the loss of flight line features such as green corridors, or through introduction of new features such as artificial lighting.

• Artificial Lighting. There is still controversy over whether modern artificial lighting in streets or around buildings, has any significant effect on bats’ ability to locate prey or navigate. Although bats find food by echolocation and should be unaffected by lighting type, poorly designed or sited lighting may be a distraction, either to the bat itself or prey items that move away from normal bat feeding routes or zones. More work is needed on this particular topic.

• Poor Public Perceptions or Fear. Bats often have a poor public image, due to the historical association with vampires, disease and the fallacy that they can get tangled up in people’s hair! Although in some parts of the world some bats can carry and spread diseases like rabies, and some bats are definite blood suckers, no British bats take blood as a meal and the incidence of bat-borne or spread diseases in Britain are almost infinitesimal.

There have been some recent cases of deaths in British bat workers due to rabies-like diseases contracted from bats. However these diseases are very rare and hard to contract by the public or domestic animals. There is a possibility infections may have been contracted elsewhere in Europe or world by bat workers working abroad, and are not from British born bats. The vast majority of people in the UK will never come into direct contact with a bat sufficiently to run the risk of contracting any disease from them, nor from any droppings or nesting sites as these are usually isolated from human activity or at-risk age groups.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• All species of bat are protected in the UK on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000), and on Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations, 1994. The latter further implements European legislation protecting bats.

• Bats are also protected from cruel ill treatment by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. The UK is a signatory to the Agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe which came into force in 1994, set up through the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979. While this is not strictly a legal instrument, as a signatory the UK is obliged to abide by such agreements.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• The London Bat Group co-ordinates a network of licensed bat wardens, working in liaison with English Nature to safeguard bat roosts particularly in houses. London Bat Group volunteers participate in national and local surveys and research, including the Bat Conservation Trust’s National Bat Monitoring Programme.

• The place of bats in London life is promoted regionally, locally and London-wide by organisations such as the London Bat Group, London Wildlife Trust, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust at Barnes, and Local Authorities through a programme of guided walks, illustrated talks, training and articles.

• The Bat Conservation Trust, English Nature and the London Bat Group have produced various publications, including a series of specifically targeted leaflets aimed at promoting best practice in relation to bats within the building, pest control and arboricultural professions.

127 5.3 Local Action

• Though there is no formally established or recognised ‘Lambeth Bat Group’, a number of local Lambeth residents are known to be keen bat watchers or are licensed to work with and handle bats. Lambeth Parks, as part of this Action Plan, is intending to locate all current licensed bat workers living or active in the Borough who have surveyed and inspected buildings and other sites within Lambeth for bat activity. In addition, any persons in Lambeth who are, or keen to become, skilled in undertaking surveys and walks for local bat activity will also be advertised for and recruited. This exercise will allow for the creation of an informal ‘Lambeth Bat Network’ which will act to share information on bats, bat activity in the Borough and report any issues where known or suspected bat populations may be at risk or where new bat colonies or species are identified.

• The Lambeth Bat Network will act as a ‘pool’ of skilled individuals to help the Council and other partners investigate reported bat activity or sightings, to help map bat species, distribution and populations, and identify any potential nesting, roosting or hibernating sites, as well as monitor known ones. The Network will also act in partnership with the Council and relevant officers to report any activities which could disturb or destroy known or suspected bat roosts, and to help secure prohibition orders or prevent any works which could be harmful.

• The Lambeth Bat Network will also act as a skilled resource to provide householders, site managers and developers with advice on protecting and working with bats, and avoiding activities which could harm bats and put them at risk of prosecution or halt any works. The Network will provide a knowledge pool for site inspections or to help site owners or users seek professional advice on how to work alongside, not against bats in the Borough.

• Lambeth Parks officers will readily advise householders, developers and site managers but also fellow officers, Members and community groups, on ‘good practice’ in working with and alongside bats if they are found or suspected to be on a site. Officers will provide advice on the different species of UK bat known to be found in London, the legislation surrounding bats and penalties associated with breaches of law, and where to seek further guidance or the services of a licensed bat worker to carry out a proper inspection.

• Where planning applications are submitted for comment, or where they become aware of developments or activities, which could directly or indirectly affect bats (either because the age or type of building might be attractive to bats or there are features around the site which are favoured by bats), Lambeth Parks officers will provide comments and advice to Lambeth Planning. This advice will be appropriate to the application and type of activity, and if bats could be present or affected, officers will recommend further information from the applicant or seek professional advice on the application, and make their response accordingly.

• Planning applications adjacent to any park or greenspace known or suspected to contain or be used by bats are evaluated by Parks officers as to their impact upon bats as well as other sensitive species, and comments are provided based on further advice or professional judgement. Applicants would be asked to provide further information from bats surveys or investigations by a licensed bat worker, and based on this or their own professional judgement, appropriate mitigation measures may be requested for inclusion into any planning consents. Parks officers monitor any developments thereafter, or obtain information from bat workers or surveys, as to any impacts of the development as it proceeds and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

• Park officers work closely with schools, community groups, Members, fellow officers and the media on the subject of bats. They educate about the ecology, behaviour, benefits and conservation of bats in Britain, and help allay some of the fears and myths surrounding them.

128 6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth UDP (adopted 1998) relating to protection of bats, include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• The London Bat Group website (http://www.londonbats.org.uk/) contains information on bat distribution and conservation in London, as well as additional facts on the bat species found in London additional to that given in Table 1 (http://www.londonbats.org.uk/lonbats.htm), and on where to watch or find bats (http://www.londonbats.org.uk/wherebat.htm)

• Further advice on bat conservation and management of habitats and sites to protect and support bats, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/bats.htm) • Bat Conservation Trust (http://www.bats.org.uk/) • London Bat Group (http://www.londonbats.org.uk/) • Mammal Society (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/mammal/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/) • Metropolitan Police Wildlife Crime Unit (http://www.met.police.uk/wildlife/new site docs/docs/) • English Nature (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/default.asp) • Peoples Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) (http://www.ptes.org/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Bats Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Allotments and Community Gardens • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Parks and Greenspaces • Ponds and Open Water • Private Gardens • Woodlands

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Bats Species Action Plan:

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Pipistrelle Bat Species Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=519) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Bats Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac13_bats.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan: Advice for Developers on Protected Species in Greater London (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/bats_developers.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan: Advice for local planning authorities on protected species in Greater London (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/bats_planners.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

129 9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the Private Gardens Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To raise awareness of bats, the law, their ecology and conservation among key audiences in Lambeth, specifically planners, land managers and tree contractors.

Target: To disseminate best practice advice regarding bats to key audiences by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Promote best practice to tree and 2005 LPG grounds maintenance contractors, planning officers, tree officers and parks wardens in Lambeth through written letters and existing “Bats In Trees leaflet” Produce and promote a Bat Advice Note 2006 LPG for all Council officers, contractors, Members and community groups Maximise roosting opportunities for Ongoing LPG prospecting bats by encouraging land managers and property owners to follow ‘good practice’ guidelines Conduct an awareness survey of tree 2007 LPG surgeons, roofing contractors and pest control companies working in Lambeth to inform targeted campaign on the private and commercial sector

Objective 2: To increase knowledge of bat distribution and population change in Lambeth, and hence for the benefit of improving knowledge for London as a whole.

Target: Bat survey and monitoring programme implemented by 2006, and the collation of the existing data by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Collate current and historical records for 2006 LPG bats in Lambeth, based on all available data and information from local enthusiasts and London Bat Group Plan and recruit surveyors for long-term 2006 LPG pipistrelle monitoring programme in Lambeth Pilot pipistrelle monitoring programme in 2007 LPG Lambeth Maintain a database of records for all Ongoing LPG bats sightings, activity and roost locations in Lambeth

130 Objective 3: To increase public awareness of and involvement in bat conservation.

Target: To recruit 10 volunteers to train in bat surveys, to train in bat walks/talks, and to train to obtain a Bat Worker Licence, by 2009.

Action Target Lead Partners Develop and maintain programme of Ongoing LPG events, illustrated talks, walks and written articles about bats in Lambeth Support a London programme to train Ongoing LPG volunteers in bats surveys, including use of bat detectors, to benefit Lambeth Support a London programme of training 2007 LPG courses for potential leaders of bat walks, including in Lambeth Support a London programme of bat 2008 LPG licence training for new bat workers to benefit Lambeth Support a London programme of training 2009 LPG for bat box inspection and roost visitor licences to benefit Lambeth

10. Key References

Harris, S., Morris, P., Wray, S. & Yalden, D. (1995). A Review of British Mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans.

JNNC, Johnson, Walter. FGS. 1930. Animal Life in London. The Sheldon Press, London.

Guest, P, Jones, K E and Tovey, J. (2002). Bats in Greater London: unique evidence of a decline over 15 years. British Wildlife, 14 (1).

JNCC (2003). Bat Worker's Manual - 3rd Edition. Mickleburgh, Simon (1987). Distribution and status of bats in the London area: The London Naturalist, no.66. LNHS

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LPD – Lambeth Planning and Development LRS – Lambeth Regulatory Services LDC – Lambeth Development Control GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor LWT - London Wildlife Trust BCT – Bat Conservation Trust LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority LBG – London Bat Group LTOA – London Tree Officers Association BTCV – British Trust for Conservation WCUL – Wildlife Crime Unit (Metropolitan Volunteers Police) – Lambeth Officer EN - English Nature

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

131 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Blackbird

1. Aims

• To promote the blackbird as a ‘flagship’ bird species for Lambeth, to help raise awareness of all wild birds in the Borough and the conservation of habitats used by birds.

• To assist national, regional and London programmes monitoring the health of wild bird populations, by using the blackbird as a readily identifiable and culturally significant species.

2. Introduction

• The blackbird (Turdus merula) is one of the commonest British birds, and probably one of the most recognisable. The male blackbird is unmistakable with an entirely velvet-black glossy plumage and a contrasting bright orange-yellow bill and eye ring. Confusingly, the female blackbird is brown with dark spots and streaks on the breast, and a brown bill.

• Blackbirds are traditionally birds of woodland and heaths which readily adapted to farmland, gardens and urban sites. They prefer areas with plenty of bushes, shrubs and trees, and nearby open ground and short grass, but are as often found along berry-bearing hedges and in open fields.

• Blackbirds are everywhere across the UK in gardens and countryside and from coasts to hills, although not on higher peaks. Blackbirds are very adaptable in diet, feeding on insects, worms and berries. The blackbird has a mellow, fluty song, and calls include 'chink, chink' and a clattering, ringing alarm phrase. It is a resident species in the UK, and so can be found all the year round.

• Blackbirds tend to be solitary birds – there will be groups feeding and roosting at good sites, but there is no proper social interaction. Male blackbirds establish a territory during their first year, which they will hold throughout their lives. This territory is essential for pair formation and nesting, although only a part of the food is obtained within it.

• Blackbird territory varies depending on habitat, and can be as small as 0.2 ha. Territory boundaries break down when the last broods fledge and adults moult. During this period territorial drive is low and many birds feed outside their territories at abundant food sources. Territories are re-established in the late autumn and from spring until July they are defended against all other blackbirds.

3. Current Status

• There are thought to be annually about 10-15 million wintering blackbirds in the UK, and about 4.7 million breeding pairs. Although this at first glance seems a rather healthy situation, the long-term UK trend for blackbird is classed as a ‘shallow decline’. Recent analysis of data from ongoing surveys across the country show a long-term decline in blackbird abundance, but recent increases suggest the population may be starting to recover.

132 • The Blackbird, because of its large population and recent population improvements, does not meet the ‘moderate decline’ criteria for Amber listing and for British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) alerts. This means the blackbird is now listed as Green in terms of its national status. On a European basis, the blackbird is categorised as Category 4 – ‘Secure’.

• However, compared to about 10-20 years ago, there is no doubt that the British blackbird population suffered a worrying decline, even though its seems to be relatively moderate. For instance, between 1994 and 2003 there was a 19% drop in national blackbird populations, although this was not as dramatic as it was for the house sparrow (-66%) or the song thrush (-29%). Analysis of archive bird census data indicates that this decline had begun back in the mid 1970s. It is likely changes in survival drove the decline, with agricultural intensification contributing but, since numbers fell in woodland as well as in farmland, additional factors were probably contributing.

• The British Trust for Ornithology (BTO)’s London Bird Project aims to identify which bird species are using London’s public greenspaces. This survey, which is funded by The Bridge House Estates Trust Fund, identified 1000 sites in the capital (of all sizes, shapes and locations) which could be surveyed regularly to generate base-line populations of birds using London year round. It has provided a superb and up to the minute picture of the health of wild bird populations in London, as well as any trends of decline or increase in individual species.

• The London Bird Project showed several significant changes in bird populations over a period from 1994 to 2000, and showed more species increased their numbers than declined. Bird which showed a healthy increase in their populations included robin (+36%), wren (+18%), carrion crow (+60%), nuthatch (+96%) and magpie (+26%). Birds which showed a major population decline included house sparrow (-59%), mistle thrush (-37%) and starling (-27%).

• The London Bird Survey showed that blackbird was the most widespread species of bird, occurring in between 91.5% (early winter) to 97.9% (late winter) of all sites surveyed. However, it also indicated that blackbird numbers have declined by 21% in London between 1994 and 2000 – this seems to mirror the situation seen in the UK (-21%) over roughly the same period of time. Therefore, although still popular and seen in many places, blackbird numbers may have dropped and this does give cause for concern.

• The RSPB’s Big Garden Bird Watch, which encourages people to record the birds visiting their garden on a day in January each year, shows a 32% decline in blackbirds between 1979 and 2004.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Blackbirds are relatively short-lived birds, living on average only 3-4 years, but a few reach quite an advanced age - the oldest known wild individual was 20 years and 3 months. Blackbird mortality is high especially during the breeding season, with over half of all deaths occurring between March and June. However, it is known that many factors are responsible for these high mortality rates, and may be contributing to the recorded population decline.

• Changes in Agricultural Practice. The decline in national blackbird populations has been greatest on farmland. This is through to have resulted from changes in government agricultural policies that encouraged farmers to remove hedgerows (which provide nesting places for blackbirds), to drain damp grassland and to increase the use of pesticides, all of which could have reduced invertebrate food on farmland. In contrast, blackbird populations have remained stable in private gardens, where such intensive practices do not apply, and the number of chicks that fledge per garden-based nest is higher than in many other habitats.

133 • Changes or Reduction in Food Supply. Starvation is without doubt one of the blackbird’s greatest enemies – for a bird living at a break-neck speed, defending territory from other blackbirds and other bird species and heavily dependent on food that is seasonally determined even a small reduction in available food items will have catastrophic effects. Gardeners can help blackbirds by avoiding the use of garden chemicals which eliminate many insect and berry/seed bearing plants popular with blackbirds, and by planting shrubs that provide high-energy and nutrient-rich berries and seeds. Heavily ornamental or plant- deficient landscaped gardens are extremely unpopular with blackbirds as well as other birds.

• Predation. Blackbirds are very vulnerable to predation as they spend a significant amount of their time feeding on the ground or patrolling and defending territory, both of which make them prominent to predators. One of the commonest sounds in the modern garden during summer and autumn is the male blackbird noisily shouting alarm calls to drive off or distract a predator or defend his territory, showing how much of a problem this is for the bird.

A significant predator of blackbirds is the domestic cat, but foxes and predatory birds like the sparrowhawk must also take blackbirds when the opportunity arises. However, though often blamed for devastating wild bird populations in towns and cities, there is little direct evidence to show cats are a major cause of regulating or driving down blackbird numbers.

• Disease. Blackbirds are, like many other wild birds, vulnerable to the effects of disease, often when they are malnourished, under stress (e.g. during and after breeding) or when food availability is low. However, more research and evidence is needed to identify this as a major cause of blackbird population declines in London and elsewhere.

• Other Factors. Other important causes of blackbird death include being struck or run over by traffic, accidents caused by flying into windows or becoming trapped, e.g. inside buildings, under garden or bridge netting, etc.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• Blackbirds and their nests are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird.

• It is an offence under the same legislation to intentionally take, damage or destroy the eggs, young or nest of a blackbird while it is being built or in use. It is therefore essential to ensure blackbird nests are not destroyed if hedge trimming or tree felling has to be carried out in the breeding season.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) undertakes a round-the-year programme of events and campaigns to promote the conservation of a wide range of bird species, many of which, though common and familiar still need to be supported and encouraged to visit, nest and breed close to people. The RSPB has a number of pages on its website devoted to providing information on encouraging and conserving birds in gardens (http://www.rspb.org.uk/gardens/) and for promoting birds and bird conservation in general (http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds/).

134 • Likewise the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) promotes not just regular surveys of bird populations right across the UK, but also their conservation and protection. The BTO website has a section devoted to surveying birds in gardens, which includes the blackbird, so as to help monitor any changes in population which might require attention or further action. The BTO and RSPB lobby for changes in bird legislation and Government action to help address and declines in species numbers or birds in general (http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds/).

5.3 Local Action

• Lambeth Parks supports local environmental and parks groups in projects and activities which directly or indirectly benefit wild bird species, including blackbirds. A number of park groups have undertaken projects which not only install nest boxes for wild birds, but also plantings which provide birds with a summer and autumn seed supply, as well as acting as a food resource in spring and summer.

• Lambeth Parks advises park user groups, schools and residents on activities to encourage, protect and promote wild bird populations and biodiversity. This advice includes advising on garden plantings to benefit birds, sources or designs of bird boxes, and managing gardens to reduce or eliminate some of the factors believed to be affecting wild bird populations. In giving such advice, special mention is made of the blackbird, because of its rich cultural history, its ease of identification and study, and why it is important to consider this species in garden management or design.

• Lambeth Parks has provided grants through the Lambeth Community Funds scheme which are designed to directly or indirectly benefit wildlife. A number of these grants have been provided to schools and community gardens to promote local wildlife, and allow people to become more aware of biodiversity. All these projects have benefits to wild bird populations, including the blackbird, by appropriate wildflower plantings, avoiding pesticides and better timings of grass or scrubland management.

• Lambeth Council’s parks and public greenspaces are managed, as far as is possible, to reduce adverse effects upon wild plant and animal species, including birds like the blackbird. Management regimes aim to minimise application of pesticides; inappropriate timings of cuts for grassland, hedgerows, shrubbery and woodland; providing suitable tree cover; and taking account of nesting birds in normal management.

• The Surrey Bird Club co-ordinates surveys of bird species, including Lambeth, which was once part of old Surrey County. Information on house sparrow sightings can be sent to them via contact details on their website (http://www.sbclub.ukonline.co.uk/index.htm).

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection of the blackbird include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

135 • Further advice on the blackbird and the management of habitats and sites to protect and support blackbird populations can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) • RSPB (http://www.rspb.org.uk/) • RSPB Blackbird Facts (http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds/guide/b/blackbird/index.asp) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=1572) • “Wild About Gardens” (http://www.wildaboutgardens.org/) • British Trust for Ornithology (http://www.bto.org/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Blackbird Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Acid Grassland • Allotments and Community Gardens • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Private Gardens • Woodlands • House Sparrow

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Blackbird Species Action Plan:

• London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: House Sparrow Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac19_sparrow.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Statement – Private Gardens (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac25_gardens.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the Blackbird Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

136 Objective 1: To involve people in Lambeth and raise their awareness of and interest in blackbirds as a ‘flagship’ bird species for the Borough and indicator of wild bird population health in Lambeth and London.

Target: Commission, complete and evaluate surveys by the end of 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Develop proposal for survey of wild bird 2005 LPG populations and distribution in Lambeth involving public participation Commission survey to clarify likely wild 2006 LPG bird populations (including blackbird) in Lambeth: evaluate and publicise results Analyse survey data to clarify factors 2007 LPG affecting blackbird numbers and distribution in Lambeth Promote the involvement of the public in Ongoing LPG encouraging and studying blackbirds and other wild birds in Lambeth, through bird- friendly practices in gardens and parks Maintain the public interest in wild birds Ongoing LPG through appropriate public activities and funded projects

10. Key References

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds BTO – British Trust for Ornithology LNHS – London Natural History Society

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

137 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Crucian Carp

1. Aims

• To protect and conserve populations of crucian carp in ponds in Lambeth, and identify opportunities to increase the local abundance and distribution of crucian carp.

• To assist with research into the ecological and environmental impacts of hybridisation between crucian carp and feral goldfish, or other carp species.

• To raise the public profile of the crucian carp, and its importance as a flagship indicator of the health and quality of fish populations and fisheries in Lambeth and London.

2. Introduction

• The crucian carp (Carassius carassius) is a member of the Carp family, of about 20-30 cm average maximum length although ‘stunted’ populations of smaller size occur. It is a very deep-bodied fish, with a small round head and mouth with an up-turned lower lip.

• The flanks of crucian carp tend to be rusty-bronze in colour, with the belly gold-orange in colour; the dorsal (back) fin is long and convex with a slightly serrated spine, and the anal and pelvic fins orange with black tips. The tail is usually notched but blunt.

• Crucian carp prefer small, nutrient-rich ponds and lakes rich in macrophytes in lowland areas. Crucian carp are very hardy fish: they tolerate low levels of dissolved oxygen, survive water temperatures ranging from 0o to 38oC, and can live in acidic waters where the pH can be as low as 4.0. Crucian carp are also very tolerant of pollution, especially organic types.

• Crucian carp usually mature at about three to four years of age and can live up to ten years, although older-living individuals have been known.

• Juvenile crucian carp feed mainly on zooplankton in the water column, but as they grow and mature they switch to a bottom feeding habit, feeding on small molluscs, worms, various insects, crustaceans and some plant material.

• Crucian carp tend to associate and feed in small groups. Where conditions are favourable and predation and competition (particularly from other crucian carp) is not excessive, they develop the typical deep-bodied form (L. A. Vøllestad et al., 2004).

• Crucian carp are a popular sport fish with British anglers, and have been introduced to many lakes, ponds and fisheries for this reason. There are problems in fisheries in identifying whether resident ‘crucian carp’ are pure breeding individuals or crucian carp-goldfish hybrids. This forced a review in 1998 of the British rod-caught record for crucian carp, and it was decided those previously accepted records from 1950 or earlier were actually feral goldfish or carp-goldfish hybrids.

• As a result of these reviews of past records and carp-goldfish hybrid confusion, a new qualifying weight of 0.91 kg for crucian carp was introduced. The current British rod-caught record for a crucian carp is 2.085 kg for a fish caught in 2003 at Yateley Lake.

138 3. Current Status

• Crucian carp are considered by many authors to be native to the south east of England, but others regard it as an introduced species, probably during mediaeval times. Whether native or not, crucian carp have certainly been introduced to other areas of the UK, but remain confined to lowland waters.

• Surveys of crucian carp distribution indicate the species has extended its range further north and west across the country, mainly as a result of deliberate transfers of fish into commercial sport fisheries. However, there are difficulties in identifying crucian carp from feral goldfish and goldfish-crucian carp hybrids, and so some of these findings may not be of pure-breeding crucian carp. Feral goldfish often look similar to crucian carp, especially at the juvenile stage of both species, and so deliberate transfers and introductions may have helped spread feral goldfish and goldfish-crucian carp hybrids together.

• Crucian carp exist in Lambeth, with the only currently identified population being in the ponds at Brockwell Park, Herne Hill. A major fish recovery and transfer programme was undertaken at Brockwell Park ponds in Spring 2004 as part of a scheme of works to restore and improve the heritage and landscape condition of these semi-artificial ponds.

• Part of the work at Brockwell Park involved taking fish from the two lower of the three ponds to allow them to be desilted and rehabilitated, with rescued fish being transferred temporarily to the upper and larger pond. During the fish recovery exercise, an astonishing number of crucian carp - over 500 - were captured in the lower ponds, and 350 were then moved to the top pond. The remaining crucian carp were left back after restoration works in the lower ponds to provide a breeding population to recolonise them over time.

• The crucian carp in the Brockwell Park ponds were very healthy, and there was little confusion as to their identity, with no evidence of feral goldfish in the ponds or any hybridisation having occurred to a recognisable extent. This makes the colony of crucian carp very significant in both Lambeth and London population terms, and thus management to prevent loss or the effects of hybridisation is a high priority for the ponds and Brockwell Park.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Species Hybridisation and Loss of Genetic Integrity. This is now regarded as the major threat to the future of crucian carp as a pure-breeding and genetically distinct species. Crucian carp readily breed and hybridise with the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and the feral goldfish (Carassius auratus). Common carp are often introduced to watercourses deliberately to increase the sporting fish stock of the water body, whereas goldfish are either accidentally or deliberately introduced from ornamental fishponds or aquaria and have no obvious sporting and commercial value.

In hybridising with the common carp and feral goldfish the crucian carp produces a small proportion of fertile offspring which are themselves capable of reproduction and further hybridisation. It is now thought to be very difficult to find a population of pure-breeding crucian carp due to the effects of hybridisation with introduced common carp and goldfish to water bodies which originally contained only crucian carp.

• Species Competition. As well as the growing concern over species hybridisation, direct competition, particularly with the common carp, is also thought to be significant threat to the crucian carp in Britain. Commercial carp fishing is often centred on the common carp and its many variants because of the fish’s popularity as a sporting fish, its fast growing nature and because of the ease of maintaining it in modern fisheries.

139 High densities of common carp in lakes and ponds which should normally contain only crucian carp (or where common carp numbers were kept relatively low) can result, unless the fishery is properly managed, in degradation of the habitat and severely affects the indigenous crucian carp population. The incessant churning-up of sediment and vegetation by bigger and more numerous common carp causes the water to become murky and reduces light penetration, so limiting plankton and plant growth, which exacerbates the problems plants have in establishing on the disturbed floor of the pond or lake.

Habitat loss. The number ponds in the UK providing suitable crucian carp habitat has decreased dramatically in the last century due to land use changes and more intensive farming practices, and has had a significant impact upon the crucian carp population.

• Disease and Parasites. The Asian tapeworm Bothriocephalus acheilognathi), has been introduced to UK waters along with imported grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). Another introduced parasite is Philometroides sanguinea, a newly recorded nematode worm. Both are a threat to native crucian carp populations, and several sites in Britain have been affected.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• Being a previously common and widely distributed species, the crucian carp is not named in any legislation relating to the conservation of freshwater fish. The Environment Agency however have recorded crucian carp as being “threatened” due to the issues previously stated above. Because it is regarded by many as a ‘native’ species, the crucian carp is also exempt from legislation relating to the control of non-native species of fish in Britain.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• There has been a recent interest in the use of molecular biological techniques to investigate the extent and implications of hybridisation in crucian carp populations, especially with and feral goldfish. Up until recently fisheries officers and ecologists were reliant solely on visual identification methods which could easily fail to discriminate between hybrids and true breeding crucian carp.

• The Environment Agency recently commissioned genetic biologists at Hull University to develop methods which rely on DNA screening to identify pure-breeding crucian carp specimens and goldfish and common carp hybrids. This research was intended to establish whether crucian carp were hybridising in the wild and to provide the Environment Agency and other organisations with an additional technique to positively identify pure-breeding crucian carp and distinguish them conclusively from hybrids with feral goldfish and common carp.

• This research will ensure correct identification relies on more than just visual inspection to distinguish between hybrid and pure crucian carp, which can be extremely difficult, even to the expert eye. Information on the DNA screening project and its objectives can be found on the University of Hull website under http://www.hull.ac.uk/molecol/Carp.html.

• Because much of the problems of hybridisation have come from the introduction of goldfish to water bodies containing indigenous crucian carp, effort is being made to explain to and educate the public about the need to avoid allowing goldfish to find their way into lakes, ponds and rivers in the first place. Recent press releases, newspaper articles and television and radio items have been used to make people more aware of the problems caused by deliberate or accidental releases of goldfish into all water courses, not just for crucian carp but also many other fish species and the natural ecosystem in general.

140 • Similar efforts are being made to educate and inform the fishing community about the consequences of introductions of common carp and goldfish to crucian carp fisheries. A number of articles have appeared in fishing newspapers and magazines and on fishing websites, as well as on the Environment Agency website.

5.3 Local Action

• Given the importance of ponds in the Borough’s parks for both fish stocks as well as their ecology and landscape value, Lambeth Parks consults with and takes advice from relevant government agencies and non-government organisations before any operations commence on any of these water bodies. With respect to any pond containing fish, contact is made with fisheries officers in the Environment Agency as to guidance on any works, and to obtain permission to disturb or translocate any fish, including obtaining any licences if required.

• The recognition that the ponds in Brockwell Park contain well over 500 crucian carp of apparently good genetic purity and general condition makes this particular site of considerable interest in terms of conserving the species in the Borough and Greater London. As part of the ongoing pond restoration and management programme, the intention will be to manage them so as to protect existing fish stocks through a number of mutually beneficial activities. These include preventing pollution problems, creating new bankside and submerged habitat, regular desilting and managing water levels and water quality.

• Any management plans for Brockwell Park should take account of the presence of crucian carp in the ponds, so as to ensure both the protection of the existing population but also its enhancement and development as a unique asset to the Park. The ponds and the crucian carp population in them are valuable heritage, education, biodiversity and recreation resources and should be managed accordingly.

• Because of the need to discourage the introduction of hybridising species like goldfish and common carp, an education programme should be provided for Brockwell Park. This could include information on notices, advice to Council officers and contractor staff and liaison with park users and community groups, including the Friends of Brockwell Park. The objective is to discourage introduction of any fish without express permission of the Council and the Environment Agency, as well as explaining why this is harmful not just to native crucian carp population but also the ecology and environmental health of the ponds and Park in general.

• Whenever or wherever crucian carp are confirmed in other ponds and water bodies in Lambeth, a similar programme of management and information would be instituted to provide the fish with protection from species introductions and hybridisation wherever possible. The same would also apply to publicising and reminding the public and other site users of their responsibilities to protect the species. If such sites were on private property, Lambeth Parks would provide advice and support to landowners and managers to help manage fish stocks and prevent deliberate or accidental introductions of hybridising species.

• It is possible that colonies of crucian carp may also exist at other key ponds and lakes in the Borough of Lambeth, given the species’ wide distribution across the south east of England and in London, and the past habit of introducing it to water courses as a sport fish. Although each pond or lake needs to be properly surveyed and examined, priority sites would be all the ponds at Clapham Common, the pond at Ruskin Park, Wynter House Pond, Stockwell ark, and the pond in the grounds of Henry Tate Gardens, near Streatham Common.

141 • A major fish rescue was undertaken in 2002 at Long Pond and Eagle Pond on Clapham Common, as part of two separate programmes to desilt and restore these ponds. Long Pond was restored for use as a model boating pond, whereas Eagle Pond was restored as a fishery, albeit with equal provision for the wildlife which uses it. The fishery contractors did not identify any crucian carp present in Long or Eagle Ponds, although the remaining pond, Mount Pond, was not surveyed and the presence of crucian carp in it cannot be discounted.

• It is possible that, being open to quick access from local roads and paths, goldfish may have been released into the Clapham Common Ponds by inconsiderate members of the public. This could have resulted in an unknown number of feral goldfish being present and thus the risk of species hybridisation with any crucian carp, either already present or to be introduced in future, is a major concern. Therefore, if crucian carp are present in the ponds on Clapham Common they may not be pure breeding and suffer from some degree of hybridisation. However, this still needs to be properly investigated through detailed site surveys.

• Because the fish in Mount Pond, the last of the three ponds on Clapham Common, were not surveyed during the above restoration programme, it is not known whether crucian carp are already present in this particular pond, or if they have suffered from hybridisation with feral goldfish also present.

• Because of concerns about the genetic purity and degree of hybridisation in different ponds in the Borough it is imperative that no fish are transferred into the ponds at Brockwell Park, or between any other pond or lake in the Borough. In other words, each particular site where crucian carp are found to or might be present must be ‘quarantined’ and any fish kept on that site. No fish from one site should be removed or transferred, either to ponds elsewhere in the Borough or to ponds outside it, unless species identity is confirmed and agreement is sought from and given by the Council, the Environment Agency and any fisheries consultant working with the Council. This rule should apply to all species of fish, not just crucian carp, as the risks of disease transfer as well as species hybridisation would always be a major concern.

• The Lambeth Parks Byelaws can be interpreted to prohibit any action which could adversely affect populations of any fish species, including the crucian carp, in any pond or lake within any of the Borough’s parks and public greenspaces. Parks Byelaws 7 - Protection of Wildlife, states: “no person shall kill, injure, take or disturb any animal, or engage in hunting or shooting, or the setting of traps or nets or the laying of snares”. This can be read to make it an offence for anybody to deliberately or inadvertently release species like goldfish or common carp into any pond or lake in any of the Borough’s public open spaces without the Council’s consent. Under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act (1975) any introduction of fish (or the spawn of fish) into the wild requires prior written consent from the Environment Agency, any person not doing so will be committing an offence.

• Although there are a number of fish-containing ponds in the Borough’s parks, there is at present only one official organisation representing anglers in Lambeth, namely the Clapham Angling Preservation Society (CAPS). CAPS is responsible for managing access to and use of the fishery ponds on Clapham Common, which are Eagle and Mount Ponds (Long Pond, the third pond on the Common, though it contains fish, is not used as a fishery).

• CAPS not only co-ordinates fishing on Eagle and Mount Ponds, and provides a number of voluntary Water Bailiffs to help regulate their use by anglers and ensure all local Byelaws and conditions of use are adhered to. CAPS is one of the prime consultees on the management and use of Clapham Common, not just regarding the ponds or fishing on them.

142 • Although CAPS concentrates its activities on Clapham Common, in the absence of any other official fishing or angling clubs in Lambeth, it effectively acts as the consultative body with respect to fisheries management for the Borough. CAPS also provide advice and information on fishery issues, helping to complement guidance and instruction provided by the Environment Agency.

• Any work on any pond or lake in the Borough takes place in partnership with local community organisations, especially as to consultation on planned restoration or management activities. For example, the restoration of the ponds at Brockwell Park involved the Friends of Brockwell Park in the planning and execution of the works in and around the ponds. Representatives of the Friends have been actively consulted with respect to the fish populations in the Brockwell Park ponds, and the works to recover and translocate them, as well as improvements to the ponds to benefit the fish as well as other wildlife.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth UDP (adopted 1998) relating to the protection of crucian carp and other fish species, and the protection of their habitats in Lambeth, include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice on crucian carp, their ecology and conservation, and the management of water bodies to protect and support crucian carp and other fish, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) • Environment Agency (http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/science/303327/304141/459747/?lang=_e&theme=®ion=&subject=&s earchfor=crucian+carp) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/) • English Nature (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/default.asp) • Practical Fish Keeping (http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=99) • Rod and Line – Fishing Information Database (http://www.rod-and-line.co.uk/Crucian- Carp.html) • Fishing Magic – crucian carp article (http://www.fishingmagic.com/news/article/mps/UAN/2686/V/1/SP/332955698418328557 598) • University of Hull (http://www.hull.ac.uk/molecol/Carp.html) • Environment Agency – Stocking Fish: a Guide for Fishery Owners and Anglers (http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/stocking__eng_172017.pdf)

143 7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Crucian Carp Species Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Parks and Greenspaces • Ponds and Open Waters

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Crucian Carp Species Action Plan:

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Eutrophic Standing Waters (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=23) • UK Biodiversity Action Plan –Standing Open Waters and Canals Broad Habitat Statement (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=58) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Canals Habitat Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac09_canals.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan: Habitat Statement on Ponds, Lakes and Reservoirs (http://www.lbp.org.uk/02audit_pdfs/13_lakes_ponds.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the Lambeth Crucian Carp Species Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: Determine the distribution and abundance of the crucian carp population in ponds in Lambeth.

Target: Produce an audit report on crucian carp in Lambeth, identifying current locations, numbers and condition of existing stock, by 2006.

Action Target Lead Partners Collate and evaluate all current data as 2005-2006 LPG to crucian carp, feral goldfish and common carp in ponds in the Borough Commission survey of fish populations in 2005-2006 LPG ponds in the Borough, including crucian carp, feral goldfish and common carp Produce report on distribution, 2006-2007 LPG abundance and health of crucian carp populations in the Borough Review report, and commission Ongoing LPG additional surveys, as required

144 Objective 2: Manage the crucian carp population in Lambeth, including providing information on protection crucian carp from hybridisation with other fish species and the adverse effects of overstocking or introduced fish diseases.

Target: Produce ‘good practice’ information and training for all stakeholders by 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Produce, provide and distribute ‘good 2005 LPG practice’ advice and information to land owners and managers regarding protecting fish stocks, including the crucian carp, in ponds in Lambeth Produce ‘good practice’ protocols for use 2006 LPG by fishery contractors in recovering, translocating or restocking fish into ponds in Lambeth Produce ‘good practice’ information and 2006 LPG training to angling clubs and club members on managing fish stocks to avoid or minimise introductions of feral goldfish or common carp to ponds containing crucian carp populations, and the implications of species hybridisation Produce signage, or information for 2007 LPG leaflets or notice boards, to raise the profile of crucian carp and discourage activities which could affect the species

Objective 3: To assist in a greater understanding of the ecological and environmental effects of hybridisation of crucian carp populations with feral goldfish and common carp.

Target: Produce a report on the genetic, ecological and environmental health of the Borough’s crucian carp population, and actions to address any concerns, by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Provide information to Environment 2006 LPG Agency on crucian carp populations in Lambeth ponds, including information on identification, condition and evidence of hybridisation with other species Arrange system to provide post-mortem 2006 LPG or live tissue material to EA and partners researching genetic hybridisation of crucian carp and other carp species Publicise work on crucian carp genetic Ongoing LPG hybridisation to key stakeholders Disseminate progress and final findings 2005-2008 LPG of research on crucian carp genetic hybridisation in Lambeth and London

145 10. Key References

Bolton, P. (2004). Crucian carp. pp 66-68 in: Davies, C., Shelley, J., Harding, P., McLean, I., Gardiner, R. & Peirson, G. (2004). Freshwater Fishes in Britain: the Species and their Distribution. Harley Books, Colchester

Vøllestad, L. A., Varreng, K., and Poléo, A. B. S. (2004). Body depth variation in crucian carp Carassius carassius: an experimental individual-based study. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 13(3), pp 197-202

Wheeler, A. (2000) Status of the Crucian Carp Carassius carassius (L.) in the UK. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7, pp 315-322

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LPD – Lambeth Planning and Development GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor LWT - London Wildlife Trust EA – Environment Agency LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority EN - English Nature CAPS – Clapham Angling Preservation LPGF – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces Society Forum

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

146 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan House Sparrow

1. Aims

• Raise awareness in Lambeth of the decline in house sparrow populations and the importance of the house sparrow as a cultural emblem.

• Assist national programmes in establishing the cause(s) of decline in the population of house sparrows and, if possible, contribute to measures to halt or reverse this decline.

2. Introduction

• Until a decade ago, the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) was one of the commonest birds in London and one of the most numerous and regular visitors to garden bird tables across the City. The ‘Cockney sparrer’ has always been a favourite with Londoners, reflecting its lively social behaviour and tame nature.

• The house sparrow’s distribution is related to the pattern of human settlement. A native species, its range extends from North Africa, throughout Europe and Central Asia and northwards beyond the Arctic Circle.

• House sparrows traditionally take bread and scraps from garden bird tables as well as seeds of grasses and flowers in parks and gardens, brownfield sites or road and railside land. However, when feeding young, insects such as aphids and caterpillars become significant in the diet. In towns, house sparrows nest mainly in buildings in roofs, cracks and crevices, or amongst creepers on walls and in dense shrubbery or trees. Under good conditions, sparrows can raise up to five broods per year, although two or three is more typical.

• The house sparrow is regarded as sedentary, although some local movements occur. In rural areas, the birds traditionally move off to cornfields after the breeding season. Seasonal changes in London indicate similar dispersal, probably in search of autumn seeds.

3. Current Status

• There is substantial evidence that the once abundant house sparrow has declined dramatically in recent years. House sparrows have disappeared or become far less common in many places where once abundant. This applies both in the centre of London and many of the suburbs, as well as some of the surrounding towns and indeed a number of cities in other parts of the country such as Bristol and Edinburgh.

• For many years, the house sparrow received little attention from the scientific community, and it seemed so common that its survival was taken for granted. Few observers maintained records over a long timescale, usually as part of general bird monitoring programmes. Some of this data is now proving invaluable in tracing the species’ decline.

• This issue has attracted media attention and inquiries from the public. The Independent newspaper (15.5.00) even offered a £5,000 reward to anyone who could solve the mystery of the disappearing house sparrow! Even the BBC made note of the sparrow’s apparent decline (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2514689.stm).

147 • A number of surveys based in London have indicated a clear decline in house sparrow numbers or distribution. A series of late autumn bird counts have been carried out in Kensington Gardens dating back to the 1920s. In 1925, 2,603 birds were recorded but by 1948 the count had fallen to 885; this first decline has been attributed to the withdrawal of horse-drawn traffic, with its associated grain supply. For the next 20-30 years, records suggest a continuing although less clear-cut decline, but then a far sharper decline from 544 birds in 1975 to just 81 in 1995, indicating a fall of around 85% at some time between 1975 and 1995. Just 8 birds were recorded in the October 2000 autumn bird count.

• A survey of house sparrows in gardens has been carried out by the London Natural History Society since 1995, based on weekly counts. The general trend is for a decrease in flock size, fewer gardens with ten or more fledglings and an increase in the number of gardens where no fledglings or indeed no sparrows at all have been seen.

• A recent study at Wimbledon Park in south-west London based on a ‘Standard Walk’ methodology has documented a 95% decline in house sparrows since 1989.

• The British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Garden Bird Feeding Survey indicates that the average number of house sparrows fell by about 50% between 1978 and 1993 in Britain. Though substantial it is considerably smaller than the decline observed in Kensington Gardens and Wimbledon Park in London.

• The RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch, encourages people to report on birds in their garden each year in January, shows a 50% decline in house sparrow numbers between1979, when the survey began, and 2000.

• The National Breeding Birds Survey shows a statistically significant decline of 7% between 1994 and 2002 in Britain. Within London, the BBS decline has been more substantial, with a fall of about 70% between 1994-2002. This is the highest decline for any English Region.

• When the survey began in 1994 the house sparrow was the most numerous species in the London samples. By 1999 it had been overtaken by feral pigeon, wood pigeon, blackbird, carrion crow and starling. However, the data up to 2000 would seem to indicate that there were still some pockets with high numbers, especially in northeast London.

• By 2002, statistics from the Common Birds Census and Breeding Bird Survey show that over 25 years the decline in the UK population had reached over 60% and the species was placed on the Red List of Species of Conservation Concern.

• In 2003 the South London Press highlighted the plight of South London’s house sparrow populations in a recent article, emphasising how important Lambeth had been for the bird: (http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/page.cfm ?objectid=12555462&method=full&siteid=50100

148 4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• A number of factors have been put forward to account for changes in the London and UK sparrow population. Some of these factors could have significant impacts, and it is possible that they act in combination to drive the decline. More research is needed to identify the key factors and only then is it possible to put in place effective remedial measures.

• Reduction in Insect Food Supply for Young. A study in Hamburg blamed a lack of aphids in early spring for a lack of breeding success in house sparrows in that city. A decline in the availability of invertebrates such as aphids for feeding young birds is also suggested as a major factor in house sparrow decline. There is also a theory that lead-free petrol might contain chemicals which reduce the supply of aphids.

• Changes in Agricultural Practice. This might affect London’s house sparrow population especially in late summer/autumn, when birds leave their nesting territories in residential areas and move off in seed-feeding flocks to more rural or suburban locations. At this time, changes in agricultural practice such as the switch to autumn sowing of cereals and lack of stubble as autumn and winter feeding habitat may have some impact. Furthermore, there is a strong feeling that the London population is traditionally augmented from time to time by surplus birds from nearby rural populations. If so a fall in breeding success in rural populations could reduce the number of immigrants into London.

• Reduction in Autumn Seed Supply. In both central London and the suburbs, there has been a marked reduction in brownfield land in recent decades as it is developed. Given the importance of urban wasteland in providing a resource for summer and autumn seed-bearing plants, there may be a net loss of the available seed supply at a critical time for the birds.

• Predation. One theory for house sparrow declines relates to a recent increase in magpie and sparrowhawk numbers in cities and urban areas. However, a single species of predator is normally only likely to act as a major factor in population control of a given prey species. If it is a broad-based predator, able to turn to other food supplies as a favoured prey species declines in response to predation pressure, then it may be a threat to house sparrow population if other preferred prey species have declined or been eliminated.

Another significant predator is the domestic cat, and its numbers are of course not limited in the same way by natural population regulation. However, no evidence of a significant increase in either the domestic cat population, or in the number of attacks or successful kills by cats on house sparrows, has been forthcoming to justify this as a cause.

• Disease. Declines on the scale of the house sparrow have, in some other species, been attributed to either a new or a recurrent disease. A virus or Salmonella infection has been suggested, and a form of Salmonella has been found on bird tables in cities like London. However, more research and evidence as to this as a possible cause of London house sparrow population declines needs to be undertaken.

• Changes in Availability of Nest Sites. Changes in roof design may be an issue in some areas of older housing undergoing renovation, as modern roof repairs prevent access to the roof space for birds. However, a decline has also been noted where roof replacement is less widespread. In addition to reconstruction, roofs are subject to pesticide treatment; while it is recognised certain pesticides are harmful to bats, no issue has been recognised for birds.

• Pest Control. Although the house sparrow is still recognised as a pest species in some quarters and may be controlled legally, there is not thought to be an appreciable amount of control undertaken in London at present.

149

• Changes in Gardens. Probably an important factor for house sparrows is the change in gardens as they are ‘tidied up’ and made over. This means that there are fewer weedy corners providing seed food and fewer old bushes and patches of rambling ivy providing roosting cover and nest sites.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• The house sparrow is still classified as a pest species in relation to the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981, as amended). From January 05, house sparrow and starling will be removed from the terms of the general licence, due to the significant declines both these species have suffered. Therefore, they will just come under the general protection of the wildlife and countryside act, which makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or eggs.

• It was originally listed as a bird that may be controlled at any time of year, but is now covered by legislation that provides for an annually reviewed general licence to control a specified list of pest species, if they are causing serious agricultural damage or a risk to public health or safety, with the land owner’s consent (Statutory Instrument no 3010 1992).

5.2 National and Regional Action

• During spring and summer 2000, the RSPB ran a survey on house sparrow nesting behaviour amongst its Wildlife Explorers (its youth section), which investigated the relationship between nesting frequency and age of houses, plus the location of nest sites and use of nest boxes.

• London Wildlife Trust’s garden survey for 2000/1 includes data on house sparrows.

• The DETR commissioned an in depth study to investigate evidence from a wide range of existing datasets. This report has now been published (Crick et al., 2002).

• On 20th February 2004 the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) organised a conference to bring all researchers together. A consensus seems to be emerging that poor survival linked to lack of food is the main factor affecting house sparrows in farming areas. However, the causes in urban areas remain less clear – it may be we are seeing the results of an interaction between a number of the factors noted in section 4 above.

• London Biodiversity Partnership carried out a survey of house sparrows distribution in London in 2002. This showed that Lambeth was one of the more important inner London Boroughs for sparrows. The success of this survey led to RSPB’s national ‘Sparrowatch’ survey in 2003. This showed that London was ranked 27th out of the UK’s cities in terms of house sparrow density.

• RSPB has recently appointed a research officer to undertake detailed studies into house sparrow distribution and factors affecting breeding success in London.

• The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published a leaflet outlining ways in which the public can try to help the house sparrow.

150 5.3 Local Action

• Lambeth Parks supports local environmental and parks groups in projects and activities which directly or indirectly benefit wild bird species, including the house sparrow. A number of park groups have undertaken projects which not only install nest boxes for wild birds, but also plantings which will provide wild birds with a summer and autumn seed supply, as well as acting as a food resource in spring and summer.

• Lambeth Parks advises park user groups, schools and residents on activities to encourage, protect and promote wild bird populations and biodiversity. This advice includes advising on garden plantings to benefit wild birds, sources or designs of bird boxes, and managing gardens to reduce or eliminate some of the factors believed to be affecting wild bird populations. In giving such advice, particular mention is made of house sparrows, and why it is important to consider this species in garden management or design.

• Lambeth Parks has provided grants through the Lambeth Community Funds scheme which are designed to directly or indirectly benefit wildlife. A number of these grants have been provided to schools and community gardens to promote local wildlife, and allow people to become more aware of biodiversity. All of these projects have benefits to wild bird populations, including those of the house sparrow, by appropriate wildflower plantings, avoiding pesticides and better timings of grass or scrubland management.

• Lambeth Council’s parks and public greenspaces are managed, as far as possible, to reduce adverse effects upon wild plant and animal species, including birds like the house sparrow. Management regimes aim to minimise the application of pesticides; inappropriate timings of cuts for grassland, hedgerows, shrubbery and woodland; providing suitable tree cover; and taking account of nesting birds in normal management.

• The Surrey Bird Club co-ordinates surveys of bird species, including Lambeth, which was once part of old Surrey County. Information on house sparrow sightings can be sent to them via contact details on their website (http://www.sbclub.ukonline.co.uk/index.htm).

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) relating to the protection of the house sparrow, include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• A report on the distribution and abundance of house sparrows in London, and advice on how to help them, called ‘Where Have All the Sparrows Gone?’, can be downloaded from the London Biodiversity Partnership (LBP) website on: (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/sparrow_survey_report.pdf)

151 • Further advice on the house sparrow and management of habitats and sites to protect and support the house sparrow, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2004/sparrowconf-200204.htm) • DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife- countryside/resprog/findings/sparrow/chapter3.pdf) • RSPB Sparrow Watch (http://www.rspb.org.uk/sparrowatch/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority – House Sparrow Survey Findings (http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=1572) • “Wild About Gardens” (http://www.wildaboutgardens.org/) • British Trust for Ornithology (http://www.bto.org/gbw/HOUSP/) • BBC Nature – (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/252.shtml)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The House Sparrow Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Acid Grassland • Allotments and Community Gardens • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Private Gardens • Woodlands • Blackbird • Mistletoe • Reptiles • Stag Beetle

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth House Sparrow Species Action Plan:

• London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: House Sparrow Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac19_sparrow.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat Statement – Private Gardens (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac25_gardens.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

152 9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the House Sparrow Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To help in understanding the key factors affecting the population and distribution of house sparrows in Lambeth, by contributing to and supporting London and UK- wide research and surveys.

Target: To help in the delivery of scientifically valid research to explain the decline in London house sparrow populations by 2010.

Action Target Lead Partners Collate existing research information of Ongoing LPG the status of house sparrows in Lambeth and possible causes of decline Contribute to the wider debate regarding Ongoing LPG key issues which should be investigated in research projects Establish links with other relevant Ongoing LPG RSPB research projects and house sparrow surveys in Lambeth and London Support research into house sparrows in 2010 LPG Lambeth in liaison with national projects, including fundraising and local surveys Review progress and outcome of other Annually LPG projects on house sparrow decline and draw on results to revise actions

Objective 2: To involve people in London and raise awareness of house sparrows.

Target: Commission, complete and evaluate survey by the end of 2006.

Action Target Lead Partners Draw up a proposal for survey of house 2005 LPG sparrow populations and distribution in Lambeth involving public participation Commission survey to clarify likely 2005 LPG factors affecting house sparrows in Lambeth: evaluate and publicise results Analyse survey data to clarify the likely 2007 LPG factors affecting house sparrows in Lambeth and London Promote the involvement of the public in Ongoing LPG constructing sparrow nest boxes in Lambeth through establishing ‘sparrow champions’ in the Borough Maintain the public interest in house Ongoing LPG sparrow decline through appropriate public activities and funded projects

153 10. Key References

Crick, H.Q.P., Robinson, R.A., Appleton, G.F., Clark, N.A. and Rickard, A.D. 2002. Investigation into the causes of the decline of starlings and house sparrows in Great Britain. BTO research report no 290.

DEFRA, with RSPB and BTO. 2004. House sparrows in Great Britain. Leaflet published by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2004.

Heidj, CJ (1985). Comparative ecology of the House Sparrow, Passer domesticus, in rural, suburban and urban situations. Thesis, Vriji Universiteit te Amsterdam.

London Biodiversity Partnership, 2002. Where have all the sparrows gone? Survey report 2002. (Produced by RSPB).

Mitschke, A., Rathje, H. & Baumung, S. (2000). House sparrows in Hamburg: population, habitat choice and threats. Hamburg State Ornithological Protection Station. Hamburger Avifauna Beitr. 30.

Summers-Smith, J.D (1999). Current status of the House Sparrow in Britain. British Wildlife, 10: 381-386.

Summers-Smith, JD (2000). The Independent 11th September 2000.

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LWT - London Wildlife Trust GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor RSPB - Royal Society for Protection of Birds BTO – British Trust for Ornithology LNHS – London Natural History Society

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

154 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Mistletoe

1. Aims

• To ensure the conservation, enhancement and greater awareness of mistletoe in Lambeth and London for current and future generations.

• To ensure that mistletoe is more widely recognised as a London and Lambeth species of cultural and ecological importance.

2. Introduction

• Mistletoe (Viscum album) is a parasitic plant of deciduous trees. It has fleshy green leaves and produces milk-white berries, which are spread to other host trees by many birds, especially the mistle thrush.

• It is a plant with enormous cultural and social value, as well as being increasingly rare, yet also surrounded by mystery about its ecology and medicinal use.

• Mistletoe’s London sites are mostly in open landscape habitats, such as trees in parks, gardens and streets. Although London is outside its stronghold areas in the south-west Midlands, the species has many cultural links to the capital. It may never have been very common in London, but it has a long history in herbal medicine and seasonal traditions.

3. Current Status

• Mistletoe’s status in London is reasonably well-known, though many sightings of the plant need further study and confirmation. The national mistletoe survey run by Plantlife and the Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI) in the 1990s provided new and additional data (Briggs, 1995 & 1999).

• The main host trees for mistletoe in urban areas are cultivated apples, hybrid limes, hawthorn, hybrid poplars, maples, willows and false acacia. Many other tree species can also be hosts for mistletoe.

• Mistletoe is scarce in the Greater London area. A large number of Boroughs have good or reasonably reliable records of the plant, but in most there are only a handful of records, sometimes just one plant per Borough. The full list includes Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Harrow, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Haringey, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston, Lambeth, Merton, Redbridge, Richmond, Sutton, Wandsworth and Westminster.

• The most central records are in Lambeth (a single plant on a maple tree) and in Westminster (a single plant on an ornamental Malus tree). Most mistletoe in London grows in man-made habitats (little suitable natural habitat occurs) and the majority of London records are from trees in parks and gardens. Elsewhere in the UK the plant also grows on trees in orchards, hedgerows, churchyards, cemeteries and linear features such as watersides and roadsides.

• London's principal mistletoe stronghold seems to be Bushy Park and Hampton Court in Richmond, and a thriving colony around Myddelton House and Forty Hall in Enfield.

155 • The parasitic mistletoe is, in turn, host to four species of specialist mistletoe-dependant insects. The current status of these insects in London is unknown.

• There appears to be potential for more mistletoe in London as there are many suitable host trees in many suitable habitats such as parks, gardens, small estates, nature reserves and roadsides. Some of the populations in parks and estates may be relics of populations established by herbalists.

• Studies of mistletoe in other cities may help our understanding of the plant in London. Some cities, such as Cheltenham, located in the heart of mistletoe’s main UK distribution, have far more mistletoe than in the capital. Research on mistletoe in some continental cities may help especially where these, like London, are outside of the species’ main range (Briggs, 2003).

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Inappropriate Management Practices. Existing forestry and tree management practice in Boroughs, parks authorities etc may be unsympathetic. For example, being a tree parasite, the species is sometimes pruned out because it is thought – wrongly as a matter of fact – to be a major source of distress to the host tree and needs to be removed as part of the normal process of tree management or ‘surgery’.

There is also neglect of some existing mistletoe colonies on trees and possibly also a loss of suitable management techniques. For example, traditional ‘sustainable’ harvesting of mistletoe, which controlled infestations by taking some off to be sold or used elsewhere whilst allowing the survival of a remnant colony, may be no longer practised.

• Theft. Mistletoe ‘rustling’ – the taking of mistletoe from host trees in an unsustainable manner, may be on the increase because of its seasonal value – the demand for mistletoe for ‘kissing’ under at Christmas. Such aggressive removal of mistletoe probably does the host tree no good either due to damage and infection by disease at the removal points.

• Omission from Habitat Creation Schemes. Mistletoe is sadly often omitted from otherwise suitable habitat creation schemes where it could be benefit from. Examples include some Community Orchard schemes, which can fail to include mistletoe planting or care of existing colonies on older trees within the orchard.

5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• Mistletoe receives the same protection as all other wild plants in the UK through the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended). Therefore, it may not be uprooted (which would include pulling down whole plants) without the permission of the landowner. The felling of host trees may be prevented by Tree Preservation Orders.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• The national mistletoe survey in the 1990s (Briggs, 1995 & 1999) raised the plant’s profile significantly and gave rise to much public interest. This survey, though complete, still continues informally and is largely concerned with data gathering.

• Indirect habitat management. Various campaigns promoting conservation of traditional orchards (e.g. Common Ground’s projects) or conservation of parkland and veteran trees may be indirectly helping mistletoe.

156 5.3 Local Action

• The location of all known individual mistletoe plants in the Borough of Lambeth is kept a closely-guarded secret, because of the risks of plants being removed from trees for commercial or personal gain. As individual sightings or finds are made known, Lambeth Parks records the location, tree host species, condition of mistletoe and whether male or female. A database is kept of locations and this is referred to in any correspondence relating to the management of the host trees or the mistletoe itself.

• Lambeth Parks owns and maintains all trees in parks, greenspaces and on the public highway, expect where the responsible authority is Transport for London (TfL). Lambeth Parks is also due to take over the management of all of Lambeth Housing’s tree stock. This places Lambeth Council, through Lambeth Parks and Housing, in a powerful position to control the management of the Borough’s public tree stock so as to provide equal benefit to wildlife, as it will to public safety and enjoyment. This provides Lambeth Council with a good opportunity to ensure that any public trees containing mistletoe are managed accordingly so as to maintain existing individuals, and to allow the species to spread and colonise other suitable host trees.

• It is believed or known that a number of mistletoe plants in Lambeth are on trees that are under private ownership, i.e. in private gardens, private estates or business premises. Until a detailed survey and inspection of all private trees is undertaken, the actual number of individual mistletoe plants, their locations and condition cannot be accurately reported, and support and advice given to land owners or managers to help conserve the species.

• Lambeth Parks aims to work closely with planning officers to ensure any trees on private properties in the Borough suspected of containing mistletoe are protected from loss, removal or inappropriate management which could damage or destroy mistletoe.

• Efforts are made at every opportunity to ensure host trees on private property are covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO), which provide them with statutory protection from inappropriate management or removal, and thus the loss or damage of any mistletoe.

• Trees in Conservation Areas within Lambeth are accorded similar protection from removal or damage without application and prior permission. As with TPOs efforts are made to ensure trees in Conservation Areas which contain or are thought to contain mistletoe are protected from inappropriate management or removal, and the loss or damage of any mistletoe.

• Although there are no programmes underway at present in Lambeth to introduce mistletoe to new potential host trees, by placing berries or seeds into suitable positions on the tree, this is not discounted as an opportunity to encourage the spread of mistletoe in the Borough.

• Lambeth Parks officers work with local schools, community groups and environmental conservation organisations active within the Borough to promote mistletoe as not just an important cultural icon and plant of medicinal interest, but also as a species of wildlife value for Lambeth and London. The rich religious, ethnological and medicinal history of mistletoe is often very popular with people of all ages and backgrounds living in Lambeth, and provides an ideal opportunity to raise awareness of its importance as a conservation and biodiversity ‘flagship’ for other plants in Lambeth, and the need to manage them and their habitats.

157 6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth UDP (adopted 1998) relating to protection of mistletoe, and the protection of its tree habitats, include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice on mistletoe, its ecology and conservation, and the management of habitats to protect and support the mistletoe, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/) • English Nature (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/default.asp) • London Natural History Society (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lnhsweb/) • Botanical Society of the British Isles (http://www.bsbi.org.uk/) • Plantlife (http://www.plantlife.org.uk/) • Forestry Commission (http://www.forestry.gov.uk/)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Mistletoe Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Allotments and Community Gardens • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Parks and Greenspaces • Private Gardens • Railway Linesides • Woodlands

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Mistletoe Species Action Plan:

• London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: Mistletoe Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac22_mistletoe.rtf) • Christmas Curiosity or Medical Marvel? A Seasonal Review of Mistletoe (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/mistletoe_paper.pdf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

158 9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the Lambeth Mistletoe Species Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: Collate and maintain data on mistletoe in Lambeth.

Target: Complete database covering all existing data, plus a mechanism for recording new data, by the end of 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Determine past and present distribution 2005 LPG in Lambeth: collate existing data, validate and include in local databases Establish monitoring system for Lambeth 2006 mistletoe populations Assist in London survey of the status of Ongoing LPG mistletoe-associated species – obligate insects and berry-eating birds Promote results of these and other Ongoing LPG studies to increase awareness of mistletoe in London and Lambeth

Objective 2: To prevent loss of mistletoe plants and populations in Lambeth.

Target: No future loss of mistletoe populations in Lambeth.

Action Target Lead Partners Review possible alternative protection 2006 LPG measures and policies Ensure that all private colonies of 2007 LPG mistletoe in Lambeth are protected by TPOs or Conservation Areas Provide landowners with information Ongoing LPG about mistletoe conservation and management

Objective 3: To increase mistletoe populations in Lambeth.

Target: 20 new or restored populations by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Identify and select new sites for 2006 LPG establishing mistletoe populations in Lambeth and appropriate seed berry and inoculation technique(s). Establish mistletoe at selected sites 2006-2008 LPG using approved technique(s), along with monitoring of success.

159 10. Key References

Briggs, J (1995). Mistletoe - distribution, biology and the National Survey. British Wildlife 7(2), 75-82.

Briggs, J (1999). Kissing Goodbye to Mistletoe? The results of a national survey aimed at discovering whether mistletoe in Britain is in decline. Published by Plantlife and BSBI.

Briggs, J (2003) Christmas curiosity or medical marvel? A seasonal review of mistletoe. Biologist (2003) 50 (6).

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LPD – Lambeth Planning and Development GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor LDC – Lambeth Development Control TMC - Tree Maintenance Contractor LWT - London Wildlife Trust LTOA – London Tree Officers Association LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority BTCV – British Trust for Conservation BSBI – Botanical Society of the British Isles Volunteers TFL – Trees for London EN - English Nature

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

160 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Reptiles

1. Aims

• To protect and conserve native reptile populations in Lambeth.

• To promote wider awareness of reptiles and reptile conservation in Lambeth.

2. Introduction

• Four British species of reptile occur in Greater London: the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara), the slow-worm (Anguis fragilis) – a legless lizard, and two snakes, the grass snake (Natrix natrix) and adder (Vipera berus). Whilst the lizards and the grass snake are still fairly widespread, adders are exceedingly rare in London, and found at only a handful of sites.

• Being cold-blooded, reptiles need warm sites for basking to raise their body temperature. The open, dry nature of heathlands and chalk and acid grasslands usually provide these basking areas, as well as plenty of cover and food, and habitats with which most reptiles in London are commonly associated. The exception to this is the grass snake, which has more affinity with wetland habitats.

• British reptiles are inactive between mid-October and March, hibernating below ground in disused burrows, inside stonework, within grass tussocks or among tree roots. On emergence from hibernation in the spring, these reptiles can often be seen basking out in the open.

• Slow-worms and common lizards live mostly on invertebrates – insects, spiders and small slugs and snails. The two snakes hunt by stealth, preying on amphibians, small mammals and even their smaller reptilian cousins.

• People sometimes perceive adders as a threat, as they are the only venomous snake in Britain. However, bites to humans are extremely uncommon. Our use and abuse of the places where adders occur presents a far greater threat to them than they pose to us.

3. Current Status

• Adders. Adders are now very rare in London, although they are more frequent in surrounding counties. The places where adders are still known to occur in London may be counted on one hand, and their numbers at all of these sites are worryingly low. Their rapid decline heralds imminent extinction locally unless extensive conservation action is quickly put into effect.

• Grass Snake. Grass snakes are locally common in many outer London boroughs, but populations are declining as a result of habitat fragmentation and loss of wetland sites to development. Their yellow collar, a prominent feature even in hatchlings, easily identifies grass snakes. Being highly mobile, grass snakes are possibly over-recorded and can turn up almost anywhere, but may be found typically in undisturbed habitats in river corridors. In gardens they are often seen around ponds, preying on frogs and toads, and in compost heaps where they seek the warmth of the decaying plant matter to incubate their eggs.

161 • Common Lizard. Common lizards are widespread across London, especially in outer London boroughs. Isolated populations may occur in more central locations, especially along potential wildlife corridors such as railway embankments. Slow-worms occur on railsides and road verges, allotments, wasteland or ‘brownfield’ sites and in private gardens where grass has been allowed to grow long.

• Slow-Worm. Slow-worms are widespread in London but similarly concentrated in outer London boroughs. Isolated populations are found on inner London sites where suitable habitats exist. Common lizards also occur on railsides and road verges, allotments, wasteland or ‘brownfield’ sites and in private gardens where grass has grown long.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Loss of Suitable Habitat and Changes in Land Use. Development and unsympathetic land management has significantly educed the amount of habitat available in London and the UK for many reptiles - especially for adders.

Reptiles require habitat with good structural diversity, which provides basking areas, adequate feeding opportunities and hibernation sites. These features are often reduced through intensive mowing, over-grazing, burning (whether accidental or deliberate), or intensive recreational use. Many intensively managed public parks and open spaces provide very little suitable habitat for reptiles, unless specific areas are designated and managed accordingly for reptiles and other wild species.

• Isolation of Reptile Populations. Reptile populations have become isolated from one another as well as from areas of habitat to potentially colonise. Isolation occurs through fragmentation of suitable habitats by creating barriers that reptiles cannot cross. These include obvious physical barriers like major roads or urban developments, but can also include more subtle ones like ploughed fields or expanses of short mown grass.

Unless this process of isolation is halted or reversed, it is likely that isolated populations will gradually decline through inbreeding and susceptibility to disease, predation or persecution. Isolated populations in urban areas like much of London are particularly vulnerable to the effects of predators like cats and crows.

• Persecution. Snakes have long been persecuted across Britain and the World. Their ‘poisonous’ reputation gives them a bad media image which portrays all snakes as villainous or lethal predators of man. The adder, grass snake and slow-worm (which is often mistaken for a snake but is in fact a legless lizard) suffer from this negative image. Although the intentional killing or injury of any native reptile is illegal, persecution is still a significant problem for many reptile species in London, particularly adders.

• Liability. Some land mangers can over-react to concerns for public safety and the potential danger to domestic pets from adder bites. Action to remove the threat by destroying suitable reptile habitat, and/or illegal killing, may have contributed to local declines in adder populations (and possibly grass snakes and slow-worms where there is mis-identification). Conservation action combined with a careful campaign aimed at raising awareness of their dire status could serve to improve the public image of the adder and snakes in general.

162 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• All British reptiles are protected to various degrees by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). London’s reptiles are protected from intentional killing and injury, selling or other forms of trade.

• Damage to reptile habitats is not specifically referred to as a prohibited action in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. However, as it can be argued premeditated habitat destruction would amount to an intentional attempt to kill or injure any reptiles, their immediate habitat at least, is protected indirectly by the Act.

• Many important reptile habitats in London are protected by virtue of their status as a statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Local or National Nature Reserve (LNR, NNR). Others are safeguarded from inappropriate development through designation as non-statutory Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). Lambeth has large number of SINCs, and thus reptile species in them are safeguarded as a consequence.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• Planning Guidance. The presence of protected species, including all native reptiles, is a material consideration to be addressed by local planning authorities when considering a development proposal which is likely to result in harm to a species or its habitat.

• Awareness Raising and Surveys. The London, Essex and Hertfordshire Amphibian and Reptile Trust (LEHART), Surrey Amphibian and Reptile Group (SARG) and Kent Reptile and Amphibian Group (KRAG) undertake surveys, provide advice on habitat management, and promote reptile conservation in London. They maintain databases of site records.

Other organisations such as the London Wildlife Trust, Froglife and English Nature produce information notes and leaflets about reptiles and their conservation. Recent public awareness campaigns to 'Be Kind To Snakes' have attempted to change the image of reptiles, and popular interest is slowly growing.

5.3 Local Action

• There is no formal ‘Lambeth Reptile or Amphibian Group’ for Lambeth, so at present no community organisation exists to lead on or promote reptile conservation in the Borough. However, Lambeth Parks works closely with Lambeth residents known to be interested in reptiles and amphibians and their ecology and conservation, or with community groups whose activities are compatible with the conservation of reptiles.

• Lambeth Parks, as part of this Action Plan, intends to advertise for and locate residents or groups interested in reptile and amphibian conservation, and keen to become skilled in undertaking surveys and projects relating to reptiles and amphibians in the Borough. The ultimate objective is to establish an informal ‘network’ of local enthusiasts and interest groups to share information on reptiles and amphibians in Lambeth. The network can also act to report to Council any issues where known reptile species or populations may be at risk or where new colonies or species are identified, and help deliver on projects or actions to protect and conserve them.

163 • The Lambeth reptile and amphibian ‘network’ can also act as an informal but skilled resource to provide householders, site managers and developers with advice on protecting and working with reptiles, avoiding activities which harm reptiles or put them at risk of prosecution. This network can provide a knowledge pool for site inspections or help site owners or users with advice on how to work with and for reptiles in the Borough. This will be important in addressing some of the fears and fallacies that exist about reptiles.

• Where planning applications are submitted for comment, or where they become aware of developments or activities, which could directly or indirectly affect reptile populations, Lambeth Parks officers provide comments and advice to Lambeth Planning. This advice is appropriate to the application and type of activity. If reptiles could be present or affected, officers recommend further information from the applicant or seek professional advice on the application, and make their response accordingly.

• Planning applications adjacent to any park or greenspace known or suspected to contain or be used by reptiles, are evaluated by Parks officers as to their impact alongside other sensitive species, and comments provided based on advice or professional judgement. Applicants might be asked to provide further information from professional consultants, and based on this or their own judgement, appropriate mitigation measures are requested by Lambeth Parks officers for inclusion into planning consents.

• Lambeth Parks officers work closely with schools, community groups, Members, fellow officers and the media on the subject of reptiles. They educate about the ecology, behaviour, benefits and conservation of reptiles in Britain, and help allay some of the fears and myths surrounding reptiles so as to protect them from persecution or abuse.

• Lambeth Parks also aims where appropriate to manage and monitor the Lambeth Grounds Maintenance Contract so as to take account of areas and features of importance to any resident species and populations of reptiles, or facilitate colonisation by reptiles. Any sightings of reptiles in such locations are considered carefully as to future timings of any management works or modifications to the management regime to provide additional protection.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth UDP (adopted 1998) relating to protection of reptiles, include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice on reptile conservation, and the management of habitats and sites to protect and support reptiles, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) • DEFRA – Wildlife Statistics (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wildlife/wdamphrept.htm) • Herpetological Conservation Trust (http://www.hcontrst.force9.co.uk/noframes/about.htm) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/) • Metropolitan Police Wildlife Crime Unit (http://www.met.police.uk/wildlife/new site docs/docs/) • English Nature (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/default.asp) • Peoples Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) (http://www.ptes.org/)

164 7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Reptiles Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Acid Grassland • Allotments and Community Gardens • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Parks and Greenspaces • Private Gardens • Railway Linesides • Woodlands • Stag Beetle

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Reptiles Species Action Plan:

• London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 2: Reptiles Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac23_reptiles.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan: advice for developers on protected species issues in Greater London – grass snakes, slow worms and common lizards (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/reptiles_developers.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan: advice for local planning authorities on protected species issues in Greater London – grass snakes, slow worms and common lizards (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/reptiles_planners.rtf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the Lambeth Reptiles Species Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To improve knowledge of reptile distribution and abundance in Lambeth.

Target: Distribute data to relevant organisations, and to assist in updating Herpetofauna Atlas of London, by 2006.

Action Target Lead Partners Use existing records to identify priority 2005 sites in Lambeth where surveys or monitoring should be undertaken Undertake reptile surveys on these sites Ongoing where appropriate Include reptile tick-box (or other, as Ongoing appropriate) in public surveys of garden and greenspace biodiversity Assist in the publishing of the updated 2006 Herpetofauna Atlas for Greater London

165

Objective 2: To promote reptile conservation in Lambeth to land owners, land managers, community groups and general public.

Target: Produce and disseminate reptile conservation advice notes by 2007.

Action Target Lead Partners Produce advice note on reptile 2005 identification, ecology and conservation issues for planners and developers Produce habitat management ‘best 2006 practice’ guidelines for site managers, developers and planners Update existing leaflets on reptiles for 2007 general public (i.e. Wildlife Facts and LEHART’s Species Fact sheets)

10. Key References

English Nature (1991). Facts about reptiles.

Froglife (1998). Adders in Amphibian and Reptile Group Casework (notes produced for the Herpetofauna Groups of Britain and Ireland).

Froglife (1995). Snakes Need Friends - Advice Sheet 2.

Froglife (1995). Conserving Grass Snakes - Advice Sheet 6.

Jefferies, R (1893). Nature Near London. JNCC (1998). Herpetofauna Worker's Manual.

Langton, T (1991). Distribution and status of reptiles and amphibians in the London Area. The London Naturalist 70:97-123.

LNHS. Langton, T (1989). Snakes and Lizards. Whittet Books, London.

11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LPD – Lambeth Planning and Development GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor LDC – Lambeth Development Control LEHART - London, Essex and Hertfordshire LWT - London Wildlife Trust Amphibian and Reptile Trust LNHS – London Natural History Society GLA – Greater London Authority BTCV – British Trust for Conservation WCUL – Wildlife Crime Unit (Metropolitan Volunteers Police) – Lambeth Officer EN - English Nature HCT - Herpetofaunal Conservation Trust

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

166 Lambeth Biodiversity Action Plan Stag Beetle

1. Aims

• To protect, conserve and enhance populations of the stag beetle in Lambeth.

• To help investigate reasons for uneven distributions of stag beetle populations across London and Lambeth, and identify opportunities to address the main causes.

• To maintain the stag beetle as a valued species in Lambeth and London by increasing public awareness of their importance and that of dead wood as a wildlife habitat.

2. Introduction

• The stag beetle is Britain’s largest terrestrial or ground living, beetle, occasionally reaching up to 8cm in length. As well as having shiny chestnut-violet wing cases, the stag beetle is characterised by possessing large mandibles (jaws) which are antler-shaped in the male, hence their common name. These ‘antlers’ are used by the male for fighting other males, whereas the female’s mandibles, being smaller, are more powerful.

• Stag beetles require dead wood to complete their lifecycle. The eggs are laid underground in the soil next to logs or stumps of dead trees, and the larva (or grub) will spend up to seven years in the wood, slowly growing in size. They contribute to the recycling of dead wood, which in turn helps enrich the soil. Timber is also utilised, especially sunken fence posts.

• Adults emerge from mid-May until late July. Males emerge earlier to actively search for females to mate, and can often be seen flying on sultry summer evenings an hour or two before dusk. As adults they are short-lived and generally die after mating, although occasionally some may over-winter in places such as compost heaps.

3. Current Status

• London is nationally significant for the stag beetle populations it supports. Over 3,000 adult beetles were recorded in London during the 1998 national survey records –approximately 30% of the total recorded for the UK.

• Stag beetles have been recorded in most parts of London, but the key boroughs are Croydon, Lewisham, Bromley, Greenwich, Southwark, Lambeth, Bexley, Ealing, Hounslow, Richmond, Kingston, Merton and Wandsworth. The beetle is significantly more common in the South and West of London in areas such as Beckenham, Dulwich, Wandsworth, and Richmond.

• It is rarely found in central London through lack of appropriate habitat and uncommon or absent in the north-west and parts of north-east London, although there are clusters of records in places such as Winchmore Hill and Hornchurch. The reasons for this uneven distribution are the subject of current research.

• Gardens appear to be the most important habitat for the beetle in London – most recent data has not originated from the woods and parks – although this is, of course, where most have been seen by the public. The role of members of the general public and their gardens is probably crucial to the conservation of the stag beetle in London.

167

• The UK stag beetle distribution is concentrated in the southeast of Britain – its absence in the North may be climate related. In the 1940s, this extended to southern Wales, the Dee, Cumbria, and across to North Yorkshire and the Wash. However, recent surveys suggest that this has significantly contracted, with a predominant distribution pattern in a broad swathe from Dorset, Hampshire, West Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire, Greater London, north-east Essex, eastern Suffolk and northern Kent.

• Although locally common in certain areas, the stag beetle’s European range has probably contracted for many centuries as woodlands have been converted to agricultural landscapes, conifer plantations and urban development – it is now extinct or very endangered in a number of countries such as Latvia and eastern Germany. In Europe it is associated with old forests and woodlands which predominantly consist of broadleaf trees such as oak, lime and hornbeam. They are not found in coniferous forests, but are found in gardens in certain areas.

4. Current Factors Causing Loss or Decline of Quality

• Reduction of Dead Wood Habitat. In previous centuries dead wood was reduced through intensive management or loss of woodlands. Although some ‘tidying up’ still continues in woodlands and parks, site managers are now much more aware of the need to retain dead wood as part of the ecosystem. This will certainly have benefited stag beetles at the local level. Similarly, changes in parks management in London has led to the retention of dead wood for landscape and nature conservation purposes.

• Loss of Habitat to Development. Habitat suitable for stag beetles has been steadily lost in London through suburban expansion in the inter-war years. Although the introduction of the Green Belt led to the restriction of suburban expansion, many of London’s surviving open spaces were developed, including woodland. Development will continue to result in the loss of stag beetle habitat, especially as there is a lack of awareness of the beetle’s presence on sites, as the adults are only visible for a few weeks each year.

With PPG3 identifying gardens as ‘brownfield’ land, and therefore valuable to development, there is likely to be increased development pressure on garden mosaics, or ‘backland’, in London’s suburbs. This may have an impact on London’s stag beetle populations

• Direct Human Impact. Adult stag beetles are attracted to the warm surfaces of tarmac and pavements, making them particularly vulnerable to being crushed by traffic or human feet. As many beetles are on the ground at dusk, it is hard for people to see and avoid them, so making the problem worse. The clumsy low-level flying manner of the adult beetles also makes them vulnerable to being knocked to the ground or hit by traffic.

Public fear and misunderstanding of the species also leads to the intentional killing of the beetles and their larvae, the latter often being perceived as a garden pest. Considerable work has been done, and still needs to be done, to allay people’s misjudged fears about the stag beetle – the male beetle’s antlers, though they look ferocious, are perfectly harmless to humans and other animals.

• Predation. Predators such as crows, magpies, and foxes, amongst others, may have an adverse impact at the most vulnerable stage in the beetle’s life cycle, when adults are seeking to mate and lay eggs. Indeed, it has been suggested that the rise in magpie and carrion crow numbers in the last decade may be having a significant impact on stag beetle populations. Badgers are also known to dig up the larvae of the stag beetle, which otherwise enjoys relative safety from predators underground.

168 5. Current Action

5.1 Legal Status

• The stag beetle is listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) but only to prevent trade in the species. A major threat to stag beetles, especially in Europe, has been from private collectors and the legislation aims to stop the species from being collected for sale at entomological fairs.

• The stag beetle is also listed on Appendix III of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 1979 and Appendix 2 of the Habitats Directive. The latter requires the UK to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) specifically to protect stag beetles. Wimbledon Common, Richmond Park and Epping Forest are candidate SACs.

5.2 National and Regional Action

• The London-based People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) is the lead partner for the UK Stag Beetle Action Plan. PTES has established the national Stag Beetle Focus Group (SBFG) in 1997 to co-ordinate, develop and implement the national SAP. This is a partnership of many organisations and individuals, including English Nature (EN), The Wildlife Trusts, Suffolk Naturalists Trust and Royal Holloway University London (RHUL).

• As a large insect and distinct, the stag beetle has attracted the interest of entomologists and is the subject of various papers and surveys over the past century. Data collected by individuals and societies has contributed to the knowledge of the species, although most of this contribution was made before the 1940s.

• Since publication of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan there has been significant work on the stag beetle, with a number of local surveys (e.g. Colchester in 1996, South London in 1997). In 1998 and again in 2002 the SBFG conducted a national survey, collecting a total of around 15,000 records for the species and providing an updated and considerably more accurate picture of the UK distribution. Royal Holloway College is also undertaking further research on the beetle’s biology and ecology at the University of London.

• Subsequently, SBFG’s work concentrated on further surveys, monitoring methodology, and research into the stag beetle’s ecology. London Wildlife Trust piloted a survey in south London in 1997, contributed to the 1998 national survey and has continued surveying in key areas in 1999 and 2000 with the SBFG.

• The London Wildlife Trust (LWT) has actively promoted the species to the media, and stimulated an interest in the beetle from newspapers, radio, TV and general public. The LWT website features a stag beetle recording form and garden wildlife survey form for several species including this beetle. Other borough-based surveys have been undertaken in Wandsworth, Bromley, Croydon and Sutton since 1997.

• In 1998 PTES produced ‘Stags in Stumps’, a leaflet aimed at land managers. Managers have since begun to take account of the species in site management plans, and it is likely this will develop further. In addition, wildlife gardening campaigns by London Wildlife Trust, local authorities and others have promoted stag beetles and dead wood conservation.

• In 2000, PTES published another leaflet, ‘Stag Beetle Friendly Gardening’, to promote these aspects, and London Wildlife Trust produced ‘Stag Beetle; an advice note for its conservation in London’ specifically for the capital, which also covered survey and planning issues.

169 • The creation of specific stag beetle ‘loggeries’ began in Epping Forest, Sydenham Hill Wood, Southwark and Bromley in 2000. In addition, trials of ‘nest-boxes’ are being conducted in these areas to see whether they attract female stag beetles and if so can be used at the edge of the beetle’s range as a monitoring tool.

• In 2001 the London Stag Beetle Action Plan Working Group produced a free-standing mobile display unit on the species and their work to conserve it in the capital. This has toured numerous Borough summer shows in Lewisham, Lambeth, Bromley, Richmond, Wandsworth and in the Royal Parks.

5.3 Local Action

• There is no formal group or body within Lambeth working on or promoting the protection and conservation of stag beetles in the Borough. However, Lambeth Parks works closely with residents or others interested in stag beetles and other insect species to help identify opportunities to both promote and conserve the stag beetle, and to provide advice and information to any person or groups who are interested in the species.

• Lambeth Parks officers provide advice and information to other Council officers, residents and developers on the legal status of the stag beetle, and how to protect it if known or suspected to be present on any given site or locality in the Borough. Parks officers will comment upon any planning application where there is a potential impact to stag beetles or their habitats, either to object to a development or propose mitigation or compensatory habitat creation measures to planning officers. Parks officers will also provide planning officers or applicants details of organisations or individuals able to undertake detailed stag beetle surveys or undertake appropriate mitigation works as required in any planning consents.

• Lambeth Council officers regularly communicate with the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, the lead partner for the UK Stag Beetle Action Plan and the Stag Beetle Focus Group host organisation. Council officers liase with PTES over implementing the national and London SAP, seeking advice on stag beetle conservation activities and obtaining opinion on issues in Lambeth that could affect Borough stag beetle populations or distribution.

• Lambeth Council officers regularly assist in distributing leaflets and other promotional materials about stag beetle surveys and conservation across the Borough to key groups, other Council officers and community organisations. This often includes material produced by PTES as well as London Wildlife Trust and English Nature amongst others.

• Lambeth Parks has, in partnership with PTES, organised a number of stag beetle walks and talks in parks like Brockwell Park and Streatham Common, plus talks in schools and to local history or community groups. These events are designed to raise the profile of the stag beetle, address some of the misconceptions about the species, and to advise people on what steps they can take locally to conserve the stag beetle.

• Lambeth Parks officers sends information on all reported stag beetle sightings to LWT and PTES, to assist in improving information on the beetle’s distribution and abundance.

• Lambeth Parks works with its grounds maintenance and tree maintenance contractors to manage trees and especially dead trees so as to help protect or promote stag beetle populations. Dead tree trunks are never removed unless there is a clear public safety issue, and even then dead tree stumps are left in situ, and as much of the trunk left in place. All cut or fallen dead wood is either left where it fell or removed to a suitable place where it can be colonised over time by stag beetles and other dead wood dwelling fauna.

170 • Parks Officers will provide, as part of guidance on improving the nature conservation and biodiversity value of a site, information on the creation of ‘loggeries’ or ‘stag beetle hotels’, or other forms of suitable artificial habitat. Officers often assist in locating suitable timber for such habitats, their siting to improve success rates for stag beetle colonisation, and funding or technical expertise from contractors to install them if required.

• The Stag Beetle Action Plan Working Group mobile display unit has appeared at the Lambeth Country Show in 2001, and Parks officers encourage event organisers who wish to have a theme or area on biodiversity to book and use this display unit or organise a similar activity or publicity materials. Parks officers will provide event organisers with details on how to obtain display materials on stag beetles or to organise and prepare such displays.

6 Advice and Information

• The relevant sections of the current Lambeth UDP (adopted 1998) relating to protection of stag beetles, and the protection of their habitats, include: CD1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, ENV9, ENV10, ENV11, RL16, RL17, RL18, RL19, RL20, RL21, RL22, RL25, RL26, RL27, RL28, RL29 and RL35 (http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/intradoc/groups/public/documents/notes/004953.pdf).

• Further advice on stag beetle conservation, and the management of habitats and sites to protect and support stag beetles, can be found at:

• DEFRA (http://www.defra.gov.uk/) • London Wildlife Trust (http://www.wildlondon.org.uk/) • Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/) • English Nature (http://www.english-nature.org.uk/default.asp) • Peoples Trust for Endangered Species (PTES) (http://www.ptes.org/stagbeetle/Stag_beetle_website/index.htm)

7 Links to other Habitat and Species Action Plans

• The Stag Beetle Action Plan links to the following Lambeth Habitat and Species Action Plans:

• Allotments and Community Gardens • Churchyards and Cemeteries • Parks and Greenspaces • Private Gardens • Woodlands

8. Links to Local and National Policies

• The following local and national policies or strategies either influence or are relevant to the Lambeth Stag Beetle Species Action Plan:

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan – Stag Beetle Species Action Plan (http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=425) • London Biodiversity Action Plan Round 1: Stag Beetle Species Action Plan (http://www.lbp.org.uk/03action_pdfs/ac20_stagbeetle.rtf) • London Biodiversity Action Plan: Stag Beetle: An advice note for its conservation in London (http://www.lbp.org.uk/07library/stag_advice.pdf) • Lambeth UDP 1998: Policies CD1, ENV1 - ENV11 and RL16-29 • Lambeth Parks and Greenspaces Strategic Plan

171 9. Tables of Objectives and Action

These Action Tables set out some key objectives to be achieved for the Lambeth Stag Beetle Species Action Plan to be delivered, and identifies where appropriate key target dates.

It must be remembered that these objectives and targets are recommended and other ones may be identified as the Action Plan is implemented.

Objective 1: To maintain and increase the population of stag beetles in Lambeth and hence in Greater London.

Target: Increase the provision of habitats within its known current range in Lambeth by 2010.

Action Target Lead Partners Distribute advice note to all managers 2005 LPG and owners of parks, woodlands, nature reserves and major formal gardens to encourage retention of dead wood Provide information to arboriculturalists, 2005 LPG planning and tree officers to promote retention of stag beetle habitat Represent the Borough on the London Ongoing LPG Stag Beetle Working Group to facilitate the implementation, promotion and monitoring of the species Review and redistribute advice note ad Every 2 LPG other information to managers and Years owners of parks, woodlands, nature reserves and major formal gardens to encourage retention of dead wood Review and continue to provide Every 2 LPG information to arboriculturalists, planning Years and tree officers to promote retention of stag beetle habitat Provide information on installing and Ongoing LPG monitoring nestboxes and loggeries in suitable locations and habitats Identify 50 key sites, and install 2010 LPG nestboxes loggeries in them, with training and guidance on their use.

172 Objective 2: To monitor existing stag beetle populations in Lambeth, including assisting research on reasons for their uneven distribution across Greater London.

Target: Conduct repeat survey by 2008.

Action Target Lead Partners Undertake repeat of 1997-2000 public- 2005-2008 LPG led survey, to establish current distribution more precisely and complement national survey Establish a monitoring baseline of active 2007 LPG nestboxes and loggeries

Monitor stag beetle ecology and lifecycle Ongoing LPG

Undertake capture-release-capture 2006-2008 LPG scheme to develop reliable monitoring for both sexes of the beetle Monitoring corpses for evidence of size Ongoing LPG variation and mortality factors in beetle

Objective 3: To raise the awareness of the stag beetle and its needs to all residents and groups in Lambeth.

Target: To incorporate information on stag beetle’s needs into 2005-2008 public survey.

Action Target Lead Partners Prepare display and information (e.g. 2006 LPG posters) that can be temporarily installed at a range of events and venues Ensure appropriate and frequent use of Ongoing LPG the mobile display unit at relevant events and venues Continue to run public events promoting Ongoing LPG the stag beetle in London

Conduct repeat public survey which 2005-2008 LPG includes information on stag beetle conservation

10. Key References

DETR (1995). Stag Beetle Species Action Plan. London, HMSO.

London Wildlife Trust (2000). Stag Beetle: an advice note on its conservation in London.

London Wildlife Trust. PTES (2000). Stag Beetle Friendly Gardening. Leaflet, PTES.

173 11. Abbreviations and Key Terms

LPG – Lambeth Parks & Greenspaces LPD – Lambeth Planning and Development GMC – Grounds Maintenance Contractor LDC – Lambeth Development Control LTOA – London Tree Officers Association LWT - London Wildlife Trust GLA – Greater London Authority LNHS – London Natural History Society WCUL – Wildlife Crime Unit (Metropolitan BTCV – British Trust for Conservation Police) – Lambeth Officer Volunteers EN - English Nature

12. Contact for More Information

Dr Iain Boulton Tel 020 7926 6209 Lambeth Parks Email: [email protected] 4th Floor Blue Star House Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk 234-244 Stockwell Road London SW9 9SP

174